ricnunes wrote:For starters I don't get your problem with the "few of anything" statement/term. Are you saying or implying that Australia never bought a "few" of anything? Because if you do then how about the EA-18 Growler?? You guys (Australia) purchased 12 (twelve) of them - that's IMO is a "few" of them.
The same would be if for example Australia purchased lets say 20-30 F-35Bs. Anyway, my point with the "few" regarding the F-35B is that they would always be fewer (and quite so) when compared to the F-35A.
The problem is that the term a ‘few’ implies that we simply buy a ‘few’ aircraft and that is it. We don’t do that. We buy a certain level of capability. Those 12 (11 for now) Growlers come with a huge amount of capability in the form of jamming pods, missiles and all sorts of things that don’t seem to be included in the ‘few’ description, yet are vital to standing up genuine capability.
And in the context of anyone besides the United States a squadron of fighter based tactical aircraft dedicated to EW/EA roles is hardly a ‘few...’ It is the ONLY fighter based EW squadron in the entire Asia Pacific region...
Then there's the "We don't have funding issues" comment of your, what you mean with this? Or really?
Absolutely. Feel free to point out a capability we have chosen to acquire that isn’t unbelievably well funded. Do we operate every possible military capability on Earth? No, of course not. That is a function of overall funding, but please feel free to show me a country in the Asia Pacific region, if not the world, that consistenly invests better in the capability level it chooses to acquire... Unlike many countries, particularly within our region, we deliberately limit our defence spending to ensure we do not increase tensions within the region.
As a quick example, we have the 13th largest GDP in the world (2017) but we don’t even make the top 20 of military spending per GDP... If we spent as others do at similar percentage levels, even you wouldn’t use the term ‘few’...
At first glance I'm starting to believe that you actually seem to believe that money grows on trees there in Australia. You see, not only you (Australia) are a developed first world country which like in any of such countries in the world obviously expends lots (and lots!) of money/resources on vital sectors such as Education, Health, Civilian Infrastructures (Roads, Bridges...), etc... and then you are also expending lots of money on lots and expensive military programs such as F-35, Frigates, Submarines and many other upcoming programs such as the Tiger gunship helicopter replacement, etc, etc, etc... and all of this coupled with the fact that Australia has a relatively low population which by itself doesn't generate that much of a huge GDP like for example the USA (this despite Australia being on the top 15 when it comes to GDP).
Well you’ve just answered your own question there. Yes, we have a very large defence capability investment program, but unlikely many, we have one that is actually completely funded in the budget forward estimates. As for our GDP, it is small compared to the US, but as a percentage we spend much lower on defence than the USA does too. Our USD $25B - AUD $32B a year (albeit growing) defence budget is paltry compared to the US budget, but still quite large compared to our neighbours, whomwe benchmark ourselves on. However this budget does not even equal the NATO standard 2% GDP. We are and have hovered around the 1.7% mark for the last few decades. We are growing however and aim to achieve that 2% mark in 2020-2021 financial year. The growth of the budget however between 1.7% and 2.0% equals a growth from AUD $32B to a projected 20-21 budget of AUD $52.6B... I’m sure even you’ll admit that is quite an advancement in under 3 years...
So no, I don’t believe money grows on trees, unlike yourself apparently I know exactly where our defence funding comes from and more or less how much we will be spending, short of some calamity in which case our funding base will rise, not fall...
So call me whatever you want but I don't believe for a second that Australia will have a combination of funds and political will to buy a new and dedicated ship to act as a F-35B carrier.
I don’t remember calling you anything, but per above, it isn’t funding that is holding back the acquisition of an F-35B capability. Simply defence priorities and government will.
If you think that you're special in the world then let me be the bearer of "bad news", you're not!
In order for Australia or any other nation to get back to the carrier business, IMO it must:
1- Decide if it really want to get back or into to the "carrier business"
2- If the answer to point 1- is yes then it must decide how it will get back to the carrier business. The way it will get back to the carrier business is fully dependent on how many resources are actually available which is fully dependent on the overall military budget and what's left of that budget which is not much if any if you're already in middle of some major military procurement programs which is exactly the case of Australia.
Or resuming, if Australia wasn't in the middle of some major restructure or more precisely having many and expensive military procurement programs running at the same time in progress (see above) then I would be inclined to believe in the possibility that Australia could get that "3rd ship"/dedicated carrier. But it is not (again, see above) so I don't believe in this possibility.
But who knows, maybe Santa and the Reindeers could bring one for Christmas

This is my last comment on this, the resources are or would be, available as already shown. The Government will is not, which I have repeatedly stated already... I do not believe we will get back into the ‘carrier business’ but it is not for a lack of ‘resources’ but rather - priorities.
My point is that if we choose to get back into the ‘carrier business’ as you call it, I do not believe for the reasons already stated we will do so by impacting upon our hard won and still developing amphibious capability. It would be new capability and achieved through new vessel/s, instead.