WI:Australia decides to buy the Foch?

Putting economic and financial problems of purchasing and maintaining such a large ship, what would happen if Australia in the late 90's or early 2000s decide to buy the French aircraft carrier Foch?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Why, though? Australia had abandoned carrier aviation between 10 and 20 years earlier (Melbourne decommissioned in 1982). So not only do they have to buy the carrier, they have to buy aircraft to fly off of it and reestablish the actual ability to fly off of carriers again. As China and Russia can tell you, that is not a simple skill to learn.
 
There's also the not so small problem that the Foch is worn out, which is why France is retiring her. (Yes I know Brazil sunk huge amounts of money in keeping her going but that hasn't worked out that well for them).

Australia made almost the right choice with the Canberra Class but should have bough late production Harriers to go with them.
 

Deleted member 94680

Putting economic and financial problems of purchasing and maintaining such a large ship, what would happen if Australia in the late 90's or early 2000s decide to buy the French aircraft carrier Foch?

Sorry to be the boring guy, but the problems of maintaining the ship is going to massively affect how the Australians utilise it. As other posters have mentioned, buying an aircraft carrier isn’t just having a big, shiny new ship in your fleet. It’s all the aircraft to go on it, the support vessels for its group, the role envisaged for it to carry out and the implications of those actions further down the line. You use your Carrier to project your power, what is that power used for? Do you put boots on the ground? Do you have enough boots to go on the ground if you project that power?

The financial implications are very important.
 
Sorry to be the boring guy, but the problems of maintaining the ship is going to massively affect how the Australians utilise it. As other posters have mentioned, buying an aircraft carrier isn’t just having a big, shiny new ship in your fleet. It’s all the aircraft to go on it, the support vessels for its group, the role envisaged for it to carry out and the implications of those actions further down the line. You use your Carrier to project your power, what is that power used for? Do you put boots on the ground? Do you have enough boots to go on the ground if you project that power?

The financial implications are very important.
Ugh you just had to be the boring guy didn't you lol.
 

SsgtC

Banned
It seems the Foch can operate F18's which the Australians operate, modifications may be required.
The Australian Hornets had been partially denavalised, primarily by the deletion of any and all equipment needed to launch the aircraft from a carrier. Plus, I seriously doubt the RAAF would have willingly given up its front line fighter to the Navy.
 
How about the 3 services become 1 service like Canada's CDF?

Then it does not matter what the RAAF thinks about giving up its fighters ;)
 
The Australian Hornets had been partially denavalised, primarily by the deletion of any and all equipment needed to launch the aircraft from a carrier. Plus, I seriously doubt the RAAF would have willingly given up its front line fighter to the Navy.
When I said some modifications may be required I meant for both the Foch and the F18's.
The French actually considered operating F18's off the Foch to fill the gap between F8's end of service and Rafle entering service or as an alternative link. Three sources of F18's were considered buying new, leasing secondhand from US Navy, or Buying Secondhand from Australia who wanted to replace it's F18s with F18C.
So we have a couple of options. One some F18s are modified for carrier operations and they are flown by the RAAF since with the gap in carrier operations means the RAN won't have many Jet pilots, this is how the British are going to operate their F35Bs. Another is that the RAAF get brand new F18C's and hands off their second hand F18's to the RAN to modify and operate.
Either way operating a Carrier is probably going to result in a need for an increase in the total number of fighters needed by Australia.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Yeah, to operate Foch, you're probably looking at something like a minimum of 40-45 new fighters (2x12 aircraft operational squadrons, 1x12-18 aircraft operational conversion unit).
 
On my phone - this is exceptionally unlikely given the problems we experienced following our purchase of HMAS Kanimbla & Manoora from the USN. Those ships were money sinks imho, the only way this is remotely feasible is due to a hotter East Timor intervention and that is pushing it. But the crux revolves around money, support infrastructure, doctrine, compatibility issues with the rest of the fleet, maintenance and manning.
 
Last edited:
We can't afford to pay for the stacks of $100k per year techs to keeps an old worn out Ship running like a greyhound. Brazil likely has less sea days than the RAN would expect and pays metal bashers and other tradies far less than the RAN. Its far easier for us to find a couple of billion for a new ship once than year after year for repairs and tradies.
 
Got beaten by Le Rouge Beret.

After the experience with HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora I will be VERY surprised if the RAN ever buys anyone’s 25 year old cast off ships again.

If they were looking for a secondhand carrier in the 1990’s I imagine they might look at HMS Ark Royal if the RN brought forward their plans to build a pair of large carriers. I believe the plan for what has now become the Queen Elizabeth Class first appeared in their 1998 SDR (Defence White Paper).
 
It of course depends what the point of departure from OTL is and how badly the Australian Government feels they need an aircraft carrier, and what they want to use it for whether they would want to take on the Foch.

If they did I had another idea for the air group. No 2 Squadron RNZAF which flew A4's from HMAS Albatross (Air Station) from 1991 to 2001 and provided Australian Defence Force (ADF), particularly the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), with Air Defence Support, participating in exercises with RAN warships. No 2 Squadron only flew 6 A-4Ks but it would be interesting to see a RNZAF Squadron operating off a RAN Carrier.
 
Is Foch capable of operating F/A-18’s or is it in the same akward middle ground that the 1960’s RN carriers were in?

Out of curiousity. Could Ark Royal and Eagle have operated F/A-18’s?
 
It of course depends what the point of departure from OTL is and how badly the Australian Government feels they need an aircraft carrier, and what they want to use it for whether they would want to take on the Foch.

If they did I had another idea for the air group. No 2 Squadron RNZAF which flew A4's from HMAS Albatross (Air Station) from 1991 to 2001 and provided Australian Defence Force (ADF), particularly the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), with Air Defence Support, participating in exercises with RAN warships. No 2 Squadron only flew 6 A-4Ks but it would be interesting to see a RNZAF Squadron operating off a RAN Carrier.

The Kiwi Skyhawks were used in the 'fleet support' role that 724 sqn RAN did with Skyhawks. Basically they provided targets for RAN ships to train against, because RAAF Macchis were too slow and Hornests were too capable and expensive for this role.
 
Is Foch capable of operating F/A-18’s or is it in the same akward middle ground that the 1960’s RN carriers were in?
Yes the Foch could operate F/A-18’s, this was considered as an option by the French to fill a gap between the end of survive of the F8’s end of service and the delayed delivery of the Rafle.
The Kiwi Skyhawks were used in the 'fleet support' role that 724 sqn RAN did with Skyhawks. Basically they provided targets for RAN ships to train against, because RAAF Macchis were too slow and Hornests were too capable and expensive for this role.
Yes that is the role they were paid by the Australian Government to fill but they did their own training as well and had the Project Kahu upgrade which gave them new radar, and avionics giving them electronic eyes, and ears equivalent to that of the F/A-18. They were also received an armament up grade giving them the capability to fire AIM-9L sidewinders, AGM-65 Mavericks, and GBU-16 Paveway II laser guided bombs.
I agree the A4’s were used in the role because they were cheaper to operate than the F/A-18’s, but I wouldn’t think that them being too capable would be a concern, you want to train against the best you can to keep in top shape.
Of course it depends on the point of departure which we don’t have as to what role the Foch would be used in.
One possibility is that it is brought as a training ship while a new Carrier is being built for the RAN so they have their crews trained in operating a Carrier beforehand, in which case they just need aircraft for the deck crew to practice moving around servicing, launching, and recovering.
 
Yes that is the role they were paid by the Australian Government to fill but they did their own training as well and had the Project Kahu upgrade which gave them new radar, and avionics giving them electronic eyes, and ears equivalent to that of the F/A-18. They were also received an armament up grade giving them the capability to fire AIM-9L sidewinders, AGM-65 Mavericks, and GBU-16 Paveway II laser guided bombs.
I agree the A4’s were used in the role because they were cheaper to operate than the F/A-18’s, but I wouldn’t think that them being too capable would be a concern, you want to train against the best you can to keep in top shape.
Of course it depends on the point of departure which we don’t have as to what role the Foch would be used in.
One possibility is that it is brought as a training ship while a new Carrier is being built for the RAN so they have their crews trained in operating a Carrier beforehand, in which case they just need aircraft for the deck crew to practice moving around servicing, launching, and recovering.

The aircraft in Australia did about half their flying in support of the RAN, and about half of that was useful for the RNZAF. The RAAF cannot afford to waste 50% of 6 Hornet's flying hours on non productive flying.
 
Well manpower wise the ex-Foch probably becomes the only operational vessel in the RAN. Perhaps an exaggeration, but I don't see that the RAN could crew such a large and manpower intensive vessel.

If the RAN needed a fixed-wing carrier they'd be better off buying something new than a worn-out, crew intensive, money sink like Foch.

One possibility is that it is brought as a training ship while a new Carrier is being built for the RAN so they have their crews trained in operating a Carrier beforehand, in which case they just need aircraft for the deck crew to practice moving around servicing, launching, and recovering.

Better to do what the RN did in preperation for the QE class - seconding personnel to USN and MN carriers.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Well manpower wise the ex-Foch probably becomes the only operational vessel in the RAN. Perhaps an exaggeration, but I don't see that the RAN could crew such a large and manpower intensive vessel.

If the RAN needed a fixed-wing carrier they'd be better off buying something new than a worn-out, crew intensive, money sink like Foch.
If they bought it between 80-82, they'd be fine. Because they could just cross-deck the crew from Melbourne. Once Melbourne is gone though, they're kinda screwed.

If they want a new carrier, I know the US has discussed building smaller conventional carriers for some of our allies in the past. So maybe they could work?

Better to do what the RN did in preperation for the QE class - seconding personnel to USN and MN carriers.
Yup. If you need to reestablish a fixed wing carrier capability, about your only viable option is to send your Aviators to someone who already has one. Or spend a decade plus developing it yourself like China.
 
Top