WI:Australia decides to buy the Foch?

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.
Assuming you are right and half the RAN flying was useful, and assuming all the RNZAF flying was useful wouldn't that give 25% of flying hours being non productive?
Anyway since the RAAF doesn't want to waste flying hours helping other services train that suggests that RNZAF A-4K's flying off HMAS ex-Foch is more of a possibility in a training Carrier scenario. In the unlikely event.

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.
So in a POD where sending personnel to train is not an option, such as the USA going isolationist and pulling back to Hawaii, and China going more expansionist and pushing harder at getting it's own carriers. Buying an old Carrier to train on while your new one is being built would be an option. Actually I'm leaning towards a mixed model where some RAN personnel are attached to the French Navy, while at the same time the Foch is used as a training carrier with attached French Naval personnel.
 

SsgtC

Banned
So in a POD where sending personnel to train is not an option, such as the USA going isolationist and pulling back to Hawaii, and China going more expansionist and pushing harder at getting it's own carriers. Buying an old Carrier to train on while your new one is being built would be an option. Actually I'm leaning towards a mixed model where some RAN personnel are attached to the French Navy, while at the same time the Foch is used as a training carrier with attached French Naval personnel.
It's an option. Just a really bad one. Australia isn't the US (or even China) when it comes to their military budgets. Buying a dedicated training carrier would be a massive expense that, TBH, they couldn't afford. Keep in mind, Australia didn't even give their new pilots jet training time before sticking them in their operational aircraft. They went from piston engined trainers to supersonic fighters with no in-between stop. So if they don't even bother with that, why would they bother with a dedicated training carrier?

Another thing to consider, the USN is the only country in the world that used an aircraft carrier for nothing but training. Every other carrier force in the world used an operational deck to train their new pilots (the only exception being the RN during WWII). And even the US has stopped doing that as it's just too damn expensive to maintain an entire carrier that does nothing but training. Even China nominally considers their carrier to be combat capable. So Australia buying a carrier just to train with, isn't plausible.
 
Last edited:
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.

So only if they bought her at a time the French wouldn't sell? The compliment of the Foch is slightly larger with full air compliment embarked.
 
The other issue that no one has touched upon is identifying the evolved threat environment, compared to OTL, that would justify such a purchase. Back in 2000 the PLA - N do not have a fixed wing carrier capability, North Korea has not fielded a missile that is capable of hitting Australia, Indonesia is transitioning into a democracy, and the Russian Pacific fleet is decaying in port. Also, at the time there was lingering resentment towards the French due to their resumption of nuclear weapon testing in their Pacific territories during the mid 90s, so that also needs to be considered.

Perhaps due to the Peace Dividend the Americans push Australia to assume a greater share of responsibilities within the Pacific and this includes returning to fixed wing carrier operations. The options faced are to build a new carrier or acquire a second hand carrier, and the preference in those cases are usually to build a new ship. A case in point would be the problems faced with the Indians in converting the Russian carrier in recent years, then again having Australia acquire the former Baku or even Varyag would be an interesting choice... (hmmm).

Anyway, back to the OP - this could work if FOCH is acquired for scrap metal prices noting the amount of refurbishment that would be required and, the refit is partially subsidised occurring at either US dockyards (if subsidised by America) or Australian yards. Not sure if there is sufficient room in the Transfield yards post ANZAC construction, but this might be seen as an interim project. The French agree to the disposal and the reduction in cost due to a commitment to support the development of the Mistral class amphibious ships and for the RAN to acquire at least one vessel (thus butterflying away Kanimbla & Manoora) and possibly purchase a Rafale air group. In short there are a number of butterflies for this to occur, whereas purchasing a former RN carrier or acquiring a SCS ship are far easier to occur and more probable given concerns over manning and budget.

EDIT: Another easier option is for the Asian financial crisis to worsen, leading the Thai government to default on their purchase of their carrier from the Spaniards. Leading Australia to acquiring it at cost price and reacquiring a fixed wing capability.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
So only if they bought her at a time the French wouldn't sell? The compliment of the Foch is slightly larger with full air compliment embarked.
Trying to reconstitute a full air group, and expand the size of the Navy after 10-20 years of not operating a big deck carrier is damn near impossible. Hell, Australia barely kept Melbourne in the 60s, with the cost of operations being the main reason for getting rid of her. They're not going to suddenly buy a bigger carrier after getting out of naval aviation two decades earlier.
 
Keep in mind, Australia didn't even give their new pilots jet training time before sticking them in their operational aircraft. They went from piston engined trainers to supersonic fighters with no in-between stop. So if they don't even bother with that, why would they bother with a dedicated training carrier?

Not exactly true. Sea Venoms and Vampires were used as trainers prior to pilots switching to two seat Skyhawks. Those aircraft where then replaced by MB-326, which while not carrier capable, were definitely jet trainers.

Perhaps due to the Peace Dividend the Americans push Australia to assume a greater share of responsibilities within the Pacific and this includes returning to fixed wing carrier operations.

Good luck with that. I don’t think the response to a demand like that would be printable. “Oh we don’t think it is important enough for us to maintain this capability, but you are our little minions, you should do it!”

Look at the countries around Australia and their capability of causing problems to Australia. You get as far away as India and China before you see someone with the capabilities to be a military threat.

Btw, I don’t think a lot of people comprehend just how small Australia’s population is when they look at a map and see the size of the land mass.
 
Good luck with that. I don’t think the repose to a demand like that would be printable.

Btw, I don’t think a lot of people comprehend just how small Australia’s population is when they look at a map and see the size of the land mass.

I agree with you and that is having Prime Minister Howard in the lodge at the time, but the OP was asking for a series of unlikely events to justify the purchase of FOCH.

IMHO I don't see how the issues around maintenance and manning could be overcome to justify FOCH + airwing + shooters + replenishment ships + ashore infrastructure etc, nor the budget to accommodate all of the above without substantial PODs.
 
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.
My understanding is the Canadian CF18's essentially kept the carrier equipment (or it could at least be bolted back on without much effort.) Depending on the time frame I could see Canada potentially selling Australia some of their CF18's if needed, or the Australians could simply get ex USN or USMC F18's.
 
The problem with having one carrier is...you have one carrier. The USN, with the most carrier experience and expertise of anybody out there, basically works on a formula of 3 carriers to have one deployed forward - the other two in post deployment stand down, maintenance cycles etc. If you have only one you can, at best have 40% availability and will have periods with extended non-availability for yard work. Even with only one carrier you need more carrier qualified pilots (for all types) than the T/O of the squadrons to account fort shore tours, etc. You don't just need fighters, you need AEW aircraft and helicopters as well. Having two carriers is a bare minimum, while three is ideal. Having just one carrier is spending a lot of money for a showpiece.
 
When the RAN had Skyhawks 805 sqn wasn't doing the fleet support flying, it was 724 sqn ashore that was doing it. So if the RAN gets the Foch it won't be justified by flying the fleet support tasks.
 
The problem with having one carrier is...you have one carrier. The USN, with the most carrier experience and expertise of anybody out there, basically works on a formula of 3 carriers to have one deployed forward - the other two in post deployment stand down, maintenance cycles etc. If you have only one you can, at best have 40% availability and will have periods with extended non-availability for yard work. Even with only one carrier you need more carrier qualified pilots (for all types) than the T/O of the squadrons to account fort shore tours, etc. You don't just need fighters, you need AEW aircraft and helicopters as well. Having two carriers is a bare minimum, while three is ideal. Having just one carrier is spending a lot of money for a showpiece.

There are plenty of one carrier navies out there though (France, Russia, Spain, Thailand, India). It's also not fair to dismiss one carrier as a showpiece in all cases. In some cases it is like Thailand but the French only have carrier and CDG gets used quite a bit. Granted the French Navy has a robust partnership with the US Navy so French pilots are trained in the US and whenever CDG is in refit, French Rafales and Hawkeyes deploy to the US and stay current on a US flight deck.
 
Last edited:
The problem with having one carrier is...you have one carrier. The USN, with the most carrier experience and expertise of anybody out there, basically works on a formula of 3 carriers to have one deployed forward - the other two in post deployment stand down, maintenance cycles etc. If you have only one you can, at best have 40% availability and will have periods with extended non-availability for yard work. Even with only one carrier you need more carrier qualified pilots (for all types) than the T/O of the squadrons to account fort shore tours, etc. You don't just need fighters, you need AEW aircraft and helicopters as well. Having two carriers is a bare minimum, while three is ideal. Having just one carrier is spending a lot of money for a showpiece.

If a navy is forward deploying carriers on the other side of the world it needs 3 carriers. However if the navy is operating from home in its own region then when the carrier is in commission its on station. In that case the carrier is available for 2 years in every 3 and the armed forces can plan for the down years.
 
Top