Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stock said:
Theoretically perhaps. I've never seen them with pallets loaded but that's certainly not to say they don't. Maybe the NZDF does this. All evidence of load carrying by ADF MRH90s is underslung.
Click to expand...

you have to consider that the selling point for the 90's was also the issue of dual use - so the manufacturer only has to make the pitch that the asset can also be used for HADR/lift/transport and it starts to tick other evaluation boxes

if you consider HADR/emergency responder roles, then all those perishables and consumables are on pallets. That means an impact on load rates, turn arounds, tonnage rates etc.... The focus on nearly all Govts that have purchased LHD's and pretend carriers have included conops requirements to support civil needs, emergency response, HADR roles etc.....

The reason why thats included is that it also makes it easier to justify the argument that your big military asset can also be used for soft power roles in the civilian/humanitarian space. Treasuries/Exchequers/State/Foreign Affairs geeks use that as a supporting tick when they bless the purchase

The Romeo was preferred by the uniforms for that mission role because its in service, tested, through life issues were known, knowledge sharing on mission related issues between like minded allies was there etc....

CREF Raven22's comment - designed to do a job as part of a broader known and established system construct

in many respects, for first time users the 90 was a greenfield selection
 
Stock said:
Theoretically perhaps. I've never seen them with pallets loaded but that's certainly not to say they don't. Maybe the NZDF does this. All evidence of load carrying by ADF MRH90s is underslung.

Begs the question though: how would you get a heavy pallet up the ramp if you can't get the loader/forklift under the tail and into the ramp opening? A pallet jack would not work - great for flat ground but up a ramp not so. Same for offloading.

Not saying it cannot be done but would be interesting to find out how exactly.
Click to expand...

I don't think the ramp is designed for heavy loading. I don't think the floor is either. You could Merlo/telescopic fork some loads through the side door or the rear. All terrain jacks (pocket lift?) might also be able to do the rear ramp, but it looks pretty delicate. I would imagine most heavy loads would be underslung as it would be quicker and easier.

Light pallet loads could be man handled in.

The NH90 is at the start of its service life. Blackhawks are a very mature platform.I guess it is hoped that most of the bigger issues of the NH90 will be solved eventually.

Makes a stronger argument for more chinooks IMO. Maybe be more useful than blackhawks or NH90's.
 
Here is a question I have been mulling over for some time.

Would there be value in the RAN/RANR having a flotilla of small, armed inshore patrol boats in the patrol boat<30m size range? I am thinking of essentially modern equivalents of the various WWII-era ML designs. The mission set I would see these fulfilling would be to patrol along the Oz coast, particularly in some of the more remote littoral areas where shallow draught vessels would be required. What I am not sure of, is whether there would be enough required taskings (EEZ, SIEV interception, SAR, etc) which would occur in such areas to justify another patrol asset, especially one of this type.

In terms of overall vessel design, I would specify a rugged, yet simple design using parts and machinery readily available in commercial/civilian ports in Australia, so that the vessels could operate and be based out of ports all along the coast of Australia. In terms of vessel performance, I have in mind a max speed of ~18 kts, with a cruising speed perhaps in the 10 - 12 kts range. Basically something that would be just a little bit faster than vessels which the ML (or whatever it would be called) might be called upon to intercept/board. However, the range should IMO be less than 1,000 n miles, with vessels normally expected to remain in 'their' respective areas, and that the normal mission duration would only be 2-3 days.

Now if those requirements could also be made to work for a replacement to the Pacific Patrol Boat, so much the better.

The question still remains though, would such a type of vessel be worthwhile in Australian service, or a waste of resources?
 
Todjaeger said:
Here is a question I have been mulling over for some time.

Would there be value in the RAN/RANR having a flotilla of small, armed inshore patrol boats in the patrol boat<30m size range? I am thinking of essentially modern equivalents of the various WWII-era ML designs. The mission set I would see these fulfilling would be to patrol along the Oz coast, particularly in some of the more remote littoral areas where shallow draught vessels would be required. What I am not sure of, is whether there would be enough required taskings (EEZ, SIEV interception, SAR, etc) which would occur in such areas to justify another patrol asset, especially one of this type.

In terms of overall vessel design, I would specify a rugged, yet simple design using parts and machinery readily available in commercial/civilian ports in Australia, so that the vessels could operate and be based out of ports all along the coast of Australia. In terms of vessel performance, I have in mind a max speed of ~18 kts, with a cruising speed perhaps in the 10 - 12 kts range. Basically something that would be just a little bit faster than vessels which the ML (or whatever it would be called) might be called upon to intercept/board. However, the range should IMO be less than 1,000 n miles, with vessels normally expected to remain in 'their' respective areas, and that the normal mission duration would only be 2-3 days.

Now if those requirements could also be made to work for a replacement to the Pacific Patrol Boat, so much the better.

The question still remains though, would such a type of vessel be worthwhile in Australian service, or a waste of resources?
Click to expand...

Interesting that you bring that up, I've been thinking about that too, but from a different direction.

With the plan for the RAN to move up from operating PB's to much larger OPV's, I was thinking that it might be more practical for some or those more 'basic' operational roles (that you mentioned above), be moved over to be the responsibility of the newly created 'Australian Border Force' (the new entity created from the merger of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Border Protection).

Maybe it would make more sense for that force to be enlarged and it's scope of operations enlarged, and I think a lot of those type of roles that you mentioned might be best suited being placed under the operational umbrella of ABF instead of the Navy.

So if there was a requirement developed for such a vessel, as you mentioned, the other question which I've raised is, who is best suited to operate such vessels??
 
Todjaeger said:
Here is a question I have been mulling over for some time.

Would there be value in the RAN/RANR having a flotilla of small, armed inshore patrol boats in the patrol boat<30m size range? I am thinking of essentially modern equivalents of the various WWII-era ML designs. The mission set I would see these fulfilling would be to patrol along the Oz coast, particularly in some of the more remote littoral areas where shallow draught vessels would be required. What I am not sure of, is whether there would be enough required taskings (EEZ, SIEV interception, SAR, etc) which would occur in such areas to justify another patrol asset, especially one of this type.

In terms of overall vessel design, I would specify a rugged, yet simple design using parts and machinery readily available in commercial/civilian ports in Australia, so that the vessels could operate and be based out of ports all along the coast of Australia. In terms of vessel performance, I have in mind a max speed of ~18 kts, with a cruising speed perhaps in the 10 - 12 kts range. Basically something that would be just a little bit faster than vessels which the ML (or whatever it would be called) might be called upon to intercept/board. However, the range should IMO be less than 1,000 n miles, with vessels normally expected to remain in 'their' respective areas, and that the normal mission duration would only be 2-3 days.

Now if those requirements could also be made to work for a replacement to the Pacific Patrol Boat, so much the better.

The question still remains though, would such a type of vessel be worthwhile in Australian service, or a waste of resources?
Click to expand...

Essentially you are looking at a mission of the sort of vessel that the Pacific Patrol boat project will provide (up to 40m LOA).

These will be cheap steel hull vessels built around commercial off the shelf systems used on commercial vessels intended to be easy to maintain ........ provided they select the right builder!
 
Todjaeger said:
Here is a question I have been mulling over for some time.

Would there be value in the RAN/RANR having a flotilla of small, armed inshore patrol boats in the patrol boat<30m size range? I am thinking of essentially modern equivalents of the various WWII-era ML designs. The mission set I would see these fulfilling would be to patrol along the Oz coast, particularly in some of the more remote littoral areas where shallow draught vessels would be required. What I am not sure of, is whether there would be enough required taskings (EEZ, SIEV interception, SAR, etc) which would occur in such areas to justify another patrol asset, especially one of this type.

In terms of overall vessel design, I would specify a rugged, yet simple design using parts and machinery readily available in commercial/civilian ports in Australia, so that the vessels could operate and be based out of ports all along the coast of Australia. In terms of vessel performance, I have in mind a max speed of ~18 kts, with a cruising speed perhaps in the 10 - 12 kts range. Basically something that would be just a little bit faster than vessels which the ML (or whatever it would be called) might be called upon to intercept/board. However, the range should IMO be less than 1,000 n miles, with vessels normally expected to remain in 'their' respective areas, and that the normal mission duration would only be 2-3 days.

Now if those requirements could also be made to work for a replacement to the Pacific Patrol Boat, so much the better.

The question still remains though, would such a type of vessel be worthwhile in Australian service, or a waste of resources?
Click to expand...

I support John's proposition that the inshore patrol work be delegated to Border Force.
The design of any small vessel smaller than the current 40-50 mtrs LOA becomes extremely problematical with regards to seakeeping and endurance and when you mandate a speed requirement of 18kts it becomes impossible.

To effectively patrol the coast from say Thursday Island to Broome (nearly 2,00nms if you include the Gulf) and from Broome to NW Cape another 500 nms you need endurance which includes enough fresh and dry stores fuel and crew respite. I mention crew because our experience from the Attack class shows that in any weather above Force 3, say 12 kts, crew fatigue would render the patrol totally ineffective beyond 48 hours when all would be totally knackered.
Fuelling option between Darwin and TI are limited to Gove and then only if fuel was available in the quantity required(currently limited to 5,00 ltrs each fuelling) so a vessel with only 20,000ltrs bunkers such as the Attack Class was limited to conducting the entire patrol at 12 kts on one engine. Any pursuit beyond a couple of hours was impossible.
In the normal sea conditions, short interval swell, a 30mtr hull seemed beautifully designed to fall off every crest and slam into the following trough creating havoc on board, speeding up to avoid that frequency only used fuel you didn't have and risked dramatic structural damage.

So, back to the best design IMV would be a 50 mtr displacement hull with at least 90,000 ltrs fuel and max speed limited to about 15 kts. This would be perfectly adequate to conduct the kinds of patrol envisaged, would provide a long range comfortable vessel and be most economical to operate.

In fact there is a perfect example of a slightly larger but perfectly suitable ship from our recent past that would fit the bill if modernised and that would be the Island Class patrol vessels of the RN's Fishery protection Squadron. Built by Hall Russell in Aberdeen, they operated in foul conditions both in the Cod Wars and the North sea and one, the Steve Irwin is still operation in foul conditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island-class_patrol_vessel
 
Interesting idea that does make sense, Would have to be 40m or longer to be of any use to us. Ideally in regards to dimensions they would have to be similar to the currently being introduced Cape class PB's.

What I'm wondering is what effect this would have on the planned OPV's/OCV's? Either it could allow more room for them to be more militarized or it could result in a lower number of them ordered.
 
ASSAIL said:
I support John's proposition that the inshore patrol work be delegated to Border Force.
The design of any small vessel smaller than the current 40-50 mtrs LOA becomes extremely problematical with regards to seakeeping and endurance and when you mandate a speed requirement of 18kts it becomes impossible.

To effectively patrol the coast from say Thursday Island to Broome (nearly 2,00nms if you include the Gulf) and from Broome to NW Cape another 500 nms you need endurance which includes enough fresh and dry stores fuel and crew respite. I mention crew because our experience from the Attack class shows that in any weather above Force 3, say 12 kts, crew fatigue would render the patrol totally ineffective beyond 48 hours when all would be totally knackered.
Fuelling option between Darwin and TI are limited to Gove and then only if fuel was available in the quantity required(currently limited to 5,00 ltrs each fuelling) so a vessel with only 20,000ltrs bunkers such as the Attack Class was limited to conducting the entire patrol at 12 kts on one engine. Any pursuit beyond a couple of hours was impossible.
In the normal sea conditions, short interval swell, a 30mtr hull seemed beautifully designed to fall off every crest and slam into the following trough creating havoc on board, speeding up to avoid that frequency only used fuel you didn't have and risked dramatic structural damage.

So, back to the best design IMV would be a 50 mtr displacement hull with at least 90,000 ltrs fuel and max speed limited to about 15 kts. This would be perfectly adequate to conduct the kinds of patrol envisaged, would provide a long range comfortable vessel and be most economical to operate.

In fact there is a perfect example of a slightly larger but perfectly suitable ship from our recent past that would fit the bill if modernised and that would be the Island Class patrol vessels of the RN's Fishery protection Squadron. Built by Hall Russell in Aberdeen, they operated in foul conditions both in the Cod Wars and the North sea and one, the Steve Irwin is still operation in foul conditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island-class_patrol_vessel
Click to expand...

The Island class is a solid piece of kit and were very good at what they did. The problem for border force is crewing and qualifications of those crew. Border force vessels are under civilian certification (aka cargo ships) not the Naval Flag Authority. This means then need appropriate STCW qualifications for the nature of operations and size of ship. I think manning the CCPB is a challenge at just over 500 gt so additional vessels, even though these vessels are less than 3000 gt, may pose issues.

I suspect they would struggle to man additional ships noting they are in the process of taking over the full manning of the Ocean Shield.
 
alexsa said:
Essentially you are looking at a mission of the sort of vessel that the Pacific Patrol boat project will provide (up to 40m LOA).

These will be cheap steel hull vessels built around commercial off the shelf systems used on commercial vessels intended to be easy to maintain ........ provided they select the right builder!
Click to expand...

And talking of the Pacific Patrol Boat project, I was wondering how many builders will tender for the project. So far we know that BAE is not tendering for the project, but a couple of the smaller shipbuilders have so far put their hands up.

Incat teaming with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Haywards Steel (some links below):

Tasmanian consortium launches bid to build $600m worth of Pacific patrol boats - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Incat Home

Shipyard - Haywards Steel


Another one is South Australian based 'Adelaide Ship Construction International' (see the links below):

SA shipbuilder ASCI bids for Pacific patrol boat contract worth more than $1 billion - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Adelaide Ship Construction International |


Other than the two above, I haven't seen any other news about who would (or could) tender for the PPB project.

So who else could be in a position to tender?

I was wondering if Austal might put forward a 'steel' version of one of their patrol boats? Some examples below:

Patrol Boats :: Defence Products :: Products And Services :: En :: Austal

Could that be a way of Austal proving that it could build in steel? and if when the OPV tender is released and 'if' steel was specified, well this could be a way of proving that they can build in steel too, just a thought?


NQEA Pty Ltd

The other one I could think of was NQEA, has (or should I say had) a history with the Fremantle Class PB's, etc, but of course they don't appear to have built anything for quite a while and I don't know if they still have the 'capabilities' to be able to again.


Alexsa or Assail, do either of you two have any other suggestions of who else might be capable of participating in the bid??


So who should win the tender? Well I wouldn't have a clue, but from a purely 'political' point of view, awarding the contract to the Tasmanian consortium would be a very smart political move.

Around $600m in construction and around another $1.2B in ongoing support for the life of the program would be a 'massive' boost to the Tasmanian economy.

Not saying Tasmania should win it, but as I said from the 'political' point of view, around $1.8B worth of work to Tasmania would show that the Federal Government is prepared to 'spread the love around', and not just to the mainland States, when it comes to giving each State it's slice of the Naval Shipbuilding plan!
 
ASSAIL said:
I support John's proposition that the inshore patrol work be delegated to Border Force.
The design of any small vessel smaller than the current 40-50 mtrs LOA becomes extremely problematical with regards to seakeeping and endurance and when you mandate a speed requirement of 18kts it becomes impossible.

To effectively patrol the coast from say Thursday Island to Broome (nearly 2,00nms if you include the Gulf) and from Broome to NW Cape another 500 nms you need endurance which includes enough fresh and dry stores fuel and crew respite. I mention crew because our experience from the Attack class shows that in any weather above Force 3, say 12 kts, crew fatigue would render the patrol totally ineffective beyond 48 hours when all would be totally knackered.
Fuelling option between Darwin and TI are limited to Gove and then only if fuel was available in the quantity required(currently limited to 5,00 ltrs each fuelling) so a vessel with only 20,000ltrs bunkers such as the Attack Class was limited to conducting the entire patrol at 12 kts on one engine. Any pursuit beyond a couple of hours was impossible.
In the normal sea conditions, short interval swell, a 30mtr hull seemed beautifully designed to fall off every crest and slam into the following trough creating havoc on board, speeding up to avoid that frequency only used fuel you didn't have and risked dramatic structural damage.

So, back to the best design IMV would be a 50 mtr displacement hull with at least 90,000 ltrs fuel and max speed limited to about 15 kts. This would be perfectly adequate to conduct the kinds of patrol envisaged, would provide a long range comfortable vessel and be most economical to operate.

In fact there is a perfect example of a slightly larger but perfectly suitable ship from our recent past that would fit the bill if modernised and that would be the Island Class patrol vessels of the RN's Fishery protection Squadron. Built by Hall Russell in Aberdeen, they operated in foul conditions both in the Cod Wars and the North sea and one, the Steve Irwin is still operation in foul conditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island-class_patrol_vessel
Click to expand...

I wanted to make a clarification here, because for what I have in mind, a design like the Island-class is overkill. Please keep in mind that I do not know if what I am thinking of would be operationally viable, never mind the implementation and/or operational costs.

As I mentioned previously, I have in mind a smallish vessel, maybe about twice the size of a CB90, or around the size of a Super Dvora Mk III.

Most of the patrolling would be what I think of as "inshore" meaning if not within sight of land, just over the horizon from land, unless there was a need (SAR, SIEV, etc) to go further offshore. Also I suspect most patrolling would not require high speeds, so a normal speed underway would be perhaps 10 kts, a max speed of 18 kts would be if a fast response was required to something, and/or interception of another vessel was needed. I do not have in mind the sort of open ocean operations that the ACPB's have been conducting, where they needed a 42 day endurance, and 3,000 n miles of fuel.

In terms of scope or range of operations, I am thinking along the lines of one of these "motor launches" being based in Wyndham, which would be responsible for the inshore patrolling of an area from Kullumburu Mission to Darwin, which should be ~400 n miles. The whole area of the coast, from Broome to Thursday Island could of course be patrolled, but this would be done using several vessels to cover different sectors of the coast. Wherever possible (depending on what local ports could be used) I would have these "Motor Launches" cover a section of coast 400 - 500 n miles in length.

I do feel that for the open ocean sort of patrolling that the RAN patrol forces have been doing, a proper ocean-going vessel, like an OPV at the least, is required.

The intent behind small patrol boats is to ease some of the burden by being able to cover more of the actual coastline and shallow water areas, which larger ocean-going vessels can run into issues covering. Also, because of the limited numbers of larger patrol vessels, using smaller vessels to provide at least some presence.

Lastly, having small boats of this since in service can provide a training ground, as well as command and operational experience for young officers and crew, much like how the Armidale-class would provide opportunities for junior officers to serve as watch officers, etc.

As for shifting the mission more onto the BPF, I have some reservations about that. As Alexsa mentioned, their vessels are technically considered civilian cargo ships. Arming them gets... questionable? Also I would have concerns about the BPF personnel forgetting that they are not the RAN, when it does not suit them. Lastly, the less time the RAN has vessels at sea and under way, the less sea days that officers and crew have to either improve their skills, or at least maintain them by practice.
 
It's worth pointing out that the RFSUs have significant capability to patrol close to shore in the North of the country. It would be worth checking how often (or not) they are tasked before deciding if a new patrol boat capability is required.

We are treading dangerously close to the good ideas fairy being let loose again...
 
Raven22 said:
It's worth pointing out that the RFSUs have significant capability to patrol close to shore in the North of the country. It would be worth checking how often (or not) they are tasked before deciding if a new patrol boat capability is required.

We are treading dangerously close to the good ideas fairy being let loose again...
Click to expand...

Any idea on how much of the coastline, and out to the horizon the RFSU's can cover? Or places to look to get an idea on the degree of coverage?

Part of the reason for the question is that the answer can also have an impact on the frequency of tasking.

As for the "good idea fairies" bit, no argument there. Hence some of the questions about whether it would be viable or not. I could easily see the possibility that the cost of fuel and victuals, even for such small vessels and crews, could be quite high given the remoteness of their ports of call.

I can also see how normally limiting a "motor launch" to operations so close to shore, that they are ineffective in providing an area patrol capability.

Hence, all the questions.

One thing I think there would be value in, is providing junior naval personnel the opportunity to crew/command a vessel which gets under way. If the RFSU's have some sort of water capability, would there be potential value in integrating some RAN personnel in with the RFSU's?
 
John Newman said:
And talking of the Pacific Patrol Boat project, I was wondering how many builders will tender for the project. So far we know that BAE is not tendering for the project, but a couple of the smaller shipbuilders have so far put their hands up.

Incat teaming with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Haywards Steel (some links below):

Tasmanian consortium launches bid to build $600m worth of Pacific patrol boats - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Incat Home

Shipyard - Haywards Steel


Another one is South Australian based 'Adelaide Ship Construction International' (see the links below):

SA shipbuilder ASCI bids for Pacific patrol boat contract worth more than $1 billion - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Adelaide Ship Construction International |


Other than the two above, I haven't seen any other news about who would (or could) tender for the PPB project.

So who else could be in a position to tender?

I was wondering if Austal might put forward a 'steel' version of one of their patrol boats? Some examples below:

Patrol Boats :: Defence Products :: Products And Services :: En :: Austal

Could that be a way of Austal proving that it could build in steel? and if when the OPV tender is released and 'if' steel was specified, well this could be a way of proving that they can build in steel too, just a thought?


NQEA Pty Ltd

The other one I could think of was NQEA, has (or should I say had) a history with the Fremantle Class PB's, etc, but of course they don't appear to have built anything for quite a while and I don't know if they still have the 'capabilities' to be able to again.


Alexsa or Assail, do either of you two have any other suggestions of who else might be capable of participating in the bid??


So who should win the tender? Well I wouldn't have a clue, but from a purely 'political' point of view, awarding the contract to the Tasmanian consortium would be a very smart political move.

Around $600m in construction and around another $1.2B in ongoing support for the life of the program would be a 'massive' boost to the Tasmanian economy.

Not saying Tasmania should win it, but as I said from the 'political' point of view, around $1.8B worth of work to Tasmania would show that the Federal Government is prepared to 'spread the love around', and not just to the mainland States, when it comes to giving each State it's slice of the Naval Shipbuilding plan!
Click to expand...

Tenders are closed and who actually tendered is quite cloely guarded. There are a number of tenders. Forgacs and Thales have indicated they wil bid in the press. You would expect Austal would but there is no formal announcement in the press.
 
Todjaeger said:
In terms of scope or range of operations, I am thinking along the lines of one of these "motor launches" being based in Wyndham, which would be responsible for the inshore patrolling of an area from Kullumburu Mission to Darwin, which should be ~400 n miles. The whole area of the coast, from Broome to Thursday Island could of course be patrolled, but this would be done using several vessels to cover different sectors of the coast. Wherever possible (depending on what local ports could be used) I would have these "Motor Launches" cover a section of coast 400 - 500 n miles in length.
Click to expand...

The problem with that proposal is that there are no intermediate ports. Wyndham is entirely unsuitable, 10mtr tides, long transit up the Ord river to get to the town, one berth used mostly by cattle ships and a tiny town with almost zero support available (if you like living in a salt flat with temperatures constantly in the mid 30's..you get the picture.)

There are a number of barge landings covering the Arnhem Land coast and the gulf coast, these help bring cargo to remote communities but no other useable infrastructure. On the Kimberley coast from Darwin to Broome, apart from Wyndham, there are no coastal ports. The is a remote airfield at Truscott (near C. Bougainville ) used by offshore re-suppliers and pearlers but no berth and no fuel.
The only answer is to either mothership for small launches or use larger vessels

As for shifting the mission more onto the BPF, I have some reservations about that. As Alexsa mentioned, their vessels are technically considered civilian cargo ships. Arming them gets... questionable? Also I would have concerns about the BPF personnel forgetting that they are not the RAN, when it does not suit them.
Click to expand...

Yes there are some issues but Customs ships already have armed personnel and IIRC the Bays carried a pair of 7.6mm LMGs which is all that is required for the suggested operation.

Further, the Island class were commercially built ships with their genesis in deep sea fishing vessels so cheap to build and operate with equipment readily sourced and understood. Manning was always going to be problematic when BPF went from 38mtr Bays to the larger Capes and there seems to have been little appreciation or planning to accommodate the changeover. Consequently commercial crewing requirements will need to be met whatever hull is chosen, its just that in this geographical reality,you need substantial hulls to complete the tasks.
QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
alexsa said:
Tenders are closed and who actually tendered is quite cloely guarded. There are a number of tenders. Forgacs and Thales have indicated they wil bid in the press. You would expect Austal would but there is no formal announcement in the press.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate!

The only ones I saw reported was the Tasmanian and SA bids, didn't see anything reported in the press about Forgacs and Thales (must have missed that), and I also didn't see anything about Austal, but I wouldn't have been surprised if they did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top