its about force structure and a coherent balanceI'm still all for at least a handful of those Damen LST's they have on paper, surely some jobs don't require an LHD or Choules...
At the moment I'm basing it off of being an AOR or LPD as the wording does indicate either an AOR or a logistics support ship similar to the HMAS Choules. That said we still have a good decade before we are likely to really start looking at options which I believe was in part set so far out to allow us to get a better idea of what we will actually need, Rather then buying something now and being stuck with the choice they are allowing time for the force structure we have planned to get entranched and allow a more detailed assesment of what is actually required be it extra amphibious capability, a larger AOR to support a possible semi permanent task force based around one of the LHD's or as you mentioned any number of other ships that could provide valuable logistics support or niche capability. Time will tell.A thought crosses my mind that a logistics ship need not be either an AOR or an LPD and could be something completely different that effectively complements existing and future capabilities. A T-AKE for instance could complement or supplement the AORs supporting the RAN and allies at sea, as well as being more suitable to provide sustainment for a deployed ARG than an AOR would be. Another outside the square option could be a Montford Point Class T-ESD (Expeditionary Transfer Dock) or T-ESB (Expeditionary Support Base) supporting a number of EPF (Expeditionary Fast Transport), previously MLP, AFSB and JHSV respectively. If the threat justifies it a new, highly survivable San Antonio type LPD could even be an option.
It will come down to the strategic situation at the time as to how the requirements are formulated.
Dont take this the wrong way but reading between the lines of what you said, are you saying now that we have 2xLHD and 1x LSD replacing both LPA and LSH plus the 6x LCH is all we need?choules fulfills a number of capabilities that is unique to it and would not be realised through an LST acquisition, especially when that role can be picked up by other assets such as phat ships (despite the hysteria about the tanks being too heavy, that is based on a non warlike loadout where safety margins under WHS have to be factored in. On top of which those tanks aren't loaded already "assisted up" so weight variations are minimal)
Well that is the choice really, Do we want less ships vastly more capable or greater amount of ships far less capable?Dont take this the wrong way but reading between the lines of what you said, are you saying now that we have 2xLHD and 1x LSD replacing both LPA and LSH plus the 6x LCH is all we need?
Tonnage and capabilty wise they are far far in advance on what we had but still 3 replacing 9 still leaves us thin asthey can only be in one place at a time.surley we need either small LPD or LST to round out capabilty?
Built by Maersk at Odense, but same (with minor variations) as the Flensburger-designed Point class, based on a commercial design which has been sold to several freight lines.Something like the 30,000-ton displacement M/V Cragside,
In November, Military Sealift Command—America’s quasi-civilian fleet of more than 100 specialized but lightly armed vessels—awarded an initial $73-million contract to shipping giant Maersk to convert one of its cargo ships to a so-called “Maritime Support Vessel” standard.
I wouldnt really bother to mention Navantia and the AWD's because that is just an argument not to go that way with how badly they stuffed us around.I have come across this article this morning. It seems as though we have upset the Sth Koreans again.
Is this a matter of another verbal captains call during an OS visit? Does anyone believe that they have any grounds to be upset?
Its not like we have had nothing to do with Navantia, they built 2 of the largest ships in the region and are also responsible for our AWD's So it's not like choosing them was out of the blue.
South Korea 'very much disappointed' with Australia over Defence contracts
But is it a case of us Australian (and to a larger extend the Western world), don't know how to do business with the Koreans and to a larger extend the Asians? They do have a different business culture, whereby face, handshakes and connections might mean much more to them than to us.Shows how hard it is to keep everyone friendly and onside.
The land project was a bit weird because it disappeared. The AOR project it think has been pretty straight forward. We are running a fleet pretty similar to Spain, with the AWD, LHD's, Choules, and the SPS Cantabria was designed to support that kind of fleet. Oh, and they operated the SPS Cantabria with the RAN for what? A year? Half the RAN has been and trained on that ship.Spain can show it working with a variety of nations. It has specific features the RAN would be interested in from a builder we have a lot of business with.
Whos been impressed with the Korean bid? I don't think it was speced from the outset for exactly what the RAN needed. The marketing seemed weak, I don't think they pushed the local build option enough. I think the core capabilities of the ships are fine as would be the price, but the rest of the package wasn't there.
Even between the Japanese and the Koreans there are miles of difference. Japan seems serious about building a deep and mutually benifical relationship with Australia. S.Korea made some progress, but doesn't seem to have the sustainment of the Japanese.
I would have thought that Abbott's minders and staff at the Australian embassy in Seoul would have advised Abbott about Korean business practice and culture when he was in South Korea. Another "captain's call"? Perhaps. The Koreans were making a pretty attractive offer. Three ships for the price of two would have allowed for one on each coast and a third in maintenance/refit and for training. I hope the quality of their naval ships is better than some of their electronics and cars.But is it a case of us Australian (and to a larger extend the Western world), don't know how to do business with the Koreans and to a larger extend the Asians? They do have a different business culture, whereby face, handshakes and connections might mean much more to them than to us.
Korean ship building is losing a lot of money and they really need our business. We, or perhaps previous Tony Abbott gov, might have over promised to them, or perhaps said something to them that they took it as if it was a done deal.
Lessons to learn perhaps?
A few weeks ago (can't find URL) I came across a Norwegian report that the KNM Maud AEGIR (basis for RAN bid) is at least 4 months behind schedule at DSME in Korea. About a year ago the RN was reporting that the HMS Tidespring the first AEGIR should be in UK by now - according to its AIS it is still tied up alongside being completed in DSME.I wouldnt really bother to mention Navantia and the AWD's because that is just an argument not to go that way with how badly they stuffed us around.
That said when you consider the culture in South Korea they have every reason to be angry, Being given every indication once they they had the contract only for the buyer to renege is bad enough, for that buyer to start to renege on multiple occasions well even I would be getting pissed.