Australia already has a coast guard of sort, it is called the Border Force.Most likely, if a Coast Guard is formed, the money will come from subtracting from Defence (and especially RAN) funds.
There is no magic pudding.
What do you mean that there is no magic pudding? Pudding is the most important meal of the day. I'll have to go into months of therapy now :rotflThere is no magic pudding.
Because it changes the design and vessel stability in very significant ways. It is not just thicker steel but the steel type, additional framing, tanks and heat exchangers (engines hate cooling water a near to freezing..... So does warm pipe work) and so forth. Changes in insulation, heating, Windows, external services, fire mains etc etc etc also come into the mix.Getting back to the OPV"s, if we are getting twelve I cant see why three of them could'nt be built with re-enforced hulls suitable for antartic waters.
True but the white paper did specifically mention a Tiger replacement. Also the ADF is looking at effects rather than specific platforms so it is possible (maybe not likely though) that the Tiger replacement could be a mix of types covering the required capability. For example instead of one regiment with two squadrons of nine RAH it could be three squadrons (one for each brigade) with six attack and nine scout or utility types, maybe even a Firescout UCAV in the mix.I wouldn't read too much into it. One of the main RAN objectives for RIMPAC was procedurally and physically qualifying various allied platforms to allow future cross decking - hence the AAV, LCAC, Osprey, Sea Stallion, Supercobra etc coming aboard Canberra, and Canberra's LCMs docking with USN vessels. Interoperability with *especially* the USMC is important at the moment - especially as we develop our own amphibious doctrine while learning from theirs.
Doesn't mean we're abou to go buy AAV, LCAC, Osprey, Sea Stallion, Supercobra etc however much I'd like to see some of those.
oldsig
Agreed, instead of compromising the long needed OPVs, for little return on investment. Maybe instead assess what the actual need is and maybe supplement the planned ice breaker with an ice strengthened replacement for the larger BPF vessels. No need for such a specialised role to be RAN, it could just as easily (not to mention more appropriately) be operated by the old Customs Marine Unit.Because it changes the design and vessel stability in very significant ways. It is not just thicker steel but the steel type, additional framing, tanks and heat exchangers (engines hate cooling water a near to freezing..... So does warm pipe work) and so forth. Changes in insulation, heating, Windows, external services, fire mains etc etc etc also come into the mix.
Proper ice lass 1A vessels (and remember these are not icebreakers just ice class cargo vessels) have heat exchanger generally in side tanks.
So if you want to build 4 it will be a different class and you are better off buying a designed ship off the shelf than buggering around with a design that was never intended for this purpose.
Add to this we have one proper ice breaker and we are about to build a more capable replacement. So we already have a resupply capability of the Antaratic
I don't have any argument with any of that, merely that the landing of any type aboard Canberra in an exercise where they were testing the viability of as many types as possible is no pointer to anything, except that the USMC uses them and Canberra will probably be cooperating with them for decades.True but the white paper did specifically mention a Tiger replacement. Also the ADF is looking at effects rather than specific platforms so it is possible (maybe not likely though) that the Tiger replacement could be a mix of types covering the required capability. For example instead of one regiment with two squadrons of nine RAH it could be three squadrons (one for each brigade) with six attack and nine scout or utility types, maybe even a Firescout UCAV in the mix.
AgreedI don't have any argument with any of that, merely that the landing of any type aboard Canberra in an exercise where they were testing the viability of as many types as possible is no pointer to anything, except that the USMC uses them and Canberra will probably be cooperating with them for decades.
This discussion veers off into fantasy land easily enough. Speculation on the basis of unrelated coincidences adds nothing but fog.
NOT that there's much doubt that the Tiger replacements will be a US helicopter, but we could speculate that on entirely different *facts*
oldsig
And we get a chance to name her too !! Pity though, I believe Boaty McBoatface has already been takenwe are about to build a more capable replacement. So we already have a resupply capability of the Antaratic
The Tiger replacement is not a done deal according to Major Gen Mathewson, head of Helicopter Systems Division. In the Jul/August edition of APDR Kym Bergmann writes that the operative words in the DWP regarding Tigers was that the "capability" will be replaced, not necessarily the airframe. He goes on to argue that replacing the airframe would be unwise.NOT that there's much doubt that the Tiger replacements will be a US helicopter, but we could speculate that on entirely different *facts*
oldsig
That and the ABFC Ocean Shield which goes between the north and southern oceans and a ctually had a 42 day patrol down there starting in April this year. She is rated to DNV ICE-1B. If another is needed we are better off ordering an exact copy of her.Because it changes the design and vessel stability in very significant ways. It is not just thicker steel but the steel type, additional framing, tanks and heat exchangers (engines hate cooling water a near to freezing..... So does warm pipe work) and so forth. Changes in insulation, heating, Windows, external services, fire mains etc etc etc also come into the mix.
Proper ice lass 1A vessels (and remember these are not icebreakers just ice class cargo vessels) have heat exchanger generally in side tanks.
So if you want to build 4 it will be a different class and you are better off buying a designed ship off the shelf than buggering around with a design that was never intended for this purpose.
Add to this we have one proper ice breaker and we are about to build a more capable replacement. So we already have a resupply capability of the Antaratic
Why would we do that? I would caution against assuming a vessel we have is suitable just because we bought one. A bit more care and research needs to be taken when suggesting 'we would be better of ....etc"That and the ABFC Ocean Shield which goes between the north and southern oceans and a ctually had a 42 day patrol down there starting in April this year. She is rated to DNV ICE-1B. If another is needed we are better off ordering an exact copy of her.
It was unwise to buy it in the first place, most would argue...The Tiger replacement is not a done deal according to Major Gen Mathewson, head of Helicopter Systems Division. In the Jul/August edition of APDR Kym Bergmann writes that the operative words in the DWP regarding Tigers was that the "capability" will be replaced, not necessarily the airframe. He goes on to argue that replacing the airframe would be unwise.
It will be interesting to watch this space.
Mmm...... again I wonder if there is a Francophile element in Canberra. There were a whole series of French acquisitions in the late 90s, early 2000s and now it seems it may be kicking off again.It was unwise to buy it in the first place, most would argue...
Many might think it is throwing good money after bad...
I wonder if Kym Bergmann it is pushing the European line. I have had some doubts about his impartiality, if you can call the media impartial, for a while. IMHO, it would be wiser to go FMS with the AH1 Zulu.Mmm...... again I wonder if there is a Francophile element in Canberra. There were a whole series of French acquisitions in the late 90s, early 2000s and now it seems it may be kicking off again.
I'm still smarting over the fact that, if I remember correctly, Australia was offered around 40 Whiskey Cobras in the nineties and turned it down. If we'd gone with that and upgraded the airframes accordingly we'd have a far more capable attack helo fleet than what we got with 22 Tigers... at least if I'm recalling the offer properly. Anyone else know anything about a potential AH-1W buy in the late nineties?I wonder if Kym Bergmann it is pushing the European line. I have had some doubts about his impartiality, if you can call the media impartial, for a while. IMHO, it would be wiser to go FMS with the AH1 Zulu.
Yep. 40 refurbished USMC spec AH-1W plus weapons, spares and support for $150m and we knocked it back in favour of keeping UH-1H Bushrangers a tad longer...I'm still smarting over the fact that, if I remember correctly, Australia was offered around 40 Whiskey Cobras in the nineties and turned it down. If we'd gone with that and upgraded the airframes accordingly we'd have a far more capable attack helo fleet than what we got with 22 Tigers... at least if I'm recalling the offer properly. Anyone else know anything about a potential AH-1W buy in the late nineties?
Said no to the Cobras, said no to the Kidds at 30 million apiece, what were we thinking?
And which of them worked out? Well some kind of did, but only at vastly greater cost, less capability and dragged out over many years...Mmm...... again I wonder if there is a Francophile element in Canberra. There were a whole series of French acquisitions in the late 90s, early 2000s and now it seems it may be kicking off again.
Didn't say they worked out, in fact that is why I was speculating at a Francophile 5th column, if they aren't winning on quality, performance and price, how are they winning?And which of them worked out? Well some kind of did, but only at vastly greater cost, less capability and dragged out over many years...