IOC occurs across a number of capability gates. there is no such thing as a single IOC in major platforms - there are "mulitple" IOC's and they can be quite specific in definition for a given build stage.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Argentina?
Sorry, you're not thinking straight.India is still a candidate. It has bought one old Austin, but that's no substitute for a Bay, & does not meet Indias long term needs.
The Bay class is primarily for transport, the Austin class for amphibious assault. INS Jalashwa is over 40 years old, & was bought as a stop-gap, & to gain experience with operating LPDs, while the Bays are almost new, & will last many more years.
You omit three of the most likely candidates: Brazil, Chile & Malaysia. Chile is looking for a new-build ship, probably rather smaller, for sealift & support, but might be interested in a nearly new & slightly modified Bay at the right price. Malaysia is looking for a replacement for the LST it recently lost in a fire, primarily for sealit: a Bay would fit that requirement quite well. Brazil is expanding its navy, & looking for replacements for two ancient (1950s built) ex-US LSDs: again, the Bay class would be suitable.
AFAIK, Greece isn't in the market for amphibs at the moment. Turkey is, but probably not something like a Bay class. Portugal has been not making decisions for years, & like Canada, is looking mainly for a support ship with transport capability, perhaps like the new Dutch JSS. South Africa could be interested, but the MoD lacks funding.
Given that this has been raised would you allow me to talk politics for a moment without getting the gloves on?unfort both major parties have engaged in this kind of politically motivated seagull management, so it's a politically agnostic issue.
A lot of you have been watching the defence procurement process far longer than myself so my question is this:
After the recent election to what degree does the resultant makeup of the lower house (independents influence) and upper house (greens balance of power) have on the stability of our programs (both those underway and in the pipeline)? Can you think of any historically relevant examples to back up your point of view?
I would like to direct this question in a RAN context because I feel we have a number of programs/platforms that need careful attention over the period of the next Government.
Clearly I have no interest in whether you think Labor or Coalition is better/worse. My questions goes to the heart of how our system operates and specifically whether the current permutation of Government affords us the kind of policy stability we need to focus on getting our platforms right!
Thanks.
this time it's unique, so its yet to be tested, but I doubt that the Independents/Minors will have the capacity to influence at the platform selection level.
it is a government of the day, ministerial and/or cabinet level seagull that is the issue.
Last edited:
Fair enough. Combet comes across as quite intelligent but I would of thought he hasnt been in his portfolio role long enough to be throwing his weight around at a technical/platform level. Maybe its him or one of his crowd.
(Understand you cant comment further).
if we had combet we'd be better off....
Its Stephen Smith.
From Todays "The Age"
\Pressure on to sink subs plan Dan Oakes
September 11, 2010
.NEW defence minister Stephen Smith will come under pressure to scrap Australia's most expensive defence project - the plan to build 12 submarines at a potential cost of $36 billion.
Defence sources have told The Age that the change in the leadership of the Labor Party and the new government's reliance on the Greens and independents have given some within Defence hope that the controversial submarine plan could be dropped and replaced with a more modest version.
The sources say there is likely to be a stringent review of the most recent defence white paper, in which the submarine plan was first announced, and a new white paper could be drawn up ahead of schedule.
Current Defence Minister John Faulkner has said he will step down from the role, and is set to be succeeded by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a reshuffle being announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard today.
The plan to build 12 submarines is considered to have been former prime minister Kevin Rudd's ''baby'', to the extent that some in the defence community refer to them as ''Rudd's subs''.
There were initial suggestions Mr Rudd might be given the defence portfolio in the imminent reshuffle. But he has now been confirmed as the next foreign minister, removing one potential obstacle to the ditching of the submarine plan.
One of the new independent MPs Labor has relied on to form government, Andrew Wilkie, a former army lieutenant-colonel and intelligence analyst, said he needed to study the case for the submarines before commenting on whether he believed they were affordable. But he said he fully supported a review of the white paper, because ''there were clearly some elements of it that needed addressing''.
''There does need to be a fresh look at the white paper, there are clearly question marks over the document. For example, we can't even crew the submarines we've got, so it is arguable that we can double the fleet from the current six Collins Class submarines.''
Greens leader Bob Brown said his party did not have a concrete position on the submarines, but was keen to see large projects reviewed. ''I think this will be a matter for the whole of Parliament to discuss, including the Opposition.''
Sources say there is a growing belief within the Defence Force - including the navy and the government-owned Australian Submarine Corporation - that the 12 submarines are unlikely to be built and that the money could be better spent.
The 2009 white paper was heavily criticised for focusing on large defence projects, particularly ships and submarines, without a clear explanation of why they were needed and how they would be paid for.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies put out a paper last year estimating the submarines could cost $36 billion. He concluded that a fleet of 12 European off-the-shelf submarines would cost only $8.8 billion.
''Given the potential price tags and the timeframes on these things, it would be surprising if they weren't reviewing it,'' Dr Davies said yesterday.
\Pressure on to sink subs plan Dan Oakes
September 11, 2010
.NEW defence minister Stephen Smith will come under pressure to scrap Australia's most expensive defence project - the plan to build 12 submarines at a potential cost of $36 billion.
Defence sources have told The Age that the change in the leadership of the Labor Party and the new government's reliance on the Greens and independents have given some within Defence hope that the controversial submarine plan could be dropped and replaced with a more modest version.
The sources say there is likely to be a stringent review of the most recent defence white paper, in which the submarine plan was first announced, and a new white paper could be drawn up ahead of schedule.
Current Defence Minister John Faulkner has said he will step down from the role, and is set to be succeeded by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a reshuffle being announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard today.
The plan to build 12 submarines is considered to have been former prime minister Kevin Rudd's ''baby'', to the extent that some in the defence community refer to them as ''Rudd's subs''.
There were initial suggestions Mr Rudd might be given the defence portfolio in the imminent reshuffle. But he has now been confirmed as the next foreign minister, removing one potential obstacle to the ditching of the submarine plan.
One of the new independent MPs Labor has relied on to form government, Andrew Wilkie, a former army lieutenant-colonel and intelligence analyst, said he needed to study the case for the submarines before commenting on whether he believed they were affordable. But he said he fully supported a review of the white paper, because ''there were clearly some elements of it that needed addressing''.
''There does need to be a fresh look at the white paper, there are clearly question marks over the document. For example, we can't even crew the submarines we've got, so it is arguable that we can double the fleet from the current six Collins Class submarines.''
Greens leader Bob Brown said his party did not have a concrete position on the submarines, but was keen to see large projects reviewed. ''I think this will be a matter for the whole of Parliament to discuss, including the Opposition.''
Sources say there is a growing belief within the Defence Force - including the navy and the government-owned Australian Submarine Corporation - that the 12 submarines are unlikely to be built and that the money could be better spent.
The 2009 white paper was heavily criticised for focusing on large defence projects, particularly ships and submarines, without a clear explanation of why they were needed and how they would be paid for.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies put out a paper last year estimating the submarines could cost $36 billion. He concluded that a fleet of 12 European off-the-shelf submarines would cost only $8.8 billion.
''Given the potential price tags and the timeframes on these things, it would be surprising if they weren't reviewing it,'' Dr Davies said yesterday.
note my comment
what tosh. it was previous defence ministers who pushed 12 subs and endorsed it. they wanted another snowy mountains nation building exercise for australian industry and to take advantage of emerging new technologies.
idiotic journalism at it again. another clown making up headlines to try and cause a scoop
and this idiot is just as technically competent as the broadsheet journos
why anyone would listen to Davies is beyond me... has he had a look at how much all conventional sub programs have blown out? Not ONE is on track or in budget.
another clown that the taxpayers could do without.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Hang on for the next three years - I fear it is potentially going to be problematic. When you combine largely uneducated 'journalists' (lets face it they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed....) with a whole bunch of politically independant 'islands of ideology' you get copious amounts of media nonsense. They all want to have their say and get 'air time'.
We cant afford to muck around for 3 years on this - its a really important period. We are only just starting to build some momentum.
I had really hoped I would get lucky and have a decade of political stability around which key stakeholders to the platform would be freed to focus on development and delivery. (Talk about being naive!)
Hang on for the next three years - I fear it is potentially going to be problematic. When you combine largely uneducated 'journalists' (lets face it they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed....) with a whole bunch of politically independant 'islands of ideology' you get copious amounts of media nonsense. They all want to have their say and get 'air time'.
We cant afford to muck around for 3 years on this - its a really important period. We are only just starting to build some momentum.
I had really hoped I would get lucky and have a decade of political stability around which key stakeholders to the platform would be freed to focus on development and delivery. (Talk about being naive!)
Now Defence Talk want to run nonsense 'articles' on RAN?
Wow. Who do I see to hand in my Defence Talk membership?
It is completely inappropriate to run crap like that.
Although I really respect a number of regular posters on this forum I am going to cease contributing and reading for the time being.
Wow. Who do I see to hand in my Defence Talk membership?
It is completely inappropriate to run crap like that.
Although I really respect a number of regular posters on this forum I am going to cease contributing and reading for the time being.
feel free to discuss with me at work....
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,935
Did have a quick look at a bay while in MEAO, big ship and very capable, cept the whole RFA in Boat shoes kinda struck me(may also be RN thing, but im used to boots on a ship
)scatterbrains
New Member
Would someone have an idea if there will be any positions for aeronautical engineers on the LHDs?
As I understand they don't tend to get posted to ships and live in Nowra almost exclusively. What other postings would one expect?
As I understand they don't tend to get posted to ships and live in Nowra almost exclusively. What other postings would one expect?
Ozymandias
Banned Member
I suppose it depends what you mean by aeronautical engineer...
Guy who fixes helos?
Pilots?
Air traffic controllers?
I am sure LHD will have all of the above.
scatterbrains
New Member
I mean aeronautical engineer as in the aeronautical engineering officer (AERO) not aviation technician, pilot or air traffic controller.
It has been indicated to me that they do not tend to get posted to ships currently.
It has been indicated to me that they do not tend to get posted to ships currently.
Scatterbrains,
You are correct in that AEOs don't tend to get many (if any) sea postings in the current fleet, as there is usually only 1 aircraft and that doesn't warrant a full time engineer embarked.
AEOs usually look after the associated Squadron or workshop technical department, so there is a possibility that because of the larger number of aircraft embarked, they will get the opportunity for sea postings in the LHDs, but this hasn't been confirmed to me as yet. The local recruiting office might be the best bet to get you the latest information.
JT
AEOs tend to get posted when there is an accident, recovery or investigation, otherwise they tend to operate out of the established facilities.
- Status