Well considering the military had a smaller increase than the 3% promised and with the government saying they will make up for it in a later budget, I am guessing that's where the money will come from. Remember Defence had something like a billion unused dollars last year.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The "e"s are quite limted where they can go due to draft limitations. Impressive vessel but a pure container carrier designed for high density liner routes.
I got a quick question. Looking at Australia's future naval force, (lets say we went with that extra LHD and possibly AWD) would that make the RAN a Blue Water Navy? Being able to operate outside friendly waters, having a whole task group with the best tech/equipment and prepared for Air Warfare, Submarine Warfare and Ship Warfare.
Edit: Nvm, just found a thread about it. Sorry for the post.
Edit: Nvm, just found a thread about it. Sorry for the post.
Last edited:
except we're already seeing projects under review - ie whether they will stay alive
the underspend means zip at this stage.
So basically we were better off with a flawed PM who understood foriegn affairs and strategy than we are with the current amatures. It seems to be a case of if it isn't understood by or of interest to voters in the west of Sydney then it wont rate a thought from those currently calling the shots. The scary thing is an election wont improve matters as the current opposition seems intent on chasing the moron vote, which doesn't include foriegn affairs or defence.
I really thought I'd never say this but we need Howard back (...work choices) or at least someone to step up that can actually get stuff done, both sides of politics are deeply flawed at the moment and I think your quote on the opposition chasing the moron vote also applies to the government. "which doesn't include foriegn affairs or defence." or Economics.. had a lecture at QUT a couple days ago and the lecturers were talking about this very issue in the oppositions economic policies.
Although, we best not get into politics... It causes nasty debate. If anything we should be talking about who (of either party) has the experience, integrity and most importantly (something current politics is lacking) vision for the top job.
First time poster, long time reader here & by no means savvy.
Can anyone confirm if a 3rd LHD is a serious possibility? I've also read "Defence against aircraft and larger targets is to be provided by escort vessels and air support from the Royal Australian Air Force" (source: wiki), seeing as we will not be purchasing F35B's how will the RAAF support these ships when they are outside range of our RAAF bases?
From the media's eyes as if he had defended recent "problems" in the Defence Force the media would have pinned him as part of the reason for them. And from the public's eyes, with all his "reforms" (DMO and all sexes allowed to serve in whatever position they choose) and the very publicised actions taken against recent problems he is going good. Although I don't feel I can say anything meaningful on how it is all going behind the scenes. And to sum it up all I can really say is that he hasn't had a thrashing in the media yet.
Trackmaster
Member
Rand0m
Welcome...with this Government, I rate the chances of a third LHD as less that the possibility of the successful implementation of a carbon tax.
Seriously, with the purchase of the Largs Bay, it is most unlikely there will be a third LHD. A trawl of this thread will give you some good information.
And with no evil intent, there are far better sources than Wiki...I mean, even I could add comment there, and I know how unreliable I am.
Welcome...with this Government, I rate the chances of a third LHD as less that the possibility of the successful implementation of a carbon tax.
Seriously, with the purchase of the Largs Bay, it is most unlikely there will be a third LHD. A trawl of this thread will give you some good information.
And with no evil intent, there are far better sources than Wiki...I mean, even I could add comment there, and I know how unreliable I am.
Trackmaster, hes probably talking about the revised budget for JP2048 4C. With a budget of 1-2b a third LHD could very well be likely but until there are annoucements regarding the revised budget its anyones guess.Rand0m
Welcome...with this Government, I rate the chances of a third LHD as less that the possibility of the successful implementation of a carbon tax.
Seriously, with the purchase of the Largs Bay, it is most unlikely there will be a third LHD. A trawl of this thread will give you some good information.
And with no evil intent, there are far better sources than Wiki...I mean, even I could add comment there, and I know how unreliable I am.
Regarding the politics discussion, its a bit much trying to blame the current government/minister or the last. At some point people have to step up and acknowledge that some elements of Defence are broken. It seems that Smith is trying to get the USN to cover some of our Navy's failings in the short term with things such as the future submarine project and perhaps planing in general, which could be a good move. Its hard to really judge the reform efforts until the dust settles.
I wouldn't say its all bad for the ADF.
Rudd made it very clear numerous times, the old whitepaper was basically a call to arms that went beyond even the most fanciful dreams of armchair generals. 12 subs, 20 OCV's, 7,000 ton ABM capable "frigates" to match our destroyers. Helos have been ordered, the SH were upheld, the F-35's were upheld, the LHD's are going to stick around, C17's. Wikileaks revealed that Rudd has grave fears for the region, despite Rudd being on the outer, he still represents the foreign policy of the labour party (him and his backers).
And now JP2048 4C has been rumored to increased to a few billion dollars. We are most likely getting a LHD or buying QE carrier on the cheap. While nothing is certain, I certainly wouldn't be writting it off completely. It is actually specified that we need two LHD to be operational at the same time, and given recent dramas with operational avalibility of amphib ships it would seem prudent.
Im sure it will come to a suprise to some Sydney siders that there are 3 of the largest non USN amphibs sitting in the harbour built in record time along with Largs.
Rudd made it very clear numerous times, the old whitepaper was basically a call to arms that went beyond even the most fanciful dreams of armchair generals. 12 subs, 20 OCV's, 7,000 ton ABM capable "frigates" to match our destroyers. Helos have been ordered, the SH were upheld, the F-35's were upheld, the LHD's are going to stick around, C17's. Wikileaks revealed that Rudd has grave fears for the region, despite Rudd being on the outer, he still represents the foreign policy of the labour party (him and his backers).
And now JP2048 4C has been rumored to increased to a few billion dollars. We are most likely getting a LHD or buying QE carrier on the cheap. While nothing is certain, I certainly wouldn't be writting it off completely. It is actually specified that we need two LHD to be operational at the same time, and given recent dramas with operational avalibility of amphib ships it would seem prudent.
Im sure it will come to a suprise to some Sydney siders that there are 3 of the largest non USN amphibs sitting in the harbour built in record time along with Largs.
then someone better tell us then.....
whats in the press is always exciting to read as it usually has no relationship to whats actually happening.
/disgruntled off
I didn't say it was all good either. Nor did I say it was compotent or well thoughtout or cohesive. And It may be all white anted out too. It might also become a sacrifical lamb. Politicans are always working hard to stuff up the perfectly simple, so nothing is certain.
I just wouldn't rule it out completely. Press seems pretty clueless. Since when did the truth sell papers? Better to spread FUD about something else entirely.
I just wouldn't rule it out completely. Press seems pretty clueless. Since when did the truth sell papers? Better to spread FUD about something else entirely.
A thought on the LHDs, the recent issues with the amphibious fleet suggests that the LPHs and Tobruk actually need to be replaced before the end of 2010 not progressively from 2014 as planned.
This would rule out the BPE, what would be the alternative to meet a 2010 deadline.
This would rule out the BPE, what would be the alternative to meet a 2010 deadline.
and some of the press wonder why they have such a lousy reputation......
tobruk is tobroken.....
as the govt is questioning the merit of sustaining a busted asset that basically is ready for the knackery - one would think that bare maintenance is the order of the day. 2 phattys and largs meet the needs.
its a houdini job from this point on.
imperialman
New Member
As an active editor on wikipedia, I feel I should counter this. All contributions to wikipedia must be reliably sourced or they will be removed. Obviously we don't catch it all but we're doing a good enough job to be ranked as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I encounter this attitude often but I don't see any real evidence behind it. Rant overAnd with no evil intent, there are far better sources than Wiki...I mean, even I could add comment there, and I know how unreliable I am.
:What more could you want?
And I don't mean that as you would normally hear it. What does the ADF actually need, as the future still looks top notch.
Defence is more than just toys and gear.
it's about people. treating your people right is the first step.
the kit is secondary.
its about time that people revisited that lesson - esp politicians.
- Status