Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Choules was 'bought' on a 5 year lease.
From what I know we would like to keep her longer.
t68
Well-Known Member
If she only leased give it back to the RFA, let them fix it and take them ACCC product not fit for purchase give us one of your other ships or refund.
Choules is not leased - it was bought outright. We own her. It's just that she was planned to be disposed of after 5 years, although I doubt that will actually happen.
I was commissioning crew on her, and we we told many time the ship was leased and that we were not allowed to change anything on the ship due to this.
Since Choules fits the bill as the planned sea lift ship, I expect she is that ship and will be in service for another two to three decades. I was under the impression she was bought outright, and if not, she will be eventually. I don't see the Australian government selling her anytime soon.
t68
Well-Known Member
To be honest, I was always under the impression the Choules was bought out right as part of the sealed bid merry go round. Otherwise they would have announced the same sort of deal as SPS Cantabria (A15)
Hmm very interesting
t68
Well-Known Member
Wonder if they are using the time to upgrade the comms set from HMAS Manoora that was proposed, another indication she was bought and not leased.
Defence Ministers » Questions and Responses provided to David Ellery, The Canberra Times in relation to articles published on 9 April 2012
Bay class option:
* Can Defence confirm Australia had the option of acquiring two Bay class amphibious vessels at the time we did the deal on Largs Bay?
* Was the second vessel available at a cost of $100 million?
* What consideration was given to acquiring a second vessel given it was widely acknowledged that the Largs Bay was a brilliant purchase for the money?
* Given repairs and maintenance to the Tobruk in the period 2011/2012 are said to be edging up towards $40 million – as against $100 million for a much newer and larger ship if we had bought a second Bay class – has Defence delivered the best value for the tax payer?
* Have we, in retrospect, missed an opportunity?
Response to all questions in this section
efence inquired at the time as to whether a second vessel was for sale and was consistently advised by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence that this was not the case.
All evidence so far indicates purchase not lease.
Defence Ministers » Questions and Responses provided to David Ellery, The Canberra Times in relation to articles published on 9 April 2012
Bay class option:
* Can Defence confirm Australia had the option of acquiring two Bay class amphibious vessels at the time we did the deal on Largs Bay?
* Was the second vessel available at a cost of $100 million?
* What consideration was given to acquiring a second vessel given it was widely acknowledged that the Largs Bay was a brilliant purchase for the money?
* Given repairs and maintenance to the Tobruk in the period 2011/2012 are said to be edging up towards $40 million – as against $100 million for a much newer and larger ship if we had bought a second Bay class – has Defence delivered the best value for the tax payer?
* Have we, in retrospect, missed an opportunity?
Response to all questions in this section
efence inquired at the time as to whether a second vessel was for sale and was consistently advised by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence that this was not the case.All evidence so far indicates purchase not lease.
Gordon Branch
New Member
From the horse's mouth: Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Largs Bay officially handed over to Australian Defence Force
I draw your attention to the fourth sentence which says:
The Government announced it had been successful in purchasing the ship, formally RFA Largs Bay, in April this year for £65 million (approximately $100 million).
I draw your attention to the fourth sentence which says:
The Government announced it had been successful in purchasing the ship, formally RFA Largs Bay, in April this year for £65 million (approximately $100 million).
I'm afraid you were misled. They might be trying to limit any changes to the vessel to maximise the ability to resell her in 2016, but there is no doubt the Commonwealth of Australia own her.
that might be a crossover on the support contract issue though.....
AMPT10E can confirm, But I thought we bought her outright. The support contracts are a unique model though...
It wouldn't surprise me if the Choules deal is more complex than we know. AFAIK we bought it (but there may be strings attached - UK may have an option to buy it back in emergency situation, perhaps with a time limit, not a lease, but a sale with conditions etc). Who knows what is written into these contracts.
Choules is a good ship from what I can tell (exploding transformer aside). The only reason we would give her up would be to get something more capable, another LHD (and I can't see that happening).
However that's not to say the money saved getting Choules cheap won't mean some wrangling to get something else in addition, replacing some magical criteria Choules magically can't meet. You can't just buy something because you have money left over, you can only buy things to meet criteria (unless your a minister).
Choules is a good ship from what I can tell (exploding transformer aside). The only reason we would give her up would be to get something more capable, another LHD (and I can't see that happening).
However that's not to say the money saved getting Choules cheap won't mean some wrangling to get something else in addition, replacing some magical criteria Choules magically can't meet. You can't just buy something because you have money left over, you can only buy things to meet criteria (unless your a minister).
The defence force doesn't just acquire equipment it acquires capability. So the RFA Largs Bay acquisition was budgetted with five years of operation as HMAS Choules. Much like the Super Hornets were budgetted with 10 years of operation (making lots of fools thing 24 planes cost $6 billion). This doesn't mean that after that five years or 10 years they can't be operated further but budgetting will have to be found otherwise they will need to displace something else from the order of battle, go into storage or be disposed of.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Where has JP2048 Ph4C gone??
With the recent posts regarding Choules, will she stay in service after 2016 or not, made me have another look at the DCP again.
In the 2011 DCP, both Phase 4C (Strategic Sea Lift Capability) and Phase 5 (Landing Craft Heavy Replacement) were listed.
Phase 4C was to have first pass approval in the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 and IOC in the period 2022-23 to 2023-24.
Phase 5 was to have first pass approval in the period 2013-14 to 2014-15 and IOC in the same period 2022-23 to 2023-24.
Moving onto the 2012 DCP and Phase 4C disappeared, but Phase 5 (LCH Replacement) was still listed with the same first pass and IOC dates.
I remember reading at the time of the 2012 DCP release that it was only going to cover the following 4 year period and that anything beyond that was going to be mentioned in a new document to be produced, the "Defence Capability Guide", which was to cover the "6 year" period after the current 4 year period of the 2012 DCP.
Guess what! In the 2012 DCG there is no mention of JP2048 Ph 4C at all.
Does this mean that Ph 4C has been dropped altogether, or has it been pushed even further into the future, maybe sometime into the 2020's?
If it has, maybe that is an indication that Choules will continue in service beyond 2016, anyway, its just a guess on my part, interested to see what you all think.
With the recent posts regarding Choules, will she stay in service after 2016 or not, made me have another look at the DCP again.
In the 2011 DCP, both Phase 4C (Strategic Sea Lift Capability) and Phase 5 (Landing Craft Heavy Replacement) were listed.
Phase 4C was to have first pass approval in the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 and IOC in the period 2022-23 to 2023-24.
Phase 5 was to have first pass approval in the period 2013-14 to 2014-15 and IOC in the same period 2022-23 to 2023-24.
Moving onto the 2012 DCP and Phase 4C disappeared, but Phase 5 (LCH Replacement) was still listed with the same first pass and IOC dates.
I remember reading at the time of the 2012 DCP release that it was only going to cover the following 4 year period and that anything beyond that was going to be mentioned in a new document to be produced, the "Defence Capability Guide", which was to cover the "6 year" period after the current 4 year period of the 2012 DCP.
Guess what! In the 2012 DCG there is no mention of JP2048 Ph 4C at all.
Does this mean that Ph 4C has been dropped altogether, or has it been pushed even further into the future, maybe sometime into the 2020's?
If it has, maybe that is an indication that Choules will continue in service beyond 2016, anyway, its just a guess on my part, interested to see what you all think.
Gordon Branch
New Member
I have read many non classified presentations on JP 2048 and I have seen several which showed a Bay Class LSD as a representative of JP 2048 4C well prior to the placing of RFA LARGS BAY on the market. For example: http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf
I have never seen anything which indicated HMAS CHOULES was a stop gap, a short term lease or in any way a temporary acquisition except in this forum.
It appears to me that the powers-that-be took advantage an advantageous situation and have procured the JP 2048 4C solution on bargain basement terms; albeit a second hand vessel.
This would explain the disappearance of 4C from the scope of JP 2048.
In my opinion HMAS CHOULES is seen as an accelerated solution to JP 2048 4C. The only problem with this theory is the lack of any official confirmation that this is the case.
I have never seen anything which indicated HMAS CHOULES was a stop gap, a short term lease or in any way a temporary acquisition except in this forum.
It appears to me that the powers-that-be took advantage an advantageous situation and have procured the JP 2048 4C solution on bargain basement terms; albeit a second hand vessel.
This would explain the disappearance of 4C from the scope of JP 2048.
In my opinion HMAS CHOULES is seen as an accelerated solution to JP 2048 4C. The only problem with this theory is the lack of any official confirmation that this is the case.
- Status