Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

The Virginia Class can only be built at one of 2 places on the eastern seaboard of the USA. The current requirement of the United States Navy has both yards fully booked until 2035 leaving no room at all for an order from the Australian Navy.

This alone should end any discussion on Virginia submarines being acquired or leased by the navy.

There are only two options that make any sense to me. One is an off the shelf design and the other is a modified Collins class. Time seems to be running out for the second option.

 

[Volkodav]

That is one of the things I have been wondering about. Just what/where the break point is between a ship's launch/recovery system and a well-dock in terms of cost and operating restrictions.

If such a system could be fitted to the OCV's, then whatever selected FAC could be used for boarding and intercepts in place of/in addition to RHIB's, and mount a bit more punch than a RHIB could. Going back a few years, such a fitout would have likely dissuaded Iran from seizing the RN boarding party which had been operating in the Gulf.

Also, if MCM or surveying ops were the assigned tasks, change out either the FAC configuration, or have a similarly sized but different smallcraft for the relevant specific tasks, with the OCV acting as a mothership.

Me being me, I prefer the notion of a small well-dock on the OCV, since that would permit a larger FAC, or LCP. This would be useful regionally if OCV's end up being assigned to transport personnel or kit to the beach in areas where port facilities are either lacking or damaged, especially if the amphibs are assigned other tasks.

OTOH the requirements for a well-dock in terms of space, displacement and location might mean that they are not appropriate for such a small vessel.

-Cheers

The arrangements on the Legend Class National Security Cutters seem pretty good

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/USCG_long_range_interceptor_aboard_Bertholf.jpg

Something like this should be possible for the OCV if it ends up at 2000t plus. Note the system on the NSC has cradles either side of the recovery ramp, one with a RHIB and the other for the Fast Interceptor being recovered. Add a crane and a multi purpose bay and you could carry a variety of craft in addition to these too, imagine a CB-90, perhaps even a small LCVP and various types of ROVs, say Protector and maybe MCM types, etc.

Another great advantage of this system appears to be it can launch and recover craft while underway.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Virginia Class can only be built at one of 2 places on the eastern seaboard of the USA. The current requirement of the United States Navy has both yards fully booked until 2035 leaving no room at all for an order from the Australian Navy. This is a fact. Besides this we are a medium sized nation with no real need to buy or lease long range submarines. This has always been a factor influencing the collins class and will also be a factor of the collins class 2 which design is probably going to include a transfer of Japanese propulsion technology including their electric/diesal combination or correct me it this is incorrect however it has been discussed on lots of other forums including the Diplomat. During the same discussions there was a bit of banter about the Song Class that uses a similar set up and how it layed in wait under the USS Kittyhawk and in Electric mode surfaced to embaress the USN. Wether or not the Japanese model we may adapt will be as good is up for discussion however the rumor is that its better as you would expect from Japanese technology. What is interesting is that the person in charge of overseeing the project, Mr David Gould is a very well respected person, however even he may agree that the situation is as bad if not worse as the one faced in the UK. What he recommended over there in his 2004 report was to rid the UK of its 50% UK build requirement. Then they had the down turn in the economy and this is where he ended up and since then which might just be a coincidence we have ordered a number of ships from the UK and Spain etc and god knows what else. Having worked in a couple of the Yards myself I can tell you that cost is not the only issue we face when it comes to problems delivering. I think the latest problem though is that they buggered up the keel or hull on the first AWD. Ill sum it up like this. The roman empire failed because they always found fault with everyone else and it was never their fault. :goodbad

No offense, but whatever are you going on about? The RAN sub requirement as near as anyone can tell is for a long-ranged, ocean-going, blue water Pacific fleet sub. Part of the problem which has been faced by the RAN is that virtually all the current conventional sub designers/builders have experience in designing and building subs for operations in relatively the confined waterways of the Baltic or the Med. They are not designed for long-ranged ISR patrols, going from Oz to Vladivostok, taking some happy snaps, and then heading back home. That is something which IIRC was done with the O-boats. The intention with the Collins-class and presumably whatever the follow design will be, is to at least maintain, if not actually expand, the ISR capabilities. In order for the RAN to do so, whatever sub design is chosen, it does need to be long-ranged and have significant power generation capabilities.

Most conventional subs can handle the long range, albeit at low speed/power. Apart from the RAN subs though, it appears that only the Japanese conventional subs can meet the power generation requirements. Everything else is nuclear. The Oz interest in Japanese sub tech appears concentrated in power generation solutions, and mating those to US sensors and combat systems (likely with some Oz sensors too).

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

No. Present government are so fixated on achieving their surplus that they would probably sell off Tasmania to achieve it if necessary. They would have diggers equipped with slingshots to achieve this if necessary. Mind you, the opposition are in many ways just as much to blame - as they have created the 'wedge' that Labor have trapped themselves in. Politics... well I suppose its better than anarchy...(maybe).

I wonder what we could get for Tassie? Would the buyer have to collect or would we be responsible for freight? On the other hand we could just nationalise Hancock Prospecting, cut the prices to keep the export customers happy and just put the profits straight into revenue.:idea:

 

[Dayra]

Slight change of subject. Today The Age is reporting that the Americans are less than impressed with our current defense spending, as Australia's current defense spending as a share of GDP is at its smallest level since 1938. They have said they suspect Australia is taking advantage of the US Marine deployment to Darwin to reduce its spending.
Will this criticism be sufficient to cause the government to increase our defense spending to a decent level?

Ah I am sure he is just trying to drum up business and probably most likely has been advised and agrees that based on the Plans (refer to War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945, Edward S. Miller - 2007, for example) and predictions for conflicts that may occur in our Asian region we will most likely need to diversify our defense build and purchases. One needs only look at the Asian Defence review which details every major nation in Asia including China's extremely long list of Naval procurement's including 90 small torpedo boats, or India's long list including more Dvora 3's and a number of Carriers to accomodate its $7billion purchase of 90 Pak Fa and perhaps the F35 aswell (not sure how thats going for them I think they are still bugging Lockheed for more though not sure if US is entirely happy with the massive order of Pak Fa's not sure).

Further more Minister of Defence is adamant that the US will not get a base here in Australia. They have also (the US) been talking about a deal with Guam to relocace from Okinawa some 5000 marines, even though the situation in Japan has also changed slightly with the threat of War with China and US-Japan alliance activated. Its very confusing to be honest. On one hand if nothing goes down the US is still likely to feel opposition in Japan over the presence they have there and this is the likely scenario as I see China as being no where near ready to up the Anti, its just not ready for a full sea battle. All the crap thats going on with China is rumoured to be just Sabre Rattling similar to what North Korea did when Kim died. I mean the claims the made in the South China sea alone to Vietnamese Oil (mind you China did steal territory of Vietnam after the war they had) fields which they advertised for development from major oil companies gives me the feeling that sabre rattling is all it is because they know the US has atleast 20 allies in the region whom are also gearing up for a smash and they have a massive arsenal of Naval equipment not to mention the major advancements they are making at Darpa and Lincoln Laboratory.

So it might seem like were freeloading on the USA however I feel that politically wise things in the Pacific are actually cooling off somewhat to the point that its likely the US will be looking to find somewhere else to base its troops such as the 31st Marines. If it eventuates that this does become the case then it will be great for somewhere as small as Darwin that needs a post panamax port to be dredged out if its to keep on keeping on. Its almost like world war 2 you know when the US had to retreat from the Philippians. Australia served as a place close to Japan that after the battle of Midway and the Coral sea etc was more or less unreachable by Japanese forces. Given Scully's law of combat that nuclear deterrence is-int, especially when you have two nuclear nations going at it, Australia is more or less unreachable to China, mind you unforeseen future may present exceptions to that rule but none threats have been made so far. However given the sentiments of the Japanese and perhaps Carrier Killer Missiles etc the US may actually have an interest in taking more advantage of AUSUS alliance benefits. I personally think a US naval base in Australia would be brilliant for us. Yes it would save us a fortune on spreading out our mid sized finance onto multi level platforms and actually allow us to do what we do best and field a fully professional and elite style of military. My thinking however is that the current government is in no position to make such a move, as the risk of a back lash is way to risky. I think this is why they settled on the Darwin solution. This actually works out Cheaper for the US aswell even if they are supposed to be contributing to Port Developments etc in Darwin. :nutkick

 

[Dayra]

No offense, but whatever are you going on about? The RAN sub requirement as near as anyone can tell is for a long-ranged, ocean-going, blue water Pacific fleet sub. Part of the problem which has been faced by the RAN is that virtually all the current conventional sub designers/builders have experience in designing and building subs for operations in relatively the confined waterways of the Baltic or the Med. They are not designed for long-ranged ISR patrols, going from Oz to Vladivostok, taking some happy snaps, and then heading back home. That is something which IIRC was done with the O-boats. The intention with the Collins-class and presumably whatever the follow design will be, is to at least maintain, if not actually expand, the ISR capabilities. In order for the RAN to do so, whatever sub design is chosen, it does need to be long-ranged and have significant power generation capabilities.

Most conventional subs can handle the long range, albeit at low speed/power. Apart from the RAN subs though, it appears that only the Japanese conventional subs can meet the power generation requirements. Everything else is nuclear. The Oz interest in Japanese sub tech appears concentrated in power generation solutions, and mating those to US sensors and combat systems (likely with some Oz sensors too).

-Cheers

Point taken. The current Colins Class for example did go to and from Hawaii in the last couple of months. But we are in no way in need of the Virginia Class, which is like a Nuclear Aircraft with a range of decades not miles. I'm sorry if this was'nt obvious to you. Not that it wouldn't be great. In my opinion then anything less than nuclear is Mid Range. I hope this is to your amusement and that your not feeling at all patronized.

 

[Volkodav]

The submarine story mentions that the Soryu class won't be available to Australia.

I am not sure that this is necessarily the case. Australia is negotiating with Japan over this very issue at the moment.

As far as leasing Virginia subs is concerned ... exactly where will the subs come from?

The USN have 33 built, or on order and I am pretty sure that they would want to hang onto them. I can't see them giving up between 6 and 12 of these boats for Australia.

Why would we possibly want current generation subs to fill our requirement for future generation subs?

People forget that the Collins class were world leading in many areas and are only now being supassed in some of them by new designs, it would be a waste of money building todays tech tomorrow.

 

[hauritz]

Why would we possibly want current generation subs to fill our requirement for future generation subs?

People forget that the Collins class were world leading in many areas and are only now being supassed in some of them by new designs, it would be a waste of money building todays tech tomorrow.

I am quite happy to see an evolved Collin's class. It would be the best option in my opinion ... but I am wondering whether or not time might be running out for that option.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Point taken. The current Colins Class for example did go to and from Hawaii in the last couple of months. But we are in no way in need of the Virginia Class, which is like a Nuclear Aircraft with a range of decades not miles. I'm sorry if this was'nt obvious to you. Not that it wouldn't be great. In my opinion then anything less than nuclear is Mid Range. I hope this is to your amusement and that your not feeling at all patronized.

Let me give you some friendly advice here

Don't make assumptions about the level of awareness or understanding about other members

within this thread alone you have ex submariners, ex and curr sub industry capability, people who've crewed in nukes and conventionals, master mariners, maritime engineers and no shortage of ex or curr sailors. There are also people in here who contribute to various publications on mil technology issues and defence issues.

you have successfully managed to put a few offside by assuming that they have no idea - when you're actually starting to look a bit silly

Not everyone wants their backgrounds detailed for all and sundry to see, but a smart person would look at tone, content and the general posting demeanor of some of these members and realise that sitting back, reading, listening and learning would be far more profitable for their own learning and development.

I suggest that you pause a bit, read more, listen more and then ask questions rather than make claims about what Collins, Virginia etc can and can't do

eg Nukes are not just about travelling around the world underwater with zero refueling for nn years. It's about onboard power as well, onboard power = sensor fitouts and capability

 

[Dayra]

Let me give you some friendly advice here

Don't make assumptions about the level of awareness or understanding about other members

within this thread alone you have ex submariners, ex and curr sub industry capability, people who've crewed in nukes and conventionals, master mariners, maritime engineers and no shortage of ex or curr sailors. There are also people in here who contribute to various publications on mil technology issues and defence issues.

you have successfully managed to put a few offside by assuming that they have no idea - when you're actually starting to look a bit silly

Not everyone wants their backgrounds detailed for all and sundry to see, but a smart person would look at tone, content and the general posting demeanor of some of these members and realise that sitting back, reading, listening and learning would be far more profitable for their own learning and development.

I suggest that you pause a bit, read more, listen more and then ask questions rather than make claims about what Collins, Virginia etc can and can't do

eg Nukes are not just about travelling around the world underwater with zero refueling for nn years. It's about onboard power as well, onboard power = sensor fitouts and capability

Likewise I'm not expected to know everything or explain everything to the nth degree. I do enjoy this forum and do enjoy a great read. I wonder if a literature thread with lots of online literature would be worth proposing. If you have read any of my previous posts I have actually posted some references to try and back up my statements. I think though now I can actually add some links which I was'nt allowed to before I reached 10 posts.

You cant please all of the people all of the time only some of the people some of the time. I've read through the ban list though, its amusing but I'm feeling lucky.

I am not actually trying to put anyone offside or assume other people are wrong however it doesn't look like there is any point explaining it though I would like to and I think I know what your talking about and I know where you coming from. Honestly, didn't think it was that big a deal but 'point taken'.

I would of liked to have posted this link in an earlier post. Its relevant for a few reasons. :ban
AMR Naval Directory 2011 | Asian Military Review

 

[gf0012-aust]

Honestly, didn't think it was that big a deal but 'point taken'.

posting is about tone, intent, content and perception

eg re-read Todjaegers post

 

[aussienscale]

The arrangements on the Legend Class National Security Cutters seem pretty good

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/USCG_long_range_interceptor_aboard_Bertholf.jpg

Something like this should be possible for the OCV if it ends up at 2000t plus. Note the system on the NSC has cradles either side of the recovery ramp, one with a RHIB and the other for the Fast Interceptor being recovered. Add a crane and a multi purpose bay and you could carry a variety of craft in addition to these too, imagine a CB-90, perhaps even a small LCVP and various types of ROVs, say Protector and maybe MCM types, etc.

Another great advantage of this system appears to be it can launch and recover craft while underway.

That is what I was thinking of as well, I like the system, here is a youtube vid of BMT's Venator concept

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf386EByAjc"]BMT Venator ® Warship MCM Configuration - YouTube[/nomedia]

They also have numerous other concepts and designs that apply to LHC replacement, Success etc. Their Aegir concept is now the basis for the UK's Mars Tanker

Cheers

 

[Dayra]

This alone should end any discussion on Virginia submarines being acquired or leased by the navy.

There are only two options that make any sense to me. One is an off the shelf design and the other is a modified Collins class. Time seems to be running out for the second option.

No way, the discussion will go on regardless of people being given the truth and facts. This is something you get used to. Cant believe its come back up again yet it has then again I thought Assassins Creed 3 would of done terrible in the UK, surprise surprise only FIFA 13 has beaten it so far, which goes to show you never can tell.

How much time do the current collin's class have left in them?
I think its going to go the way it always goes though and people will say its going fine or time is running out but something will be worked out, there is always drama but apparently were just not allowed to worry about it, but I have big ambitions and I tell you change is a coming like it or not.

 

[Dayra]

posting is about tone, intent, content and perception

eg re-read Todjaegers post

Yes it was a good post. Ratheon for example they bought up a Aussie Oscillator company from Fremantle which will go onto the Zumwalt Destroyer. So blending different technologies will work and a improved platform will be developed. Australia is well known for its work in Development. It was the other part of his comment I was getting at I think.

 

[aussienscale]

layed in wait under the USS Kittyhawk and in Electric mode surfaced to embaress the USN. Wether or not the Japanese model we may adapt will be as good is up for discussion however the rumor is that its better as you would expect from Japanese technology. What is interesting is that the person in charge of overseeing the project, Mr David Gould is a very well respected person, however even he may agree that the situation is as bad if not worse as the one faced in the UK. What he recommended over there in his 2004 report was to rid the UK of its 50% UK build requirement. Then they had the down turn in the economy and this is where he ended up and since then which might just be a coincidence we have ordered a number of ships from the UK and Spain etc and god knows what else. Having worked in a couple of the Yards myself I can tell you that cost is not the only issue we face when it comes to problems delivering. I think the latest problem though is that they buggered up the keel or hull on the first AWD. Ill sum it up like this. The roman empire failed because they always found fault with everyone else and it was never their fault. :goodbad

Was a good start to the post, this is about where you lost me. Try and break your post's into relevant paragraph's rather than sentence to sentence running one subject or POV into one big rambling mess

You may have worked in a couple of yards in the past, but obviously don't have any contacts in them any more, or of more relevance, did you work in the yards you speak of ?

The reason I ask is that you have brought up a point from some time ago, it was also identified as the problem being caused by the drawings that the yard in question received from Navantia, and IIRC, was specifically rigs/jigs used for hull sections, a problem that was identified pretty quickly and rectified.

So if was not the yards, nor the people that work there, at fault. I have not seen nor heard of the result of the complaint to Navantia of the issue ? I do know that Navantia initially denied any fault, but then nothing since, except the usual mass media reporting on the subject, which is typically rubbish

 

[Dayra]

Was a good start to the post, this is about where you lost me. Try and break your post's into relevant paragraph's rather than sentence to sentence running one subject or POV into one big rambling mess

You may have worked in a couple of yards in the past, but obviously don't have any contacts in them any more, or of more relevance, did you work in the yards you speak of ?

The reason I ask is that you have brought up a point from some time ago, it was also identified as the problem being caused by the drawings that the yard in question received from Navantia, and IIRC, was specifically rigs/jigs used for hull sections, a problem that was identified pretty quickly and rectified.

So if was not the yards, nor the people that work there, at fault. I have not seen nor heard of the result of the complaint to Navantia of the issue ? I do know that Navantia initially denied any fault, but then nothing since, except the usual mass media reporting on the subject, which is typically rubbish

Yes I have worked at a couple of yards. I would rather not go into detail about either of them but I know what I have seen at this one particular yard that just blew me away. Your right though, no contacts or involvement with anything anymore, and probably wont in the future unless something drastically changes which I very much doubt. And I dont think I brought up any comment about Navantia. As far as I know everything they have done for the Canberra class is A+ grade so please dont pin that one on me thanks. I think I made a refernce to systemic problems in the whole system and used the latest issue with the AWD failure as just another example of what may cause further delays, related that to the similar problems they are having in the UK before the financial crisis, so its probably worse now, and then made a reference to the uk Submarine guy who organised a riddance of the 50/50 home and away build guidelines they had in the UK to not only speed up production but to also ensure that Quality Management and Reputation would go hand in hand. My own personal experience or one part of it was when I was working at a company and the politics in the company meant that rather than professional recognition a mate system was used and this led to not only bad decision making but also an accident that cost in the range of $10,000 which I had to take responsibility for. The issue was the other dominant people in the company would allow double standards that led to a younger less experienced person applying pressure and based his own behavior on poor supervision that reinforced the notion that it was ok to do so. If that makes any sense. Another factor that contributed to the problem was lack of flexibility in gant features of the daily schedule. This is when the pressure was applied, bullying if you like, where the impatient management style led to an impatient junior acting like the management because he had been at the company for a bit longer. I wouldn't call myself a sycophant however after being in this one company for about 2 months I was kind of worn out and rather than follow procedures I was misdirected due to the pressure and that's when the accident happened. It also ended up keeping everyone back as well as the damage done. Yet he did not have the courage to admit his mistake and put it all on me. Enough said. Luckily it was only a spare they ware going to carry on board so it did not immediately affect the ship and they eventually got it worked out. I ended up leaving the company for talking about it to the authorities after the company manager in charge of OHS confronted me about it, though I never admitted to him that I had done so. Due to the high level of organised crime associated to this one yard I just did not know who to speak to about it so I sought advice from ASIO about it. Big mistake in the end I could of just kept my mouth shut. Though I noticed a few reports about some changes that were made on the whole and felt like I had contributed to that. You know what that OHS guy said when I asked him what I should say about why I left that company...due to lack of work. Does that sound crazy, well you know do not trace my IP address please and turn me into the next Martha Mitchell, Ive had enough of that and I might have to call in a favor. lol.

Anyway I will try to take your advice about how I go about discussing things. I might just be a bit out of my depth and just do not realize it, no offence intended.

Miles Kington - "Knowledge is knowing the tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in your fruit salad."

 

[ASSAIL]

Further more Minister of Defence is adamant that the US will not get a base here in Australia.

Correct

US has atleast 20 allies in the region whom are also gearing up for a smash and they have a massive arsenal of Naval equipment not to mention the major advancements they are making at Darpa and Lincoln Laboratory.

This is utter nonsense in both fact and supposition. Get an atlas and count the total number of countries in the east asian area. Not all are closely aligned with the US

somewhere as small as Darwin that needs a post panamax port to be dredged out if its to keep on keeping on.

Darwin is a deepwater port that does not require dredging, the 8 metre tides do that exceptionally well. Max draft for ships using Darwin is currently 11 mtrs in all tidal ranges. Ships up to 80,000 tonnes and 13 mtr draft have used the port.

There is currently a massive dredging operation ongoing in order to open up the upper Middle Arm for gas exports, this is a private operation.

Its almost like world war 2 you know when the US had to retreat from the Philippians. Australia served as a place close to Japan

I wouldn't call even the North of Australia "close" to Japan. More than 3,000 nms is not close.

This actually works out Cheaper for the US aswell even if they are supposed to be contributing to Port Developments etc in Darwin.

:nutkick

Again, nonsense. The Darwin Port development is/has been funded by the NT taxpayer with a $54m input from the Commonwealth govt.

Please check facts before posting unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Dayra]

Again, nonsense. The Darwin Port development is/has been funded by the NT taxpayer with a $54m input from the Commonwealth govt.

Please check facts before posting unsubstantiated opinion.

That just your opinion but...:finger

"Quote:
Its almost like world war 2 you know when the US had to retreat from the Philippians. Australia served as a place close to Japan
I wouldn't call even the North of Australia "close" to Japan. More than 3,000 nms is not close."

Actually maybe I think thats my fault that you thought I meant the Japanese Mainland rather than the Japanese Empire. See the image linked below and you notice that Parts of New Guinea and Australia were just out of reach of Japan.
http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/ftap/T_M16_JapWW2CP300g15.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Japanese_Empire2.png

The battle of the Coral Sea ring any bells for you. What about Guadal Canal. Maybe your Familiar with the Fall of Singapore or the Retreat of McArthur. (where did he retreat again buddy). Straya.






Quote:
US has atleast 20 allies in the region whom are also gearing up for a smash ..
This is utter nonsense in both fact and supposition. Get an atlas and count the total number of countries in the east asian area. Not all are closely aligned with the US.

The reports that you keep hearing about the beggining of the expansion of a Chinese Empire are real though not substantiated or backed by real hard diplomacy as of yet unless you call Patrol Boats hard diplomacy. The point really did refer to the participation in exercises with the United States which have in recent times seemed to include a focus on a conflict with China guised under the United States Pacific Command Strategic Guidance. This is what the Pivot is all about. Things change, do you think Vietnam is the same place it was when the US were at war. Maybe your familiar more familiar with the Sino Vietnamese war where China took a large chunk of North Vietnam away. However more recenly China asserted its claim over a rather ridiculous portion of Vietnams Coast and even tried to market the exploration rights on the International Market.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48951000/gif/_48951920_south_china-sea_1_466.gif

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/AI-BT825_CSEA_NS_20120627122703.jpg

Other nations in the Region have experienced similar problems while others such as Timor Leste whom are quite poor have opened the door to China. Though Singapore, Japan, Phillipeans, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam and other smaller nations in the region have all requested US assistance over problems created by China. A coalition has formed incase your unaware. Many of the exercises that contribute to how the coalition is comming together are reported in Defence Talk.

The most recent one was a US Japan exercise where it was mentioned to China that the US recognises Japans claim to Senkaku and that it has a defence arrangement with Japan should China attack Japan, an Invitation China paid no RSVP may I add.
Maybe its because of COMDESRON 1. U.S. Navy - Pacific Fleet - Ships by Class

or the 7th Fleet.
Forces -- Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet

Maybe I am sounding like a fanboy...nah, I am descendent of John Barry the Father of the United States Navy. (want to debate this to again) and take a personal interest in it, hang on Ill get you a copy of my birth certificate.




Participating Forces — RIMPAC 2012


"Quote:
somewhere as small as Darwin that needs a post panamax port to be dredged out if its to keep on keeping on.
Darwin is a deepwater port that does not require dredging, the 8 metre tides do that exceptionally well. Max draft for ships using Darwin is currently 11 mtrs in all tidal ranges. Ships up to 80,000 tonnes and 13 mtr draft have used the port."

Its my opinion that you havent a clue what your talking about buddy. This was discussed in great detail at the time it was announced that the US was going to base up to 5000 marines in Darwin but your not going to get an Aircraft Carrier in there fullstop because the port is Pre Panamax not Post Panamax. I lived in Darwin buddy, I know what the tides are like especially when it dries up and you get super low tides. I was there when HMAS Gelong crashed.

You should look up the definition of Supposed.
Im pretty sure my grades are better than yours to especially at english.

And we could get rid of the Defence Minister though even he admits even though we have the provision in the Constitution Act to freely base type 45 Destroyers and Astute class ships here in Australia thats not likely either. So I suppose Japan, Singapore, Guam, etc are all freeloading on the USA. Gimme a break.

 

[Dayra]

I beg to differ if you have read any of his posts you would realise that he is a well informed member of this forum.(As for me im a punter just like you)

This i a RAN thread not some "fanboy look at moi," thread, honestly im not trying to be rude but pull your head in mate.Im going to go make a coffee now.

Excuse me but what exactly is it you think we do? [Banned 6 months for continued failure to heed Mod and other member advice. Generally being an idiot and a drama mama is not welcomed in a forum that caters to rational discussions between members (of which a significant number are defence professionals) with relevant subject matter expertise.

Play the ball, not the man, if you disagree but your demonstrated attitude and basic knowledge on areas of disagreement is unimpressive to say the least. Trolling with posts that contain more spam than facts will get you no-where fast. Don't come back if you don't want to change you attitude.]

 

[Bonza]

Assail knows plenty about Darwin, Dayra. The direction this thread has moved in since you started posting is unimpressive. My advice to all involved would be to play the ball, not the man, and Dayra, if you want to get smart about the ban list and about "feeling lucky", you know exactly what that's going to lead to, so I suggest you drop it. I don't care who you're descended from, you'll get no sympathy for mouthing off to the mods. Please yourself as to what you want to do with that information.