Isn't it always?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I'm not so sure. So much political capital has been consumed with this that the final decision needs to be fully supported by the pros to stave off censure. The PM is in a very weak position and another "captain's pick" would be unthinkable.
One month ago it may have been different.
Good point, all the rhetoric over the last several years has convinced the general public that submarines are vital to defence and recent events have made surprise announcements and a lack of transparency politically unthinkable. The only sensible way forward is an honest and transparent evaluation that actually follows the existing procurement processes. Then again.....
c27 costings
Check out Asia Pacific Defence Reporter September 2014.....article goes some way to explaining (if not justifying) the costings.
I see that approval has been given for a LOTE for both the LARC V and LCM8. Anyone got any further info on what's involved with the upgrade, particularly for the LARC V?
Also, any idea why the lcm8 is being used from Choules? Any truth to the rumour that it can't operate the lcm1e?
Also, any idea why the lcm8 is being used from Choules? Any truth to the rumour that it can't operate the lcm1e?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The "other" solution for the Tiger does seem to be a better one as there are over 1,500 of them flying. As for the MRH-90, the alternative from the US, assuming a similar size helicopter is required, is the H-92 (Canadian designation CH-148 Cyclone). The budget for this phantom machine has doubled and after 7 years, SFA has been delivered. Therefore the best alternative is the AW Merlin IMO. Had the Canadian government ordered this back in 2005, the RCN would have a decent and safe machine to operate.
the Army actually wanted the UH-60L/M but Eurocopter won out with their industrial package an more effective lobbying. Considering the RAN has now selected the Romeo it seems that the Blackhawk would have been a smarter way to go for the Army. I would still like to see the ADF procure the Sierra to replace the remaining Blackhawks for SOF support.
Nick underscore
Member
I'm sure SOF support will get their way, once these remaining platforms come to end of life. Will be the same as US SF. Is the number 12?
The one plus IMV, favouring the Taipan platform is the troop lift numbers alone. I also like the asthetic look of the Taipan, compared with the Sierra/ Romeo etc.
On a seperate point. With 47 platforms and one of those being related compensation. Does that mean the the RAN will get the extra platform, from the total pool shared with Army? I understood it was 40/6 split. I may have this wrong.
I would imagine the LARC V upgrade would be inline with what the US did, hydro-static drive, new engines etc. It would be effectively and off the shelf upgrade and provide new life to this platform.
I believe earlier in this thread the rumor was put to rest, Choules can operate the LCM1E (ie it fits). I don't believe all LCM1E are operational yet. LCM8 I would imagine is still serviceable.
https://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/royal-australian-navy-discussions-updates-5905-854/
And over the next page. LCM8 fits in dock of Choules.
Do we only have 4 LCM1E? Now with one LHD commissioned I would expect we are ready for another batch.
This from Navantia; 9th launched of 12 in November last
Navantia Launches Ninth Fast Landing Craft for Australia
I have it from the DoD (in writing no less!) that the LCM-1E does fit and can operate from the well deck of Choules.
Second batch of four LCM-1Es have now been delivered to the RAN. Final batch of four expected by mid year.
Last edited by a moderator:
No details available yet re what the LOTE for LARC-V will entail. The first LOTE Army put the LARC-V through was done in Australia in the 1998-2000 timeframe I believe. That involved dropping in a new engine but no idea how much life is left in that engine. The US Navy did their LARC-V LOTE in 2006-07.
The LOTE would be a good job for a small-mid size local yard such as Birdon to pick up and run with.
knightrider4
Active Member
good grief, that was a waste of good download space
I love the" we can't crew six submarines" myth. There are plenty of trainees and qualified sailors in most categories the issue is poor retention in certain technical specialities, due mostly to external factors. A larger number of submarines means more crews, a greater pool of trained personnel and greater flexibility / availability of platforms for intensive training.
knightrider4
Active Member
Just out of interest which design do you guys think will be chosen, early days I know.
This one is a good read too, it need subscription access though.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Regarding to a "sustainable shipbuilding strategy", as our small navy is unlikely to have enough contracts for all 3 shipyards, shouldn't we seriously consider closing one or 2 shipyards and concentrate jobs on the remaining one (probably just keep the Newcastle as its close proximity to FBE).
By the way, what's the reason to create ASC in the 80s rather than upgrading Williamstown or Newcastle to build the Collins? It just sounds too much like another Labor's shambles similar to NBN co.
I think, as far as WA based members of the government are concerned, any design will do so long as it is not built in Adelaide. The rumour circulating last year (or maybe even the year before, I can't remember exactly) was that WA elements were actively lobbying to close down ASCs Adelaide operations and transfer all maintenance activities to ASC West (or even BAE but that's another story).
The same line of thought also almost saw the government blindly ordering Cape class PBs to replace the Armidales and the (former) minister indicating on a number of occasions that the RAN would be getting a class of "fast" light frigates, that sounded suspiciously like the Independence class LCS. Both options would have been built by Austal in WA (ironically by their imported Philippino welders) and boosted the states economy as the mining construction boom wound down.
Personally I believe we screwed the pooch by shutting down Cockatoo Island instead of privatizing it. Modernise the yard and drag the workforce and management into the present, as was done with Williamstown instead, and Australia could have had a world class yard building everything the RAN needed. It could have started with a second Durance class AOR then Australian FFGs, ANZACs, subs, PB/OPVs, AWDs and finally LHDs, enough work to keep the yard ticking along nicely and conveniently close to the main fleet base.
The same line of thought also almost saw the government blindly ordering Cape class PBs to replace the Armidales and the (former) minister indicating on a number of occasions that the RAN would be getting a class of "fast" light frigates, that sounded suspiciously like the Independence class LCS. Both options would have been built by Austal in WA (ironically by their imported Philippino welders) and boosted the states economy as the mining construction boom wound down.
Personally I believe we screwed the pooch by shutting down Cockatoo Island instead of privatizing it. Modernise the yard and drag the workforce and management into the present, as was done with Williamstown instead, and Australia could have had a world class yard building everything the RAN needed. It could have started with a second Durance class AOR then Australian FFGs, ANZACs, subs, PB/OPVs, AWDs and finally LHDs, enough work to keep the yard ticking along nicely and conveniently close to the main fleet base.
Newcastle is actually the least capable of the yards and (according to a former colleague of mine) literally has dirt floors in their building hall. Adelaide's Techport is the most modern and capable with the most room for expansion, Tenixs final bid for the AWDbuild included moving to Adelaide and building a facility at Techport.
While I believe, in hindsight, Tenix should have won the AWD build (and the FFG UP for that matter) and that Cockatoo, rather than Williamstown, should have been saved, privatised (whoops it was actually privately run but the facilities were government owned) and modernised to be our sole ship builder, the simple fact is we ( the tax payer) have spent billions setting up ASC and shutting them down now they are getting up to speed would be a criminal waste of money. We need to stop this crap of reinventing the wheel every decade or so based on which ever state has the most political capital at the time. Melbourne won out when the PM was from there, Adelaide when it had the ministers of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Finance then when WA had the same they came very close to getting a lot of work based on anything but merit. Actually Smith was from WA to and maybe that explains the hatchet job he did on ASC Adelaide setting up many of the current problems.
Last edited:
- Status