Isn't it always?In other words, it will be a political decision.
Isn't it always?In other words, it will be a political decision.
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.Isn't it always?
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.....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.
Check out Asia Pacific Defence Reporter September 2014.....article goes some way to explaining (if not justifying) the costings.However, the excessive cost for 10 aircraft ($1.4 billion) was never explained, and the decision not to go to tender (potentially) cost the taxpayer at least $200-$300 million. The total cost of that project (Air 8000 Ph 2) should never had exceed $1.1 billion.
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.Presumably everyone knew that RAAF had already made their decision and that is why the cost was inflated by the manufacturer.
That appears to be the other side of the coin in the purchase decisions some years ago to buy ARH Tiger and MRH-90. It was presumably an attempt to get the US manufacturers to not be complacent in competition and have better costs of purchase in the future. We probably all wish that we had gone for other than a European "solution".
$200-300 million would be very useful spent in a number of other areas, especially by army.
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.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.
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?I would still like to see the ADF procure the Sierra to replace the remaining Blackhawks for SOF support.
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 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?
https://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/royal-australian-navy-discussions-updates-5905-854/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.
This from Navantia; 9th launched of 12 in November lasthttps://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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.good grief, that was a waste of good download space
Just out of interest which design do you guys think will be chosen, early days I know.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.
This one is a good read too, it need subscription access though.
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.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.