As for the ship's Volk mentioned.. Your looking at $2b+ USD just to buy them not including purchase of LCAC's, facility upgrades, extra crew's and the political and civil back lash for some ship's that would be seen as only being of use to invade another country with the entire 1st division.
If a conflict comes that requires that much shipping capability for our forces then the time has come that the government wouldn't care about any backlash in Tasmania and actually go and requisition the half dozen or so largish RoRo's operating between Tasmania and NZ.
It's also all well and good to say back in the 90's you and your mates were talking about getting the stuff that we are now getting or have in the pipe line but they are differing circumstances. Back then the ADF was extremely underfunded with the cold war wound up so Governments less willing to spend to get what we need, Now they are spending to get what we need does not mean we need more again. By that argument you could go from getting the Canberra class to getting the America class to getting the QE class carriers to getting a Gerald R Ford class carrier all because each one is a step up, regardless of what we actually need and can use.
You've just doubled the price! And only useful for invading other countries? I hope you washed your hands considering where you must have pulled that from.
Seriously some of you are apparently totally incapable of thinking outside the square. Do any of you have the slightest idea how many existing ADF assets and capabilities could actually be made more effective by such a platform, army operated LCM 8s for instance could actually be deployed usefully on HADR operations from such ships.
Add in the proposed littoral capabilities the ADF wants to develop, how do you think they will be deployed if the current LHD/LPD force is only large enough for the ARG? Yes the ships it can multitask but they can still only do one job at a time and if the are loading up with the ARG to support a regional ally then wouldn't that be the same sort of circumstances that we would be desiring to move all our other new gear into place as well?
My point wasn't about fan bois having a chat in the 90s it was about young defence professionals discussing matters with senior defence professionals in an informal setting and the fact that so many of the things that were discussed have come to pass, despite armchair experts saying they were unjustified, unaffordable and would never happen. The fact you do not comprehend what I am suggesting, as your response clearly shows you don't, does not make me wrong.
From where I sit the arguments you and oldsig are making are the same as those made by others in the 90s, we don't currently have/do this, therefore we will never have/do this, because if we needed to have do this we would already have/do it. plus the usual (pluck random exaggerated figure from where the sun don't shine) it costs too much, we cant afford it, we don't have the crews blah blah blah. Exactly the same sort arguments that were posted on here opposed to the idea of twelve subs, nine 6000t plus multirole frigates and OPVs to replace the Armidales, prior to the DWP confirming all of the above as pretty much both NLP and ALP policy.
I am not saying that Australia will acquire T-ESD, T-ESB, T-AKE or CVH/DDH for that matter, what I am saying is it is worth, in these challenging and changing times, looking at more than just repeating the procurement decisions of the past two decades and automatically discounting anything that we haven't done before or for more than twenty years. How many of our current capabilities would not exist today if the then decision makers and their advisors were as narrow minded as some on here.
