Thanks - that old reference is in my PDFs online. I'll spell out my interest again. The former PM 'asked for a report in the White Paper'. There was no report. I'm looking for such a thing as of early 2016 - after an investigation. That is my interest. Thanks again.
ta for the external ref
not all reports are available in the public domain
Sadly or not I'm not a subscriber to the FinReview so the text cannot be seen by me. And again I'm not interested in what forum contributors think on this issue - I'm after an official ADF explanation for their lack of interest in 'Bs on LHDs' about the time of the recent delayed White Paper. And going by the opening text of the cited URL I'm not too impressed by their quotes from the FinReview:
However there were no plans to cancel huh. As for what it costs I see any potential F-35B purchase in the last tranche of 28 'as yet to be decided' F-35s and envisage the RAAF operating them IF there are other uses in ADF conops for them when not required on an LHD - which may be not ever except for exercise purposes. Costs thus minimised with minimal cost to the RAN perhaps.
OH well - perhaps when the F-35 Senate Inquiry starts again we may get some idea: Joint Strike Fighter – Parliament of Australia
when I've been involved with Senate Estimates (as part of the Ministers support team), those "things" go to a closed session
If you don't care about what forums have to say about it, if you are interested only in an official ADF explanation, perhaps you should go looking for it.
Hilarious - IF you care to download my relevant PDFs you will see some considerable time has been devoted to obtaining information about these and other old RAN FAA history issues. I understand the frustration about the past explanations here and elsewhere. I'll repeat - as you have cited - I'm looking for the recent 'official ADF explanation' which may or may not be forthcoming ,as indicated by other posts today. Responses here have been interesting though.
Hilarious, that's good. Let me be more direct - have a month of free time to go looking for that answer. Maybe you'll develop a better conversational tone. Hopefully it'll be on display when you come back, if you care to.
Which is strange as they have the ability also plug the shipbuilding valley of death, maybe they will delay till after the OPV construction for anothe6-9 vessels along the Damen LST 80-120 design I hope.
Interesting, thought it was just discounted because of the US ban on exports
Gee I find that funny classified name change for waking up the PM, but really why do they have to change the name at all, is it just to keep someone in a job dreaming up all the name changes
nope, I was at an internal conf where SecDef said in the open that if there was a serious push to get the F-22 then he could not see Congress stopping it as Congress was historically partial to supporting Aust military requirements. I was one of over 350 people in that room, so it wasn't "just me" who heard him say it in the clear. Closed environment, not classified but only industry present (incl industry media) outside of ADO attendees.
nope, subtle change in other issues gathered up under that umbrella.
If you look at the USMC ARG/MEU construct it just dwarfs what we are able to effectively field.
6-9 LST ? Really?
Arrant nonsense. The two ships cost a total of $3.1 billion. Unless you mean to imply that converting them means buying two more ships.
They are ment to be a replacement for the original 8 Balikpapan class of which 2 were donated to PNG back in 75 and the replacements were stated to have a better ocean going performance than than LCH.
My sincerest apologies, that figure had been stated based on a new's article so not the smartest move. That said I did find the original publication that led to that article written by Ben Schreer on behalf of ASPI.