Not spefically what you are after, but in the below search it highlights Government receiving "unsolicited" proposal from Navantia, 3rd result down, and many many others, happy reading
Cheers
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Cheers
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Post deleted working now
Last edited:
works fine for me
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Just to be clearNot spefically what you are after, but in the below search it highlights Government receiving "unsolicited" proposal from Navantia, 3rd result down, and many many others, happy reading
Cheers
#4 is for the 2 Stalwart class AORs.
#7 is the F-5000 derivative of the Hobart design for project Sea 5000
Last edited:
el Cid
New Member
The video i posted from News Australia states growing support within the navy for 3 new Hobarts, and is dated 30 of august, that is 4 months later than the comments Noonan from 1st of april.
Last edited:
There is nothing in that clip which indicates that Australia approached Navantia.
You held your mouth wrong.
For your information Sky News Australia is not regarded as a reputable source. They are highly political.
I strongly suggest that you read what other posters are saying. You do not seem to understand Australian requirements and its geography. AS such have a look at a map of Australia and at a map of the Pacific Ocean.
Numerous posters have replied to your posts pointing out the errors within them and trying to give you some guidance. However you have appear to ignore this and apparently are fixated upon one thing. To the Moderators you are beginning to look like a troll and we do not tolerate trolls on here.
el Cid
New Member
You dont know how to moderate a forum, nor any of the moderators.
Aardvark144
Active Member
All the video alludes to is that there was an appetite for the three ships and that should the offer be approved, then the Navy would be endeavouring to acquire them as soon as possible. You seem to be unwilling to let go of your the notion that Australia approached Navantia not the other way around - does it really matter? It has always been known that the Navantia offer was unsolicited and was/is considered by the Government. Unless you can provide firm documentary evidence of the Commonwealth Government requesting an offer be made then perhaps we need to move on. BTW after posting I have just read your response to Staff Member - be very careful.
Last edited:
el Cid
New Member
I think there should be some complicity between Navantia and Ran for making the budget, because the new Hobarts should include australanized equipment, the combat system, the electronic warfare, etc, if Navantia doesnt have the data from the Ran they cant put a detailed offer on the price.
This is the best moderated forum I have seen, on any topic. Fair, patient to a point, but zero tolerance for continued BS.
I would suggest you apologise immediately if you would like to continue to post here.
el Cid
New Member
It is true, only says they will review the offer. But there is a channel in Spain called Ruyman Garcia with good record of making eco about news, and he said Albanese came to Madrid to make the petition, so someone somewhere in the media published it was Australian initiative. Noonan said in 1st of april that they dont contemplate to buy more Hobarts, but 4 months later it is published they are review the offer and there is growing support.
Also time has passed and australian government hasnt said anything on the offer.
El Cid has received a months holiday.
A reminder to be courteous at all times, no one liners, and don't present media speculation as fact. Oh, and don't poke the mods.
A reminder to be courteous at all times, no one liners, and don't present media speculation as fact. Oh, and don't poke the mods.
....... I am struggling really really hard not to be a smart ass here and poke you
Smart arsery aside in regards to the various topics discussed over the last couple months for the RAN..
- BAE Strix - Definitely worth looking as a medium/long term solution. It has a lot of benefits compared to similar tasked UAV's, At bare minimum I would advocate for a program for this similar to the MQ-28, but we should be mindful of development time vs immediate/future needs if we can wait/need them now/ what is available now and how long it would take to acquire something interim.
- Navantia - Pretty well covered by all, Im just glad I missed most of the family arguments. Much as we will likely need an interim solution due to failure in government on both sides in the past getting what would essentially be a unique ship class that comes with all the issues of the Hobarts is not the solution. For ships an interim solution only works if its A. Already in the water or B. off a hot production line, Perhaps even leasing/joint crewing some ships say from the US? Yes I know that would likely bring with it it's own set of drama in regards to operation's, law's command etc but just thinking outside the box. Do with surface combatants what we are doing with the SSN's
- In regards to the review.... well all we can do is hope for the best... which mostly comes down to government listening and every successive government following the plan.......
I've seen people complaining because the UK's River class OPVs aren't armed to the teeth. While I can see arguments for a slightly bigger gun, the idea of fitting them with SAMs, anti-ship missiles & the like worries me. They've successfully taken over tasks which were previously done by frigates, & for which the frigates didn't need the weapons they have in excess of those the Rivers have.
Which, if implemented, would push up their cost & crew requirements, leaving less money & fewer crew for the frigates, so you'd get fewer of them.
I'll have to dig it out but Brown in one of his books outlined how increasing the capability of a "disposable" platform causes it to cross a threshold where it is no longer a disposable platform. This then requires its survivability and durability to be improved, further increasing cost, and requiring greater investment in selfdefence.
Returning to an idea originly floated by Volk, do a program similar to the SSN deal........ Hobarts is not the solution. For ships an interim solution only works if its A. Already in the water or B. off a hot production line, Perhaps even leasing/joint crewing some ships say from the US? Yes I know that would likely bring with it it's own set of drama in regards to operation's, law's command etc but just thinking outside the box. Do with surface combatants what we are doing with the SSN's
- In regards to the review.... well all we can do is hope for the best... which mostly comes down to government listening and every successive government following the plan.......
Build one Burke in US with some Aust workers of various levels included.
Set up a line in WA to produce another five ships at a two year drumbeat.
The final three being direct replacements for the Hobarts.
If you also keep the Hunters on track you will end up with 15 MFU.
9 Hunters and 6 Burkes.
This is not a short term solution and yet it will still put a massive demand on retention and requitment.
This isn’t the worst idea. My main question is why would they be built in WA and not SA? Is Osbourne maxed out?
I think there are significant economies of scale available from having all MFU production at one site if possible.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
One thing though, is we have no real option but the path we have taken for the SSNs, we do have other options for building Burkes or Burke derivatives. The US is in no better shape for exporting Burkes than they are for Virginia's, but South Korea is at least and possibly Japan.