The AORs were a surprise, DSME were the frontrunners with a bespoke version of BMT's Aegir, but Navy/CoA took too long in specifying exactly what they wanted and the 6 month build slots Daewoo had available were no longer free. Therefor the Cantabria class "won" the tender
It almost sounds like they just draw selections out of a hat.
I knew the DSME option was liked but didn't know about the build slots. Thank you.
Not to stray too far politically, but virtually everything on that list was Gate 1 and Gate 2 approved by the previous government…
Approved, Yes. But how were the previous government going to pay for it?
Is it the RAN and Army "chopping and changing" every few years, or the RAN and Army being chopped & changed? Or put another way, is it that with changes in gov't, is/are the new gov'ts changing the RAN and Army focus of efforts?
You mean the budget the ALP allocated to defence, was somehow not going to be available to the other side?
Please let me know what you would have done differently…You mean the budget the ALP allocated to defence, was somehow not going to be available to the other side?
Please, only a child would believe that. Fantasy stories like this are part of why we avoid political discussion on the site.
Now back to why Army only needs 129x IFV’s please…
Grow a set and match rhetoric with dollars.
Please elaborate, I’m genuinely interested what people would do differently. ‘Just buy more’ doesn’t cut it.
What do expect from Army and Navy?
No arguments about the subs, but I've never agreed the Hunter can't carry more missiles, and recently news from BAE has vindicated me. Remove the multi mission space. Even if you add no Mk 41 VLS, a 13m x 21m (approx) space allows for a lot of deck mounted SM2's, ESSM's and NSM's. Just put an angled wall up for stealth on the sides, like the Taiwanese missile boat Tuo Chiang Class does.
The BAE rep at Indo-Pacific said they have developed modules with 16, 32 and 64 VLS that could be fitted to the Hunter instead of the Mission Bay, but did say 96 VLS would mean the loss of the Towed Array Sonar. A module with a 16 cell VLS would still leave an appreciable Mission Bay
Well Australia will certainly have many levels of ships. By around the mid 2030s it will have a mix of nuclear and conventional submarines, the surface combattants will consist of Hobarts, Hunters, Anzacs and a yet to be determined corvette and the patrol fleet could be a mix of Arafura's and Capes. Going into the 2040s you could see a new class of AWDs and of course the AUKUS subs added to that mix as well.
Not entirely true, from 96 to 99/2000 defence was actively cut. Timor triggered a review which saw some, but not all deferred capability back on the agenda.
Ok then - from day 1 Marles and Co have said we must have action now, now, now. We are now mid way through their second year in Government and next to nothing. All they have done is kick the can down the road and regularly roll out AUKUS as a sign of their support to Defence. Funny how we will not receive any hardware from AUKUS for another 10 years; however, we are supposedly living in the most uncertain times in the past 7 decades or so. Enough pussy footing around and start making some hard decisions! I am in my fifth decade in Defence have have enough of this and past Governments exhibiting all talk and no action.
Basic patrol duties don’t require a warship, but war-fighting does.
