Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Ansat-U_taking_off_2.jpg

Ansat-U_taking_off_1.jpg

Ansat-U_taking_off.jpg

KAMAZ-65225.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





RN/RAN capabilities + RAN procurement

This is a discussion on RN/RAN capabilities + RAN procurement within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler Another nonsense contribution. Tobruk was not to replace Sydney but rather to replace John Monash. ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 2.00 average.
Old January 13th, 2012   #76
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 946
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Another nonsense contribution. Tobruk was not to replace Sydney but rather to replace John Monash. Sydney would have been over 50 years old in 1999 and would have sunk if hit by a wave so of little use to anyone.

Of course being an expert in Australian defence policy you would have known all about Jervis Bay (ex Australian Trader) and how it was to be replaced by the THSS which in turn was reduced from a purpose build LPD to two second hand USN LSTs that were too broken down for service in East Timor.



Nice try at trolling.
An Ocean class LPH to replace Sydney would have been a nice fit had we gone ahead with the Invincible buy.

I have mentioned it previously, a naval arch from Cockatoo told me some time ago that post Falklands the UK was interested in getting us to build a repeat pair of Tobruks (to their specs) for the RN in exchange for them building an Invinsible to our spec for the RAN. The idea being to utilise hot (in production) yards to build the required ships at the greatest efficiency. Haven't actually read anything on this just this guys recollections but it sounds like ti would have been a sweet deal.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2012   #77
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,215
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)

From memory it was under Kim Beasley watch looking for cheap alternative, years ago I was talking to one of the people who did the inspection and the report was very damning at the time of the condition of the ships. They advised government not go with them.
What happened is the RAN went to cabinet in 92 or 93 with a proposal to replace Jervis Bay and Tobruk with a new build THSS the spec of which was about the same as the Dutch/Spanish LPDs. Since it would cost around $500m cabinet said no go find something second hand or cheaper. Which of course lead to the LPA debacle. Ironically costing the same, taking longer and delivering less capability.

To keep the idioms rolling: spend now, save later

But back to HMAS Sydney as a fast transport she was replaced by HMAS Jervis Bay (GT 203, ex MV Australian Trader).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Jervis_Bay_(GT_203)
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 AM.