This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by ThePuss
ABC News Story on the arrival Navy's newest ship ready for action - ABC News (Australian ...
great press but..................... reality check. for an Australian warshp, yes she is big. As a merchant ship the panamax box boats and aframax tankers in Botany are bigger (by quite a tonnage and size margin) but they are just not visible to the general public in an awareness sense.
Is the Captain of HMAS Choules an American import?
Previous CO of Sirius and Recruit school(way back when i went through)
There are a few Canadians around the fleet, PWOs find it easy to jump across, do a course here inbetween.
The majority of overseas personnel remains Ex-RN, who are scattered around. With our LHDs, the first AVN are all former RN who will be instructors and alike, to train us in a lot of their procedures for moving Aircraft around.
I met a Yank in the NZ Air force(who fly for the navy) who moved to NZ because in the US they dont fly as much after 35. He would rather move country then stop flying, which was impressive. but he did go from Seahawks to Seaspirtes...thats a downgrade.
Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.
Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.
Umm... Actually, the Collins-class has managed to impress a number of people AFAIK.
Remember, the USN within the last decade has/had basically leased a Swedish conventional sub for use as an OpFor. Something caused the USN to realize that against well handled conventional subs US ships were vulnerable in some circumstances.
/rant on
For whatever reason most people, including some posters here on DT apparently, only seem to remember the beatup pieces which have been appearing for years in regular Australian news outlets. For some reason those same people cannot remember any of the successes which have been claimed albeit quietly, with the Collins programme. What I find bothersome though, is that people here on DT who seem to remember the beatup pieces can never seem to remember the shyte quality and total ignorance exhibited in defence reporting as done by those same regular Australian news outlets. It is one thing for the average person to not realize that a particular journo does not know what they are talking about when they call something like a LAV or APC a 'tank'. However, for those who should know better, why should they give any more credence to what a journo reports on when they are slamming a particular programme or piece of kit, when the journo or media outlet has previously demonstrated ignorance of the topic? Why do people believe a 'bad' report when the person/people doing the reporting likely have no understanding of the information which they are in turn reporting to the public is 'bad'?
/rant off
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.
After reading a few posts here i was under the impression if we do buy an off the shelf 214 we will still have to spend alot of coin to get the acoustics right for Australian waters?
When you compare a 1600 ton sub to a 3000 ton sub ,were comparing apples with oranges here.How many 3000 ton subs has HDW built?
As for Collins, its to much of a political football,but i for one would build a Collins 2,as we know the thing like the back of our hand.Australia's problem is we had never built a sub before,but we have now,we should build on this capability.
The Collins has done well in war games with other country's so it must not be a complete dog!The US have praised it.
good grief, I assume you are referring to the mass media reports - as opposed to those on exercise in other navies who have been signularly impressed.
we've been over this nonsense so many times its not funny.
one of the things I repeatedly got from USN colleagues was the dismay about how hostile the local media was and how clueless the general public were, but how damned good they considered them to be, That wasn't people blowing smoke either, as they were senior enough to not a give a $hit whether they needed to be polite or civil to some bloke from Oz - and from a navy which they nicknamed the RAN the "US 7 and a 1/2 Fleet"
The reason why the US leased Gotland was because it was the mini-me version of the 471 but with AIP, so they wanted to see what it would be like against a different adversary, this was after repeatedly getting their hat handed to them in proscribed boxes where the defender has the advantage.
under different govts we could have sold on aspects of Collins tech to various countries who have recognised how good they are when on the job.
I expect more sensible analysis out of a forum like this than I do from idiots on youtube or those who write spam letters to various editors.
I'll let the industry def profs point out in their own worlds what has been achieved when compared to various other sub programs - and from countries where they build subs for a historical living.
the woulda coulda shoulda comments on going with a larger gernan sub would have been counterbalanced by the australian company that would have been prime. Having worked with the CEO of that company on various mech engineering projects both in Oz and overseas over the years - all I can say is we dodged a bullet.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Calling the ADA a "key" defence group is a bit rich. They may get plenty of play in the media desperate for defence commentators but have had no discernable impact in Canberra on defence issues. Since they are pushing for a nuclear submarine I can't see their track record changing for the better.
Also as to HDW offering the Type 216 compared to the Type 214 it kind of sinks the OTS Euro sub option being pushed around the place if OTS Euro sub builders are offering a different solution... Maybe they know something the pundits don't? Anyway all good stories for the slowest, least noticed week of the news year.
Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.
The problems with the Collins build would most likely have been replicated if the design agent was German rather than Swedish. Since the German offering was deficient in its ability to support the required level of combat system then there would have been bigger long term problems built into the design. Also the Swedish offer used more advanced ship design and build technology (CAD, etc) which made transferring technology easier.
I remain at a loss as to why you keep hanging around and posting in all the Australian themed threads when you constantly display how little you know about the subject matter. Are you really this thick or do you just enjoy trolling?
I realise that one of the biggest issues in this project will be the integration of the combat system with the chosen platform.
Is the HDW Type 216 - which might meet the specs for range and endurance - a serous contender, given that the combat system may possibly be an iteration of the existing Collins system?
Also as to HDW offering the Type 216 compared to the Type 214 it kind of sinks the OTS Euro sub option being pushed around the place if OTS Euro sub builders are offering a different solution... Maybe they know something the pundits don't?
Take note of that comment ! It speaks volumes of where we really are and the level of crap in the current media. If the builder of the "best" (and I use that loosely) conventional submarine feel that they have to offer and un-proven, un-built and un-tested platform as an offer to their "proven" platform, they know their systems do not stand up to what is required.
Take note of that comment ! It speaks volumes of where we really are and the level of crap in the current media. If the builder of the "best" (and I use that loosely) conventional submarine feel that they have to offer and un-proven, un-built and un-tested platform as an offer to their "proven" platform, they know their systems do not stand up to what is required.
Toby, seriously ? Do I need to say more ?
Why do you believe the HDW Type 216 design won't do the job when it hasn't been revealed yet? I hear from my US naval submariner friends that they are impressed with the German Type 214 submarines they have seen. Finally, any new Australian designed submarine is unproven, unbuilt, and untested as well. When it comes to the bottom line, it appears buying a submarine from a source with much more submarine knowledge and expertise for a fourth of the price may be a better option. A video of the German Type 212 which have not been exported.
I'm a little surprised that nobody seems to have noticed the lifting of the Japanese arms export ban the day before yesterday. The implications for Australia's future submarine programme are obvious. Japan has exactly the sort of submarines Australia wants, & co-development of a submarine with Australia is exactly the sort of programme that should pass the remaining (& still pretty stiff) Japanese restrictions.
So, when will the Australian government start talking to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries about an Australianised Sōryū derivative?
)
