I agree with you Goknub. Large quantities of supplies are cheaper to move by sea lift than by air lift.
..... not a lot of appetite to buy 2nd hand
As we all know Choules was an opportunity buy, no other options at the time unless they went with more second hand US hand me downs. But we would not have been in that position if it wasn't penny pinching from goverment, could have bought new Whidbey Island class LPD for the eventual price of Bill and Ben
The issue wasn't the concept or even the execution, it was the fact that we were unable to secure the initially selected hulls and had to make do with what was left. As I understand it the initial selection was made by a large and capable team specifically assembled for the job where the subsequent team were apparently not as well resourced.
While the Victoria/Upholder buy can hardly be deemed a success, it has at least kept the RCN in the sub business. I have always believed the RCN likely knew the subs were not in great shape but if they passed on them Chretien would have ended the RCN's sub capability. I would like to think that RCN senior officers and DND bureaucrats are constantly reminding the pollies how important submarine capability is for Canada, especially in the Arctic. Hopefully when the time comes for renewal, the pollies will be in the loop.
It was initially hoped to sell Collins class boats to Canada and NZ, in addition to the eight the RAN needed. As it was Australia only ordered six at a time strategic assessments were actually indicating that eight may no have been sufficient and ten was the minimum with twelve prefered, i.e. a second squadron.While the Victoria/Upholder buy can hardly be deemed a success, it has at least kept the RCN in the sub business. I have always believed the RCN likely knew the subs were not in great shape but if they passed on them Chretien would have ended the RCN's sub capability. I would like to think that RCN senior officers and DND bureaucrats are constantly reminding the pollies how important submarine capability is for Canada, especially in the Arctic. Hopefully when the time comes for renewal, the pollies will be in the loop.
You can be sure people here will be closely watching how the French meet Australian requirements and their own nuke program. A successful Australian/French sub collaboration IMHO would be a primer contender for a future RCN sub replacement. Both conventional and nuclear options might be considered in the future. Unless there is significant improvement in battery technology, I still feel nuclear is the best solution for under ice operation.
Perhaps now it is an opportunity for Canada to join the Sea 1000 program? ASC could build some of modules and Canada can do the final assembly. Wishful thinking I know.
Just wondering if RAN can just build the boat shell for Taiwan and they can do their own combat system fit-out - Taiwan can employ US companies like LM or Raytheon to install a combat system and integrate all the sensors they choose. In this case, we won't have to worry about the ITAR issues.
nope. I worked for a sig mgt company in early 2000, we had the taiwanese approach us for access to an export version of Collins and/or capability
There are rumors that Taiwan is hiring ex engineers and staffs from RDM, may be some retired/sacked ASC personals can do the same.
True other option's where actually available, however nothing in the price/capbility/age range is probably a better statement.
choules was a "goldilocks" purchase
Yep, we got her, based initial certification on her RFA operating parameters and manuals, agreeing to operate her as the RFA had until we completed the RAN acceptance process. At this point she headed out of Sydney for workup with the green people onboard (training cadre) who had her run well outside specified parameters while simulating breakdowns by repeatedly throwing the main breakers until one of the main switch boards blew up, putting her out of service for months. :hitwall
Yeah, she was the best option at the time. Foudre has a great big dock but that wasn't needed, & as you say, she's old, & a Makassar would have needed tarting up a lot & would still have been inferior in many respects. Only real drawback of Largs Bay was the lack of a proper hangar..
The Type 26 might be in for a rough go in the UK as well considering the fallout from Brexit and the renewed Scottish independence issue.
Australia's frigate requirement is for 9 hulls and the UK's for 8. I don't think the RAN would want to be lead customer for the Type 26 (and the associated risks that involves) so that reduces the field of contenders to the Italian FREMM or a modified Navantia F 104/5.
The last few posts on the RN thread have a link to a UK parliamentary committee meeting regarding the Type 26 status and also on the Type 45's IEP system problems.
I do wonder why hasn't RCN jumped onboard and joined the RAN's Sea 5000 program.