If you want to make a political statement then choose another forum.
If you want to add to this discussion then say something about the ship or an alternative idea you may have.
Your offering above is worthless.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
If you want to add to this discussion then say something about the ship or an alternative idea you may have.
Your offering above is worthless.
Jack Wyatt
Member
Insofar as this initiative is concerned, it is reported that "Mr Pyne did not disclose how much it would cost nor where and when it would be built. But it would be a new vessel" It doesn't appear to be well thought out, perhaps policy on the run,.
As for my earlier comments, I am happy to include only Defence related comments if the same standards apply to all. I await your similar post to John Newman.
@Jack Wyatt Just to reinforce Assails comments, politics aren't tolerated on the forum and when another poster such as John Newman does so, it is usually within the context of a post regarding a specific defence related discussion. So don't come the raw prawn at Assail when he politely corrects you or one of the Moderators may consider doing the haka on you.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I agree with ASSAIL that your post was worthless and didn't add to the debate, and I wasn't going to bother and reply, but as you've 'named' me as an excuse for your worthless comments, then lets go....
There is a vast difference between my comments and yours, yours was exclusively to give the current Government a kicking (basically a political rant) and nothing else.
I made the point that under the current political climate (a new PM and an election only six months away), that it would be smart politics to also build the proposed ship here in Oz, and 'if' built here in Oz there were infrastructure limitations as to the size of the proposed ship and where it could be built, I also said that if built overseas the ship could be any size and configuration, the only limit was money.
Your comment was purely a cheap political shot at the current Government and nothing else, see the difference??
Anyway, I'll let the Mods make a decision either way!!!
Well if its a new ship, I hope they have an interim plan.
Maybe this was always the plan for LCH replacements, which are meant to be in the water 2022..
But China isn't building their mercy ship.. Its already operating. China is also less reliant on the Mercy ship, because unlike a lot of the Australian funded pacific nation construction projects which has been absolute disasters, for a variety of reasons.
Hows the Hospital building at Lae (Manus) going. Last I heard they were re-tendering. This is as PNG, which Australia has the strongest and deepest relationship with. The project had run out of money.
I'm not against China building and investing in the pacific, but we really need to get our act together. Quickly.
Maybe this was always the plan for LCH replacements, which are meant to be in the water 2022..
But China isn't building their mercy ship.. Its already operating. China is also less reliant on the Mercy ship, because unlike a lot of the Australian funded pacific nation construction projects which has been absolute disasters, for a variety of reasons.
Hows the Hospital building at Lae (Manus) going. Last I heard they were re-tendering. This is as PNG, which Australia has the strongest and deepest relationship with. The project had run out of money.
I'm not against China building and investing in the pacific, but we really need to get our act together. Quickly.
Jack Wyatt
Member
It was the comment about Shorten which irritates, which you well know. In fact, a significant number of your posts contain anti Labor sentiment which I have not commented upon in the past. This is the first time you have been called to account for it. Keep your conservative views off the forum.
4. Do not disrespect anyone on this board-whether you disagree with them or agree with them. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.
18. Discussion of politics is prohibited apart from that which is directly involved with or impacts defense matters, like procurement and budgetary decisions.
27.Do not ignore requests, recommendations or requirements from the Moderator Team.
29. If members have an issue or concern about a post, use the Report function on the post and/or PM a member of the Mod team.
18. Discussion of politics is prohibited apart from that which is directly involved with or impacts defense matters, like procurement and budgetary decisions.
27.Do not ignore requests, recommendations or requirements from the Moderator Team.
29. If members have an issue or concern about a post, use the Report function on the post and/or PM a member of the Mod team.
Any more of this attitude you will be sanctioned by the Moderators.
I think the Left cops general criticism on this forum because Generally, they reduce spending on defence and use defence as a source of funds for pet projects. There are exceptions but when these have occurred forum members have been equally critical, the Howard govt in Oz comes to mind as do some Conservative governments in the UK.
When this run down in Defence occurs it’s not outside the rules here to criticise on that basis but personal and specific barbs are not.
Sorry ngati, was writing this as you posted
Don't apologise because it is fair comment and don't forget the Kiwi pollies of both left and right cop a fair amount of criticism as well. If I was to post what I really think of pollies I'd probably be the first Mod banned for eternity and Preceptor would be using at least three ban hammers at once.
Jack Wyatt
Member
Thanks for your advice. I am happy to accept the warning.
I don't post here very often but I am an avid follower of this forum with immense interest in our Navy and ADF in general.
But I hate it when political jargon enters this forum and overtakes the usually very informative posts.
Imagine in this political climate either One Nation or the Greens got power, Pauline would want nukes and the Greens would sell the navy for a dozen Rainbow Warriors.
Back on the Navy, anyone have any idea how Nuship Sydney is progressing and how Hobart and Brisbane are going in the trials, when could we expect FOC?
Chris
But I hate it when political jargon enters this forum and overtakes the usually very informative posts.
Imagine in this political climate either One Nation or the Greens got power, Pauline would want nukes and the Greens would sell the navy for a dozen Rainbow Warriors.
Back on the Navy, anyone have any idea how Nuship Sydney is progressing and how Hobart and Brisbane are going in the trials, when could we expect FOC?
Chris
With regards to the decision making of the picking of the Collins class or as Kim at the time roughly said because it was from a good socialist country ,there was a lot of involvement from the U.S.N in helping this project survive because the skills did mot exist locally
Thanks for the post and experience.
As you say the ability to project to shore is important.
Does that mean the ship should have a docking well and therefore be of sufficient size to accommodate such a design.
Or is the old hang the landing craft over the side approach still sufficient and mate to the rear ramp of the ship to load /unload.
Thoughts
Regards S
Sydney is on schedule; trials are due to start in the early part of next year. The build quality looks good. FOC is not due for sometime after she is delivered.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Hobart has been to San Diego recently to do the USN Destroyer qualifications then done some work off Hawaii in conjunction with the USN for CEC qualifications so must be getting close to FOC. Brisbane has only just commissioned so probably has at least 12 months in front of her(including a San Diego Trip). Sydney is due to commission late next year. All depends a lot on if any problems have been uncovered with the Hobart especially during San Diego qualifications that have to be rectified.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect the question is very dependent on both the size and quantities of the goods/stores a vessel like this would be planned to lift and move. If the expectation would be for a HADR/hospital ship to land pallets of relief supplies (food, water, medical supplies, etc.) then one method might work. OTOH if the vessel was also anticipated to land vehicles to start or aide relief efforts (like heavy construction equipment, ambulances, etc.) then a well dock might very well be required.
Some assumptions I would make regarding a well dock, is that a hospital/HADR ship would not have quite the same requirements in terms of quantity for landing craft when compared with the Canberra-class LHD's, as the hospital/HADR ship would be a non-combatant, and would be utilized in much more benign security environments. This would in turn suggest that the ship could anchor much closer to shore than one of the LHD's might, so the round trip transit times for landing craft should be shorter. In addition since the vessel would be providing humanitarian assistance, as opposed to landing troops which might quick become engaged by hostiles, IMO there would be less pressure to land larger "waves" of personnel and resources, since there would (should?) be little concern a landed platoon or troop would be surrounded, engaged and/or overrun.
As a side note though, it would probably be a good idea for decisions to be made regarding what the actual focus of the vessel would be. A dedicated hospital ship would absolutely be useful for Australia to have in the event of a hostile situation, as well as in the event of a natural disaster or epidemic/pandemic, and during periods without emergencies involving Australia proper, could be used as a "goodwill" ship visiting Pacific islands to support local medical facilities. However, a dedicated hospital ship would not have the same capacity requirements for logistics that a more general HADR-type vessel would likely have, instead replacing at least some of that space and displacement with permanently mounted hospital beds, wards, surgical theatres and diagnostic/laboratory equipment.
Before youmake such assumptions, it might be worth wondering where the money for an entirely dedicated non combatant ship would come from, in an environment where excess funds are not rolling in.
Personally, I wouldn't want the government spending a cent on any ship without considering its utility in the event that a "soft war" being conducted to win hearts and minds turns into an outright conflict with hearts and minds in the path of bullets. Sure, buy a ship which fills whatever humanitarian brief is required, but ensure that if things go pear shaped it can become a proper naval asset.
It might also be worthwhile advertising that fact on Theodore Roosevelt's principle "Speak softly but carry a big stick" - practical aid for our allies now, and a promise of force in their defence if need be
oldsig
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Here's a list of Australian shipyards (not very many active):
List of Australian shipyards - Wikipedia
But realistically the only two yards that would be worth investing in for enlargement would be Osborne SA and Henderson WA, the max displacement of these two yards is somewhere between 10,000t and 12,000t.
Here's a repeat of the links I put up a few pages back:
Henderson PDF:
https://www.australianmarinecomplex...ine-files/1.1-AMCCUF-eBrochure_2016_Web_0.pdf
Osborne PDF:
https://www.asc.com.au/assets/downloads/CD4067_ShipbuildingCapability_A4_4pp_CMYK_ƒ_LR_FINAL.pdf
Osborne upgrade:
Henderson upgrade:
Cheers,
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think Australia should just concentrate on getting World Class at building Surface Combatants and Submarines and then down the road designing our own and not get distracted with 1 or 2 off builds of large Auxiliaries and Amphibs. Maybe one day but the Subs & Frigate programmes need to be in full swing with Hulls in the water first.
- Status