Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
7

76mmGuns

Active Member
Yeah, I spotted the 24, not 16 mk41 cells too. Still, I think it's odd that the RAN is not giving a number on this. Its Usually in the specs of all missile armed ships, and it's the first thing guys look for... How many missiles does it carry.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
hauritz said:
Actually I am the opposite. The more I read about the Karel Doorman the less I like the idea of this sort of ship.

In the short term, I would prefer a third Supply class. There is little doubt in my mind that we need a third AOR and we know the capabilities and costs of this ship. It is the lowest risk option.

In the longer term we can look at the options available for replacing the Choules.
Click to expand...
Mate, I pretty much agree with your points, the question of a 3rd AOR and/or additional LPD (or LSD if you prefer) have popped up here from time to time (and will no doubt continue), and we've all put our two cents worth in from time to time too.

As the 'plan' stands at the moment (2016 DWP and 2016 DIIP), we've got construction of the two new Supply class AORs well underway in Spain.

* The DIIP has a budget allowance of $200m-$300m (2017-2023) for upgrades/sustainment of Choules until she is due to be replaced around 2030.

* The DIIP also states that it provides for the replacement of Choules around 2030 (but there doesn't appear to be a budget figure as yet, the start of funding is outside the 10 year scope of the 2016 DIIP).

* Then there is the big question mark, an allowance of $1b-$2b (2024-2030) for the 3rd AOR or 2nd LPD.

The big unknown of course is what future Governments are going to do, eg, maintain funding at the current planned levels of 2% of GDP (or increase or cut), and if future DWPs and DIIPs follow the current path or are altered dramatically, for better or worse.


So what would I do if I had the power to make it all happen? (And I'm trying to be very realistic in regard to Dollars available, etc), can the RAN have its cake and eat it too? Can it have both ships?

For the 3rd AOR, it would appear to be a pretty risk free procurement option, assuming both of the new Supply class ships enter service, pass sea trials, etc, and reach FOC in the early 2020s, then ordering that 3rd ship would pretty well align with the dates already proposed in the DWP.

The interesting thing is cost, from memory the contract with Navantia for the construction of the two Supply class ships is approx $640m, or $320m each, and with a budget allowance of between $1b-$2b for the possible 3rd AOR, maybe there is also some room to afford the 2nd LPD too?

If on the other hand the RAN saw the 2nd LPD as a priority over the 3rd AOR, but still wanted additional tanker capability, then the obviously solution would be to keep the relatively young Sirius in service (or maintained ready reserve), 2 x AOR and 1 x AO is still a reasonable result.


As to the RANs amphibious lift capabilities, I've said before (in previous posts on this subject) that I believe the thing that is missing is 'balance'.

And I've also said before, as an example, if you look at the RAAFs Air Mobility Group (AMG), they have C-17A, KC-30A, C-130J-30, C-27J, King Air 350s (plus the 5 airframes in the VIP fleet), pretty much an airframe solution for whatever is required, or a combination of airframes, very large to very small and all in between too.

Whilst in the last decade the lift capabilities of the RAN have dramatically changed and significantly increased in ship size and displacement, I don't think the balance is right. We've got the 2 x LHDs and 1 x LPD at one end (nothing in the middle, no LCH) and the LCM-1Es and Army watercraft at the other end, the LCMs and watercraft are going nowhere without the big ships at the top, it's all or nothing!


Going back to the DIIP, Choules will be upgraded and maintained to operate up until around 2030 (and planned to be replaced one for one) and of course the funding for the potential 2nd AOR or 3rd LPD too.

Interestingly too, lets not forget that Choules is one of eight ships currently in service based on the Damen Enforcer design (2 x Netherlands, 2 x Spain, 3 x UK and 1 x Australia), all eight ships entering service between 1998 and 2007.

Assuming that all four nations are looking at replacements for their respective capabilities, there might well be an opportunity for all four nations to work together on replacements (again based on a common design).

As it stands at the moment, the obvious starting point would be an evolution of the Netherlands Johan de Witt, her overall dimensions, displacement, capabilities, etc, are similar to Choules, but with the addition of more significant hangar storage.

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf

Ships of this size are NOT going to be built here in OZ, the infrastructure is not there, and the frequency of future replacements does not appear to warrant that sort of investment in infrastructure too.

I would imagine that if we went back to our friends at Navantia we could probably get a good deal on both the 3rd AOR and two LPD projects too.

The last piece of the puzzle for me is the current lack of replacement of the LCH capability, the capability in the middle between the large LHDs and LPD and the small LCMs and Army watercraft.

My suggested solutions would be along the lines of this:

https://products.damen.com/-/media/.../Product_Sheet_Landing_Ship_Transport_120.pdf

I would imagine that the facilities at Henderson, in WA, will be more than capable of constructing LST 120s, replacement LCM and Army watercraft alongside the various other current and future projects.

Can the RAN have its cake and eat it too? Maybe? Hopefully yes!

Anyway, as usual, just my opinion of course!

Cheers,

(PS, sorry for the very verbose and long winded post, had a lot of wind today, must have been all the Anzac Day drinks!!)
 
M

Massive

Well-Known Member
Traveller said:
In relation to points and questions in this thread I found a series reflecting on naval logistics from the Army perspective. Given part of the logistics demand is to support Army, I thought it pertinent to post the links.

A three part Army perspective
Click to expand...
With all due respect to Colonel O'Sullivan, I don't find this argument particularly coherent.

In the end it feels as if the RAN needs 3 AOR and 3 LHD to deliver the amphibious support the Army needs.

IMHO this would need to be supported by a number of logistics ships similar to the Point class for sustainment.

The argument for two Karel Doorman isn't really made.

Regards,

Massive
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Massive said:
With all due respect to Colonel O'Sullivan, I don't find this argument particularly coherent.

In the end it feels as if the RAN needs 3 AOR and 3 LHD to deliver the amphibious support the Army needs.

IMHO this would need to be supported by a number of logistics ships similar to the Point class for sustainment.

The argument for two Karel Doorman isn't really made.

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
Agree with you about his argument for two Karel Doorman, however logistics, or the lack of, are the difference between winning and losing wars.

The main reason that the Japanese were beaten in WW2 was their lack of logistics and their failure to successfully interdict the allied SLOC in the Pacific. Despite their early advances and victories the Japanese forces did not have sufficient logistics capability to support all of those forces. The IJA logistics organisation was based around rail heads, mostly in China facing north towards Russia, who they saw as the main enemy, and still did for most of the war. They had their own ships for troop transport and cargo, because they were always at war on two fronts; with enemies of the Japanese Empire and with the IJN. Sometimes it was difficult to figure out who was the main enemy. The IJA wasn't keen on a Pacific war cause in their eyes Russia was the main threat and they were fully orientated towards that threat, plus it was an "adventure" being promoted by the IJN. They came onboard late and never really got their logistics train up and running, mainly because they'd never planned properly for such a war.

The USN submarine fleet decimated the Japanese merchant fleet, hence removing any substantial Japanese logistical ability to support forces outside of China and the Home Islands. If the IJN had followed their Kreigsmarine counterparts submarine strategy and used their submarine forces more effectively, then the war in the Pacific may have taken a different path. However the Japanese biggest mistake was the attack on Pearl Harbour before the official declaration of war was delivered and that fault lies in their embassy in Washington.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Perhaps another mistake by the IJN was believing the raid on Pearl harbour and other other countries would force those countries to negotiate ,there did not appear to be planning if this did not evolve ,America had previously wargamed this that the nazi threat would be attended to first ,
Imperial Japans reason for war were the sanctions brought on by its activities in China if instead of attacking the U.S it instead seized Malaysia with its strategic oil and rubber the U.S would more likely not responded .
Admiral Yamamoto did not believe Japan was capable of a long war with the U.S and could only be confident of a short engagement on even terms and was against the tripartite pack with nazi Germany , it was certainly Tojo and the army factions with a very unreal perspective of the world that led to a series of dooming events for Japan
 
M

Massive

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
Agree with you about his argument for two Karel Doorman, however logistics, or the lack of, are the difference between winning and losing wars
Click to expand...
No argument here.

My sense is that to land and then support the ARG there is a need for a fair bit more than 3 LHD.

Really depends how much resources the ADF wants to allocate to doing so - this is my point about the Point class - I feel the RAN is in good shape to put the force ashore, just not clear that there would be sufficient sealift to supply it once it is there.

My minimum amphibious/sealift fleet would be something like:

3 LHD
3 Sealift
3 LCH

Regards,

Massive
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
Agree with you about his argument for two Karel Doorman, however logistics, or the lack of, are the difference between winning and losing wars.

The main reason that the Japanese were beaten in WW2 was their lack of logistics and their failure to successfully interdict the allied SLOC in the Pacific. Despite their early advances and victories the Japanese forces did not have sufficient logistics capability to support all of those forces. The IJA logistics organisation was based around rail heads, mostly in China facing north towards Russia, who they saw as the main enemy, and still did for most of the war. They had their own ships for troop transport and cargo, because they were always at war on two fronts; with enemies of the Japanese Empire and with the IJN. Sometimes it was difficult to figure out who was the main enemy. The IJA wasn't keen on a Pacific war cause in their eyes Russia was the main threat and they were fully orientated towards that threat, plus it was an "adventure" being promoted by the IJN. They came onboard late and never really got their logistics train up and running, mainly because they'd never planned properly for such a war.

The USN submarine fleet decimated the Japanese merchant fleet, hence removing any substantial Japanese logistical ability to support forces outside of China and the Home Islands. If the IJN had followed their Kreigsmarine counterparts submarine strategy and used their submarine forces more effectively, then the war in the Pacific may have taken a different path. However the Japanese biggest mistake was the attack on Pearl Harbour before the official declaration of war was delivered and that fault lies in their embassy in Washington.
Click to expand...
I remember reading somewhere years ago that when you combined the total tonnage of Tpt Ships, Vehicles and Aircraft delivering Logistics to the US Ground Forces in the Pacific and divided by the number of Combat Troops it came out at several Tons per Person. The Japanese worked out at several Kilos per Person. You can not win a conventional war with that sort of discrepancy.
 
K

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
vonnoobie said:
Being proactive in a realistic way, Has the Government and ADF ever thought about a similar concept to what the RFA has done with her Point class Ro/Ro's? Off hand Tasmania has always wanted and needed extra shipping across the Bass strait and even between Australia and NZ wouldnt go a miss. Hand full of Ro/Ro's and a container ship or two ADF owned but leased out for such services as is done with the Point class would mean we have such ships available should we ever truly need that capability.
Click to expand...
TT Line are building two new ferries for the Bass Strait which are significantly larger than the two Spirit of Tasmania vessels they operate today. There also used to be a roro service between Australian and New Zealand, it was run by the Union Steamship Company, the service ended in around 2000 or so.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Massive said:
No argument here.

My sense is that to land and then support the ARG there is a need for a fair bit more than 3 LHD.

Really depends how much resources the ADF wants to allocate to doing so - this is my point about the Point class - I feel the RAN is in good shape to put the force ashore, just not clear that there would be sufficient sealift to supply it once it is there.

My minimum amphibious/sealift fleet would be something like:

3 LHD
3 Sealift
3 LCH

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
Sustainment is key.

Not just of the ADF. It is also clear we would have to do a fair bit of lifting for our allies if we wanted their boots with us. Bit of growth, but not impossible. Probably won't happen in the immediate time frame. If you look at a 10 year plan to replace Choules with another LHD. Acquiring some medium sized LCH is going to be reasonable arguments to make.
 
M

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Massive said:
With all due respect to Colonel O'Sullivan, I don't find this argument particularly coherent.

In the end it feels as if the RAN needs 3 AOR and 3 LHD to deliver the amphibious support the Army needs.

IMHO this would need to be supported by a number of logistics ships similar to the Point class for sustainment.

The argument for two Karel Doorman isn't really made.

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
3 and 3 + auxiliaries sounds spot on. Karel Doorman seems like a nice halfway house for those who want a token amphibious capability, not the heavy duty one we appear to be working towards. I’m am also massively in favour of minimising the number of types within a fleet (of anything - ships, planes, helicopters, munitions, photocopiers) given the knock on procurement, training, maintenance and crewing inefficiencies from multiple types.

The auxiliaries part looks like it’s already ALP policy - see link:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ic-and-security-concerns-20190223-p50zta.html

And no I am not casting judgement on whether this is a good policy or not or which side is superior, but given an ALP victory appears probable any discussion of logistics capability should take this into account.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Morgo said:
3 and 3 + auxiliaries sounds spot on. Karel Doorman seems like a nice halfway house for those who want a token amphibious capability, not the heavy duty one we appear to be working towards. I’m am also massively in favour of minimising the number of types within a fleet (of anything - ships, planes, helicopters, munitions, photocopiers) given the knock on procurement, training, maintenance and crewing inefficiencies from multiple types.

The auxiliaries part looks like it’s already ALP policy - see link:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ic-and-security-concerns-20190223-p50zta.html

And no I am not casting judgement on whether this is a good policy or not or which side is superior, but given an ALP victory appears probable any discussion of logistics capability should take this into account.
Click to expand...
The big problem on both sides of the Tasman is that you have to look at why locally flagged shipping was deep sixed. High labour and compliance costs that made it very uneconomical to compete with foreign owned and flagged vessels operating on the same routes. It's a nice talking point to win votes but once in the Treasury benches will be forgotten as reality steps in, even though their union affiliates will not be impressed. Why didn't they do this during the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd governments if it was so important? Why didn't the Clark Labour govt do something similar in NZ when it held the Treasury benches and why hasn't the current Ardern led govt attempted something similar even to assuage it's union paymasters? I say paymasters, because the unions financially bailed out the NZ Labour Party after the last election due to it being heavily broke financially. They also hold considerable influence within the Party. It comes down to basic economics and neither country can afford to significantly subsidise such an industry.

It would be cheaper for both countries to invest in dedicated ships to achieve the required sealift for longer term sustainment. The vessels don't necessarily require to have all the bells and whistles as LHDs or even LPDs but they would be required to be able to load / unload LSTs / LCMs, undertake VERTREPS, RO/RO, and I would suggest having workshops for helo, vehicle and machine maintenance, plus possibly a hospital. Plenty of room for 20ft ISO containers and use small tugs and low trailers for moving the containers on / off the LSTs / LCMs., meaning that you don't need prime haulers onboard. All of this can be built into a used converted VL or EVL oil tanker or container ship. Said ship can be lowered and raised using ballast tanks so that LSTs etc., can float on / off. No idea on cost but possibly work out as cheap or cheaper than new Karl Doorman.
 
M

Morgo

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
The big problem on both sides of the Tasman is that you have to look at why locally flagged shipping was deep sixed. High labour and compliance costs that made it very uneconomical to compete with foreign owned and flagged vessels operating on the same routes. It's a nice talking point to win votes but once in the Treasury benches will be forgotten as reality steps in, even though their union affiliates will not be impressed. Why didn't they do this during the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd governments if it was so important? Why didn't the Clark Labour govt do something similar in NZ when it held the Treasury benches and why hasn't the current Ardern led govt attempted something similar even to assuage it's union paymasters? I say paymasters, because the unions financially bailed out the NZ Labour Party after the last election due to it being heavily broke financially. They also hold considerable influence within the Party. It comes down to basic economics and neither country can afford to significantly subsidise such an industry.

It would be cheaper for both countries to invest in dedicated ships to achieve the required sealift for longer term sustainment. The vessels don't necessarily require to have all the bells and whistles as LHDs or even LPDs but they would be required to be able to load / unload LSTs / LCMs, undertake VERTREPS, RO/RO, and I would suggest having workshops for helo, vehicle and machine maintenance, plus possibly a hospital. Plenty of room for 20ft ISO containers and use small tugs and low trailers for moving the containers on / off the LSTs / LCMs., meaning that you don't need prime haulers onboard. All of this can be built into a used converted VL or EVL oil tanker or container ship. Said ship can be lowered and raised using ballast tanks so that LSTs etc., can float on / off. No idea on cost but possibly work out as cheap or cheaper than new Karl Doorman.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. The labour costs and tax are simply too high to justify Australian flagged civilian vessels on a standalone basis. I must say I am less convinced that the ALP won’t follow through on the promise - the MUA remain powerful despite their small size.

Again I agree on the capability required. I suppose the question to my mind is whether this capability needs to come at the expense of the RAN budget, whether it can be funded from elsewhere in the Federal budget, or whether it can be subsidised by the private sector during peacetime (a la Point class).
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
ngatimozart said:
...However the Japanese biggest mistake was the attack on Pearl Harbour before the official declaration of war was delivered and that fault lies in their embassy in Washington.
Click to expand...
Partly, but at least as much with those who wrote the declaration, decided when to send it to the embassy, & specified how it should be handled. With the people they had, it wasn't possible for the embassy to decrypt the declaration, type it up, & get it to the US authorities before the attack without disobeying direct orders on how it should be treated.

The people who sent it should have thought about that. The document (which wasn't even an explicit declaration of war) could have been a tenth of the length it was, or been in two parts, a brief declaration to be delivered immediately followed by a lengthy justification. They could have ensured that the embassy had someone with the needed security clearance who could type, or allowed it to use a skilled typist on condition he or she be kept secluded until the declaration had been delivered. And so on.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
John Newman said:
Mate, I pretty much agree with your points, the question of a 3rd AOR and/or additional LPD (or LSD if you prefer) have popped up here from time to time (and will no doubt continue), and we've all put our two cents worth in from time to time too.

As the 'plan' stands at the moment (2016 DWP and 2016 DIIP), we've got construction of the two new Supply class AORs well underway in Spain.

* The DIIP has a budget allowance of $200m-$300m (2017-2023) for upgrades/sustainment of Choules until she is due to be replaced around 2030.

* The DIIP also states that it provides for the replacement of Choules around 2030 (but there doesn't appear to be a budget figure as yet, the start of funding is outside the 10 year scope of the 2016 DIIP).

* Then there is the big question mark, an allowance of $1b-$2b (2024-2030) for the 3rd AOR or 2nd LPD.

The big unknown of course is what future Governments are going to do, eg, maintain funding at the current planned levels of 2% of GDP (or increase or cut), and if future DWPs and DIIPs follow the current path or are altered dramatically, for better or worse.


So what would I do if I had the power to make it all happen? (And I'm trying to be very realistic in regard to Dollars available, etc), can the RAN have its cake and eat it too? Can it have both ships?

For the 3rd AOR, it would appear to be a pretty risk free procurement option, assuming both of the new Supply class ships enter service, pass sea trials, etc, and reach FOC in the early 2020s, then ordering that 3rd ship would pretty well align with the dates already proposed in the DWP.

The interesting thing is cost, from memory the contract with Navantia for the construction of the two Supply class ships is approx $640m, or $320m each, and with a budget allowance of between $1b-$2b for the possible 3rd AOR, maybe there is also some room to afford the 2nd LPD too?

If on the other hand the RAN saw the 2nd LPD as a priority over the 3rd AOR, but still wanted additional tanker capability, then the obviously solution would be to keep the relatively young Sirius in service (or maintained ready reserve), 2 x AOR and 1 x AO is still a reasonable result.


As to the RANs amphibious lift capabilities, I've said before (in previous posts on this subject) that I believe the thing that is missing is 'balance'.

And I've also said before, as an example, if you look at the RAAFs Air Mobility Group (AMG), they have C-17A, KC-30A, C-130J-30, C-27J, King Air 350s (plus the 5 airframes in the VIP fleet), pretty much an airframe solution for whatever is required, or a combination of airframes, very large to very small and all in between too.

Whilst in the last decade the lift capabilities of the RAN have dramatically changed and significantly increased in ship size and displacement, I don't think the balance is right. We've got the 2 x LHDs and 1 x LPD at one end (nothing in the middle, no LCH) and the LCM-1Es and Army watercraft at the other end, the LCMs and watercraft are going nowhere without the big ships at the top, it's all or nothing!


Going back to the DIIP, Choules will be upgraded and maintained to operate up until around 2030 (and planned to be replaced one for one) and of course the funding for the potential 2nd AOR or 3rd LPD too.

Interestingly too, lets not forget that Choules is one of eight ships currently in service based on the Damen Enforcer design (2 x Netherlands, 2 x Spain, 3 x UK and 1 x Australia), all eight ships entering service between 1998 and 2007.

Assuming that all four nations are looking at replacements for their respective capabilities, there might well be an opportunity for all four nations to work together on replacements (again based on a common design).

As it stands at the moment, the obvious starting point would be an evolution of the Netherlands Johan de Witt, her overall dimensions, displacement, capabilities, etc, are similar to Choules, but with the addition of more significant hangar storage.

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf

Ships of this size are NOT going to be built here in OZ, the infrastructure is not there, and the frequency of future replacements does not appear to warrant that sort of investment in infrastructure too.

I would imagine that if we went back to our friends at Navantia we could probably get a good deal on both the 3rd AOR and two LPD projects too.

The last piece of the puzzle for me is the current lack of replacement of the LCH capability, the capability in the middle between the large LHDs and LPD and the small LCMs and Army watercraft.

My suggested solutions would be along the lines of this:

https://products.damen.com/-/media/.../Product_Sheet_Landing_Ship_Transport_120.pdf

I would imagine that the facilities at Henderson, in WA, will be more than capable of constructing LST 120s, replacement LCM and Army watercraft alongside the various other current and future projects.

Can the RAN have its cake and eat it too? Maybe? Hopefully yes!

Anyway, as usual, just my opinion of course!

Cheers,

(PS, sorry for the very verbose and long winded post, had a lot of wind today, must have been all the Anzac Day drinks!!)
Click to expand...


Thanks John for a well thought out post.

Many options and yes we all have our favourite solutions.
Budget will be the biggie, for what and when we get stuff.
I do very much agree with you that we are missing something in the middle ground for the amphibious options.
The non replacement of the LCH was a mistake and I do find it difficult to understand given the service these workhorses of the RAN gave..
Relatively small vessels operated with small crews and negligible capital outlay.
Certainly were a good fit for OZ as time has shown again and again.
My 2 cents worth would be something smaller than the Damen LST 120.
Something small enough to land and extract itself from a beach yet large enough to sail the coast and visit the neighbouring Islands.
A basic vessel for logistics only. Maybe not a total of six as we had in the past but 3 to 4 would be very useful
I'd speculate it would be in the 60 to 80 m size range.

All the best
Regards S.

PS - For larger ships, I'm sure Navantia would give a good price for an additional ?????????
 
Last edited:
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Morrison promises $1b for new navy ships

Three new navy ships will be built in Western Australia under a coalition government in a $1 billion election commitment set to create 1000 jobs. Prime Minister Scott Morrison will announce the promise to build two mine warfare support vessels and a hydrographic vessel in Perth on Monday. He will also unveil a $156 million package to protect Australians from cyber-security attacks, and another $300 million to build or expand park-and-ride facilities in Melbourne.
Click to expand...
The $1 billion commitment will see the replacement of the Huon-class mine hunters brought forward from the 2030s to the mid-2020s.
A hydrographic military survey vessel will start construction in the early 2020s, also at Henderson.
Click to expand...
Election promises, and nothing that would be the least bit unexpected to most of those posting and reading here. The shipbuilding plan always included the addition of further smaller naval vessel to the log of work in WA - but the suggestion thatthey would be built sooner rather than later is interesting

oldsig....

(dammit, Monday morningitis. ten edits to get one quote displaying correctly)
 
Last edited:
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The two mine support vessels are a new project. I wonder if they will be purpose-built vessels or variants of the new OPVs.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
The two mine support vessels are a new project. I wonder if they will be purpose-built vessels or variants of the new OPVs.
Click to expand...
Is there really much point talking about this at present? It’s an Election promise, nothing more. The Howard Government actually announced a week before the 2007 Election that they were going to order 2 new CH-47s, Election lost and they were never ordered till the entire Fleet was replaced some years later.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
The two mine support vessels are a new project. I wonder if they will be purpose-built vessels or variants of the new OPVs.
Click to expand...
Not really new. The announcement says it's to replace the existing minehunter fleet AND that both that and the hydrographic ship are being ordered early because the RAN has indicated an urgent requirement. I'd suggest that the "urgent requirement" might well be related to Chinese activity in the approaches to Manus I.

If it goes ahead, building a variant would fit with the general thrust of the White Paper *before* last, and with the ship building plan as it now exists so I would be unsurprised.

And yes, as Red18 says this may well vanish if there is a change of government - and so will a significant proportion of what we currently consider bipartisan programs if the Greens hold the balance.

oldsig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top