.jpg)
Read the story here.
Want a "what the fuck" moment? Check out this statement from the story...
Senator Johnston said....“We have learnt the lesson of the Anzac ships and Collins submarines that worrying about schedule can cause problems.”Really?
Seriously?
Worrying about a schedule can cause problems?
Absolutely amazing.
Well, this one was not constructed in Australia for a change. It was built in Spain, then the finished hull was towed to Australia for outfitting.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hope Australia doesn't put F-35Bs on it. Now that would be a major major mistake in terms of budgets.
F35 won't be hosted on this ship. There's no facility: The tanks for the safe storage of aviation fuel is tiny and can only support limited rotary aircraft (and must be replenished daily in situations like disaster relief).
DeleteIn the event of a disaster, the ship is to act as a "vehicle ferry": Get them there (before the conflict starts) and get out. It's not meant to go and support ground forces.
It has limited self-protection suite as well.
MRH-90 has huge problems here (logistics and other faults). M-1 tank...well...a different smell but similar problems. As for the ship-class, that ski-ramp is a monument to the silliness of the entrenched Defence bureaucracy. It won't have much protection in a big war. Which means it will be highly useful for other-than-war or low threat stuff. And we could have probably done those missions with any other kind of Defence spend planning. Parked often for lack of funds and crew. Crew being a huge zero-sum-game here.
ReplyDeleteWithout the F35, skyramp is useless and the ship design is bullshit in front of Mistral...
ReplyDeleteThe ramp was not an add on IIRC, it was there in the original ships the design spun off from and they simply didn't bother with the time and cost of removing and redesigning the front. Makes sense in a way. If it's not causing problems, why spend money and time removing it?
ReplyDeletedid australia really need all these expensive carriers ? arent they the tools of imperialistic type nation who porject power on weaker nations ?
ReplyDeleteCarrier, what carrier? It's an LHA. And you don't need carriers to be imperialistic. I haven't heard about Spain invading anyone but the British lately, or the Thais trying to expand their borders or France trying to reestablish the Republic.
DeleteSuch thinking of "they have item A, therefore they are all evil" is extremely lazy thinking and flawed to the extreme. Come to think of it, nothing related to the military is ever good in your eyes apparently, I don't recall a single instance of one of your posts mentioning something in a positive light or even a neutral light. Are you sure you have not brainwashed yourself into thinking "military = bad"?
If you can't project power you are weaker nation. I really hope Australia will not ends like South Africa and Haiti.
DeleteI am so sorry that we have exposed you to the comments of the right honourable Senator Johnston. He is the same gentleman whose vote of confidence in the Australian Submarine Corporation consisted of him telling 4,000 employees that he wouldn't trust them to build a canoe. When later challenged on his comments he stated it was nothing more than a "rhetorical flourish".
ReplyDeleteBuffon!
buffon! doesn't quite describe it. that is the most insane thing i've heard in awhile and i keep up with the F-35 program!
Deletehow did this guy get elected...wait...nevermind. we have our own problems!
Was that before or after they found out that some of the hull sections were ... mis-sized?
DeleteThe Collins really did have a few problems, but you can look at the program in 2 ways.
1) Equipment: In this way, it seems like a loss due to the persistent bugs in the design during the shakedown phase and a bit after.
or
2) Training and experience. If seen this way, it seems a qualified success as they got a working sub out and now know what to avoid in the future. In this case, even if the subs sank the instant they left the shipyard, it's still a success as the workers learned something from the construction process, independent of the end result.
honourable Senator Johnston
Delete"honourable" my-a$$! This village idi0t wouldn't know what to do with a fistful of $100 in a Turkish brothel in the middle of summer.
The Collins really did have a few problems
Collins ARE a problem. This is what happens when the politicians read the PRICE LIST first before the specifications AND compounded further when Navy brass keeps pushing more "functionality" to the subs. Like it or not, Australian Submarine Corp (ASC) really do NOT have any knowledge in building submarines.
Helicopters my ass, this ship clearly can carry and deploy at least F-35B.
ReplyDeleteA nice explanation for a skijump on ship:
"It was cheaper for us to stick with the ship's original configuration, which includes the ski jump, rather than removing it," -- http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/all-aboard-hmas-canberra-the-royal-australian-navys-biggest-ship-20141127-11ucag.html
Your ass is on the wrong side then. Such midget carriers are terrible power projection devices, you got what, 6 aircraft vs at least a hundred against any enemy country? With limited avgas stores? I got better uses for my money than 6 suicide bombers, literally.
DeleteWhat these really are, are disaster relief ships. Australia was heavily influenced by Acheh in the Boxing Day Tsunami, Haiti, to a lesser extent, East Timor, and more recently Haiyan in the Philippines. A lot of Asian countries are leaning that direction to keep their military relevant in the light of much lesser regional strife. Look at Singapore, they are leaning away from the LPD assault ships to LHD HADR ships, their minister even said that HADR is going to play a bigger part in ASEAN relations.
It may not be an assault ship, but if it brings you more allies against your enemy (*cough* CHINA), I'd say it is money well spent.
And why is it that every time someone sees a flat deck, they automatically try to turn it into a fleet carrier? Sigh...
Completely agree with you, such disater relief ships would be really effective in disater relief missions on russian coast in pacific and arctic oceans.
DeleteApparently, the Aussies have been listening to the same geniuses that brought the USA the LCS. Basically the philosophy is that a) that if you can fly a helicopter off it, it is a warship and b) nobody really fights real wars anymore. This ship would be great against pirates, or terrorists seizing an oil rig but if Indonesia decided it wanted New Guinea's natural gas or the Aussies got pulled into the South China Sea disputes with China, it would be nothing more than a support ship. The LCS has also been touted as being great for humanitarian support and anti-piracy....but not against anything bigger than an Iranian boat with RPGs.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't be surprised it later the Aussie government decides to upgrade the weapons and fuel storage to make it a real warship, but only if they get the same uproar the US had about our LCS program.