Although the Collins Class subs ended up being expensive, I would hardly call them a waste of money. There are not too many subs to have ever made it inside a US carrier picket, except our Collins.

Tsalta

An incorrect statement

tsalta,

Any Diesel owned by the RAN has, does not make the Collins unique IMHO.

LHRT,

Did I say they were unique?

After almost 900 posts, I would have thought you would have some measure of reading comprehension.

I said they were not a waste of money as they are now an outstanding weapon system.

Is it that hard to give credit to a capability when credit is due?

tsalta

ftrplt, yes it is, but only just :ugh:

Did I say you said they were unique ?.

I guess after some 25 odd posts, I thought you'd know what a straw man argument is.

No you didn't.

There were a number of other products on the market at the time the Collins contract was signed, that were both cheaper and proven.

No, I believe they are quite capable, the final price tag and timeline were amazingly different to the original forecast, do you remember the days when HMAS Collins was nick named Building 69 ?.

Diesels have always had some considerable noise advantages over Nuclear powered, but thats not the arguement, is it ?.

Don't believe everything you were told on your submariners course.

[QUOTE]the submarines' total cost was put at more than AU$6 billion as of 2000, compared to the AU$3.9 billion stated in June 1987 when the project was started by then Prime Minister Bob Hawke's government[/QUOTE]HERE

A Diesel Sub kicking ass at RIMPAC is nothing new.

Wiley, have you been listening to the conversations in the crew room or what??? I would say a fair proportion of the junior-ish guys (like me) think along the same lines. :cool: I think its fair to say the traditional role of recce is changing, like I said Army thinks big A little R in ARH.


Gnadenburg, hmm interesting thought process, keep an eye on out, after all we are "losing" a Sqn of fixed wing... saving K Rudd $X mil :uhoh:

Well, we do, but only if we can find a tanker to get us there! Don't even ask me why the Pigs are going to Red Flag next month and not us... :suspect:

Don't know much about choppers, but I do know that the next combat zone won't resemble the previous one. Cheap RPG's and missiles in Afghanistan and Iraq sent patrolling helicopters up to considerably higher altitudes where their effectiveness was reduced. The absence of demarcation lines between friend and foe in a guerilla war make a low level helicopter gunship very vulnerable, regardless of armour. The PR effectiveness in downing a well armoured helicopter and crew is also very desirable for an enemy force.

Aerial dominance and more accurate weapon systems for friend and foe meant less reliance on choppers for the gunship role as it was deferred to patrolling fixed wing aircraft, which on balance were less vulnerable, better capable of the element of surprise, more responsive, easier to supply in terms of logistical support, better armed and every bit as, if not more accurate (which was the helicopter gunship's main advantage in previous fights when fighting as a helicopter unit).

Modern warfare is progressing more and more towards a systems approach and response and away from stand-a-lone fighting capabilities. The Army, Navy and Air Force will work more intensely as an ADF and as a partner in an international force in the future. I think the best days for helicopter gunships are in the past except for applications involving face to face invasion like Desert Storm, but I can't see Australia invading too many countries in the future. Even then, twenty years ago, helicopters were considered a main attacking weapon, but that is no longer the case.

I spoke with a Grade 8 student in the US today and asked him about his career options. His school career counsellor told him that 70% of the jobs that he will be applying for after college haven't been invented yet. 70%!!!?? Trying to choose a chopper based on similar developments in the military must be difficult at best.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k1.../raafac130.jpg

:ok:

Ahh so thats where the H model is going, well done, finally a decent use for older airframes instead of rotting near the fence awaiting an uncertain future.

Hempy,

Obviously another lemon!
Strangely, rather comforting.
Thanks for the photo!

I remember seeing pics (from the periscope) from HMAS Ovens, Orion and Otama all getting with strike (torpedo) distance of USS America, Independence and the old IKE (USS Eisenhower) at RIMPAC. RAN subs have been doing that at RIMPAC for a good 35 years.

Yeah Wessex, the Yanks have no idea how to detect and track a Diesel/Electric sub and the "O" boats were very effective during exercises. The Collins calss subs have (like the F-111s) matured into very effective military platforms & it would be great if the RAN could attract enough sailors to man all of them.

Wrt the ARH & MRH, the jury is still out as they have not had enough time in service to prove themselves. There have been some very interesting thoughts on this thread so the development of these choppers will be followed with interest.

A mate flying the Black Hawk suggested that the MRH90 has issues with landing in brownout conditions. The Black Hawk touches down tail first and can land in such circumstances (obviously very common in Aus).
Can anyone confirm this remark?

Hugh, any helo can go tits up in a brown out if the correct technique (for that airframe) is not applied. What I think he means is the BH can handle a greater nose up pitch on touchdown by virtue of design. This can assist in landing in dusty conditions as you can 'pin' the tailwheel on and lower the mains on with a little fwd speed. I understand MRH has smaller clearances with haging bits and as such will need a different technique (flatter) with RVO landings. MRH would smack a tail on using BH attitudes I suspect. Some aircrew have reservations about how "enthusiastic" ones approaches can be into rough pads with the nose wheel config. After all one hopes to get into and out of said pad without faffing about. :bored:
I hope to confirm all this when I move to the dark side (airmobile) get my S-70 transition done :p. I am sure more experienced punters around can give you a more pucker answer.

Wake up to the world of commercial reality
 

It has been an interesting read, so far, but there is a lot of banter from persons with either no memory, short memory, or are too young to remember our previous dealings with the frogs. It has to be one of the former reasons, or else it is a smoke screen to cover the real facts.

I remember this being brought up at decision time in both the Tiger and MRH buys, only to hear the 'experts', and I use the term loosely, say "Oh, no, it is differnet this time".

BS!!!!! They screwed us before and will continue to do so whilst we have ill-informed, greenhorned, and know it all people in Defence and DMO dealing with seasoned experts in selling defence equipment.

Example: Will the ARH be able to hover in Darwin on a 30 deg at MAUW without the "generous" offer by the frogs to re-engine it for many millions of tax-payer funded dollars???? Why are we talking re-engining before the aircraft is operational??? - see prev para.

Why, after the first airframe was delivered more than 4 years ago, do we not have a real operational capability with this aircraft. I think we have been screwed again!!

Collons Class are rubbish
 

I don't know about anyone else on this forum but I did 5 years on Collins boats and we didn't even get to Rimpac as we couldn't make it more than a week out and we would have to come back because of
1. Running out of servicable diesel engines
2. Couldn't make any fresh water
3. Combat system would continuously crash
4. Radio's broke
5. Freezer's broke
6. Periscope's broke
7. Torpedo handling system broke

and about 20 other reasons. Anyone on this website who says that they are now a capable and cost effective submarine, I would like to hear from you. When asking my mates who still serve on these vessel's, I'm told it's not that much different today.

PS I also enjoyed hearing a story from my mate on boat 4 who explained to me how a flexible salt water cooling pipe came off and the boat took 5 ton of water in 15 seconds and nearly didn't surface again.

Through friends that were bugmariners (O boats) that went to Collins Class, they tell the same stories as Crank1000.

Unfortunate really.

5 Tonne, in 15 sec, wow that was close.

The Collins is no where near the worst procurement to date. There was a very comical movie on an American Tank, ?The Bradley Tank?, I feel truth is stranger than fiction.

Geez....Does anything work?:}

Caribou still works..

Periodicly:}, but at least it has an excuse!

Reading all this dribble, some people would like our RAAF to still fly the tried and tested Sopwith Camel and our cavalry to go back to horses!

This same arguments come up year after year...when the Blackhawks were procured, a whole host of UH1 pilots came out with the same dribble, too much expensive technology, will not work in the heat, too expensive, untested technology, why dont we just keep re-engining the Iroquois.. blah blah blah....when the Hornets were chosen, same thing, too expensive, too much technology, will never do what it says it would do, slower than the mirage, why didnt we get second hand F-5s and upgrade them for a fraction of the cost, blah blah blah...it really will never end.

When the Seasprite was purchased....why did we buy old helos when there are new models out there.....when we buy off the shelf ones.....why did we buy new technology when we could have upgraded an older one and keep it going for a little bit longer...

The thing is, technology and times go past whether we llike it or not. A commercial, political and field decision has to be made on procurement and some you get right and some you don't. The trick is recognise the ones that wont work and back out (Seasprite) in good time, and recognise the ones with potential despite the detractors and stick with it (F-111 and Blackhawks).

Well said!
 

Good on you, Willoz269! What you say is the truth!

I think the argument is whether, as a small nation with a limited defence budget, you should be looking at technology being ironed out by other countries ie: obviously the US services.

Buying in production, in service and probably combat proven equipment seems logical. Especially if it's American as they are the folks we seem to always be going to war with.

Super Hornet and the C17 would be good examples.

Ceremonial swan song for the F111's? And the political rumors were the RAAF's ability to deploy to Afganistan wasn't always the case.

Willoz269 you hit the nail on the head. The other common thing I see in these discussions is people comparing the selected system against their own personal wants not against what the system was purchased for. Trade offs need to be made in any selection and the only way this can be done is by having well established requirements. Sadly even when these are available many don't read them. When the selected system then doesn't meet their own personal requirements they then assume incompetance, political interference etc as the reason behind the choice.

In this case both Blackhawk and MRH 90 have strengths and weaknesses. Which ones are important depend on what the Govt want done with it.

Not too far from what has happened.

Oh! Is that my coat .... ?

Willoz,

No arguement, some resist change for the sake of resisting change.

What I find concerning is change for the sake of change, this is tax payers money, ours, and often decisions are made regarding procurements that are purchased from the shiney brochure without talking to those that are in the know.

For example, a Minister makes a decision, is this Minister more in the know than the CDF, is the CDF more in the know that the CO of the present Squadron ?.

Change is a hard thing to manage, risk is more controllable, buying a product off a drawing board IMHO is very very risky.

just yet again proves that the biggest column in the risk matrix has to be pollie intervention and the unwillingness of the Dept Heads to tell their masters that they are wrong.

'Yes Minister' in reverse......

[QUOTEGnadenburg I think the argument is whether, as a small nation with a limited defence budget, you should be looking at technology being ironed out by other countries ie: obviously the US services.][/QUOTE]


The thing is that our budget isn't that small. Apparently the ADF has the 12th largest defence budget in the world, I can apreciate that the wages of our personel are considerably higher (as well as all the other deserved expenses that the men and woman should get) but for the 12th largest budget in the world, shouldn't we be getting a little more bang for our bucks!!

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ap2.PNG/800px-

I agree Wessex, which is why I understand "most" of the decisions taken.

We tend to go out and spend the money NOW on stuff that will be effective in the battlefield and support mechanisms of today and tomorrow.

Hence the F-111 was chosen, large scale high level bombing was the norm for the Brits and French, but we saw it differently. We were right.

The Fa-18 was chosen because it is a multirole fighter, no need to purchase dedicated fighters and dedicated attack aircraft, hence we did not choose the F-15, F-14 or any other. The Blackhawk was chosen because it was a new and expandable platform, we could have bought more Chinooks or more Sea Kings or more UH1s but again we were vindicated, it is an extraordinary front line transport chopper.

Lessons in support operations are being learnt, our ADF is required in Afganistan, Iraq and throughout Asia in a multirole requirement. So we buy the best multirole platform there is in the market at the moment, upgradeable, improveable, etc. it does not do ONE role exceptionally well, but it is able to do a LOT of roles in an acceptable manner, and we can modify it in the future.

Risk management is done at a level different to the people in the coal face, and this needs to be so. It does not mean that their opinion is not regarded, it simply means that there are far more angles to look at. If you ask chopper pilots, they would like the Apache, and a Blackhawk...we don't need something that big that needs so much on field support when we tend to stretch our support mechanisms through Asia, so we go for something smaller, less capable, but supportable. If you ask the Fighter Pilots they would like the latest and greatest, an F-22 or similar, and maybe even a B-2! why would we do that? we could only afford a small fleet of aircraft so we have to make sure they are effective in the battlefield for the next 20 years (the battlefield of tomorrow will always change tomorrow!) and they can do a wide variety of roles.

The funny thing is, the one aspect of Risk Management that is always forgotten is Change Management!!!

Willoz, all good points but we need to pay a little more attention to CAPABILILITY. Agreed that the decision makers have a mountain of priorities but the thing that seems to be slipping out of focus is the end state. Can this machine do what it is desigend for and fit into our doctrine as advertised in a timely manner?

Sure thats sensible, but are we focussed too much on tomorrow at the detriment of today? The most disapointing thing is the contractors who make a mountain of money out of defence and provide a whole bunch of promises, thats it. At the end of the day they drive home and defence is left without its tools of the trade.

Yep fair enough, but it still needs to work before its outdated by the next latest and greatest.

Yep we all have our own idea's and preference. Smaller, less capable and supportable is smart thinking, get something that is proven and we can handle with our flimsy logistical system, (and heavy reliance on contractors) I don't think the French are going to bend over backwars to rush parts to us when we are stuck in the sand pit with a blown fritz. They will take their sweet time and sting us mega $$ for the pleasure. Personally I would rather not be stuck on the ground while our troops are getting smashed begging for AAVN support. :ugh:

Rant over... time for a cup of tea or something..;)

Deleted by AFGAN

NH-90 from civvy st?
 

Can anybody tell me where I can buy a civilian NH90?

Deleted by AFGAN

No you can't.

It's not civilian type certified anywhere, so paint it pink and you still can't use it.

Tell us all, how is it merely built to civilian standards and how does it become inadequate in military use?


So far, 14 countries have been hoodwinked into going into combat with a supposedly inadequate aircraft. I'm interested in what your bagging of it is based on.

I'm no fan of the new helo (it looks cool though) but I was just wondering if Blackhawks in general have a background of making it home or landing safely with damage that the MRH couldn't sustain?

Haven't seen any pics like I have of things like the A-10 getting home full of holes and with broken wing spars.

If anyones got any links to photos of shot up Blackhawks I'd really like to see them.

Afghan, I've been told that the Blackhawk requires a larger cleared LZ than the MRH90 - can you confirm?

Deleted by AFGAN

Careful mate, there are plenty of current and ex defence aviation pers on this forum. You are just not getting the response you wanted.

Unless you are involved in the project, how would you know how the figures are shaping up? I imagine the personel involved would be keeping the numbers pretty quiet until they are ready to deliver the product.