New Air Warfare Destroyers for Australia

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Yep. Bad choice of words on my part. I didn't intend to speak of any population size or land mass. Instead I should have used the term militarily insignificant.

Oh, I am quite aware of how you meant it. I was about something different. Indonesia's population is to 86% Muslims, at least formally, because theistic religion in form of Islam is their state religion and is formally dictated by law, but many are still practicing animism. Nevertheless, their population is quite young, and thus: hot. Exactly that kind of human material that fanatics and extremist prefer to use for their purposes. Asymmetrical warfare does not depend on military technology and numbers of ships and airplanes. What makes Indoensia a potential threat is not the size of the population, but the social dynamic of the current population structure. >If< Indonesia would for some reason start to behave like Iran - of what use would be a modern Navy for Australia, then? So far they are relatively tame - this does not mean they are harmless, or will always remain to be tame. China's rise may teach them the necessity of learning to bite.

[bookworm_020]

The Spanish recently took one of their ships which will be a prototype for the Oz ones on a tour of Oz.The cruise was sponsored by the ship manufacturer.I think that the best option won though.

The US Builders also had an Arliegh Burke Destroyer pay a vist, so they could show off what they offered.

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

Idiots, why do governments do that? "its the cheapest so we will get that one"? They may be able to get 4 of those DD's for 3 US ones but the US one is vastly superior, and has room to be upgraded in the future whereas the spanish one doesn't. Its just like the British MoD, they only look at the short term, not long term upgradablility etc. What a waste! They will probably want to upgrade those ones in about 20 years, whereas they could have kept the US ships and stuck new equipment in them.

The US option was based on the Arliegh Burke Destroyer, but would take an extra three years to build and cost more. The Spanish option could be built quiker cheaper and be scaled up, so there would be less of a difference between the two bidders. The fact that a fourth spip could possibly be purchaed, at the same total price as the three american designed ships, may have tipped the scales.:hmm:

I think the main issue that decided the Navantia design over the US design was the JSF debacle - investing and putting your hopes in an as-yet unbuilt design has meant that the RAAF will not be at optimum strength at the time it had been anticipated. We will be making do with very old F111s and a mix of F/A-18 hornets and Superhornets. The govt will be looking for something that they know they can deliver.

The F-111's were also delayed into service for almost a decade (Australia flew some F-4 Phatom's on loan untill they were delivered). They will be replaced by the F-18 E/F Super Hornets. The older hornets will continue service till there replaced by the JSF. The Government has been burnt in the past by buying untested designs, Seasprite Heilcopter is an example (the Helicopter flew fine, just the electronics that went into them didn't live up to expectations!), and I think haveing a prove design, even if modified, will work well. It worked for the Anzac class Frigate.

[mog]

Good decision I reckon. Considering our limited budget, the Arleigh Burkes would have been too expensive, with too many unforseen costs.

Plus these probably have a siesta deck.

[baggygreen]

mmmmmmmmmmm

siesta....

go the govt! lol