Another I hate Australia thread
-
Only up to 10 naval cambtant platform,plus 9.4 Armidale class Patrol Boat(Coast guard role) defending Oz a day in 2006/07.
10 combatant surface ships on station is Oz target in 1991!
The 1991 Force Structure Review modified the three-tiered structure into a two-tiered structure in recognition that the FFH was not a second tier capability. A 28 ship surface force was envisaged for 2010 comprising 16 destroyer/frigates and 12 offshore patrol vessels.
The numbers of surface ships were calculated as follows: using pairs of major surface combatants to patrol the approaches between Derby
and the Torres Strait would require eight ships, while simultaneous patrols off the northeast coast and the North West Cape would require another two ships. To maintain these ten ships on station, 16 ships would be required...
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/workingpapers/Working%20Paper%2011.pdf
No improvement in the past 8 years!!
Hard to believe ,right?But see to believe!!
(Adelaide Class)..... ANZAC...Collins...Patrol
Guided missile FFG... FFG.....SSK......Boat
Annual Report 2006/07
Platforms in services--------------4......8..........6.......11
URD(unit ready day)-----------------------------1046....1850......817....3449
Achieved(in days)----------------951....1829......802...??
Substantially achieved(days)---874......1669....583...2427
Platforms avaiable per day(max):2.9.......5.1..........2.2.....9.4
Total:10+9.4 Armidale class Patrol Boat(Coastal guard role)!!
Annual Report 2003/04--below
URD(unit ready day)------------------------------1431..........1447......799....4487
Platforms avaiable per day(max):3.9.......4.0..........2.2.....12
Total:10+12 class Patrol Boat(Coastal guard role)!!
Annual Report 1999/2000--below
URD......................3073(frigates combined)......366....4349
Platforms /day(max):8.4(frigates combined).......1.....11
Total:10+11 class Patrol Boat(Coastal guard role)!!
.....................(Adelaide Class)..... ANZAC...Collins...Patrol .......................Guided missile FFG... FFG.....SSK......Boat
Note: In days for whole class of platform for year ended 30.06.2007.defence.gov.au,Annual Report 2006/07
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications.cfm
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_Defence_DAR_03_v1_s2.pdf
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/03-04/dar/02_05_outcome2_3.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/99-00/pbs/99-00s3.pdf
Quote:
URD are the number of days that a force element is available for tasking by the Commander Australian Fleet, either outside of
major maintenance and within planned readiness requirements or in accordance with contracted availability.http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_Defence_DAR_03_v1_s2.pdf
URD(Substantially achieved)in days
Fremantle class patrol boats :—1,232(1100).This is pharsing out.
Armidale class patrol boats—1,575(1327)---Rafael Typhoon 25mm naval stabilised deck gun and two 12.7mm machine guns.
Guided missile FFG.(Adelaide Class)
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/#more
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ffgupgrade.html
read the upgrade
quote:If the upgrades fail, or become prohibitively expensive, the result will be a set of ships that still cannot deploy in threat zones, and the waste of A$ 1.5+ billion. Under that scenario, Australia’s effective surface combatant fleet will shrink to just 6 ANZAC frigates, to be supplemented 7 or more years later by 3 (or possibly 4) Hobart Class air warfare frigates.
HMAS New Castle
HMAS Melbourne
Dunt ask me include Armidale class patrol boat fleet
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/patrol/
''The new patrol
boats will improve the Royal Australian Navy’s
capability to intercept and apprehend vessels
suspected of illegal fishing, quarantine, customs
or immigration offences.''
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_Defence_DAR_03_v1_s2.pdf
Is it enough to deter and to defend in read threats?
Will SG is liable to send SAF to help under FPDA ,just in case?
I beg your valuable input.
Oz Open & transparency vs SG secretive policy
Do u say OZ is open and transparency or Stupid?
u may say SG is in fact in poor shape.But the not so free
medias dare not report this or that....
I dare say SG is in a little better shape than Oz naval defense.
I prefer secretive but better shape,than open but poorer shape.
Always ungrading (or rectifiactions?)
All platforms are under different stage of upgrading.
Thats the reason so few are avaiable for tasks!!
The above data just confirm My posting on 06 apr 2008
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/313017?page=2
Aussie sub 88 op days a year etc
FFG_HMAS_Adelaide,decommissined Dec 2007
HMAS MELBOURNE,Adelaide class FFG.
Commissioned: 15 February 1992 Displacement: 4100 tonnes Length: 138.1 metres Beam: 14.3 metres 
Aerial photographs of HMAS Anzac (background) and German Ship, FGS Brandenburg
to be fair,i list all the major upgrading projects here http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/index.cfm
and also the Audit General reports
http://www.anao.gov.au/search.cfm?cat_id=4&arg=
u can read all audit reports of defense here.
want to cry?
1. Getting in Early: Lessons of the Collins Submarine Program for Improved Oversight of Defence Procurement
Derek Woolner
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group
18 September 2001http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP03.htm
2. http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/1999/collins.html
REPORT TO
THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
ON
THE COLLINS CLASS SUBMARINE
AND RELATED MATTERS
June 1999
How can Oz handed over propollers to US?
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP03.htm
''The RAN appears to recognise the risk in this situation. In early 2001 relations between Kockums and the RAN were strained after the RAN had shipped one of the company's propellers to the USA. Commodore Paul Greenfield, Director General of Submarines, acknowledged that Kockums, as the designer, had a very important role in the future support of the submarines and hoped that the formerly strong relationship between Navy and Kockums could be restored.
note 91
ibid., pp. 8-9. These facts help explain why Kockums went to the Federal Court seeking to injunct the delivery of one of its propellers to the US Navy, on the grounds that it would compromise Kockums' intellectual property rights. Publicity that the propellers did not work confused the difference between the effectiveness of the design, the on board environment in which it operates and the failings of the material that the shipbuilder was forced to use.''
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23534519-31477,00.html
Bonuses to keep sailors on subs
Mark Dodd | April 14, 2008
''SUBMARINERS will be offered substantial bonuses to stay in the navy in a bid to fix a recruitment crisis in which only half the nation's submarine fleet can be sent to war.
The submariners will be the main target of a package designed to keep in the navy and out of the mines sailors with hard-to-get technical skills, who are in a great demand from the booming mining industry.
The Australian revealed on March 10 that there were only three full crews for the navy's six Collins class submarines.''
Most powerful SSK in the world .Most powerful crews!!
Only 2 out of 6 subs sail to sea speaks for volume
of all the problems.
System related defects or/and manpower shortage for frigates and Collins SSK
pl read the tables above.now u know why only 10
ships can be operated in any day lah!!
-
Noted.
-
Can't help but notice your infantile efforts at continuously undermining the reputation of the Aussies.
Why should it be hard to believe that there are only 10 ships per day patrolling the sea around Australia ?
What is the intent of your thread - which seems to be a continuous efforts to deride the Aussies ?
What do you think should be the optimum number of vessels to guard the seas around Oz ?
Have you not heard of satellite surveillance, UAV, and other airborne electronic surveillance, as well as seabed sensors ?
With such a long coastline, and large expanse of territorial water to guard - are you expecting the entire fleet to be out at sea, and with the fleet size double so as to have sufficient crew and equipment to be rotated ?
What will that incur for the Australian Budget ?
Will that produce another reason for your further derogatory piece towards the Aussies ?
-
Oz Open & transparency vs SG secretive policy
Do u say OZ is open and transparency or Stupid?
u may say SG is in fact in poor shape.But the not so free
medias dare not report this or that....
I dare say SG is in a little better shape than Oz naval defense.
I prefer secretive but better shape,than open but poorer shape.
Who are you kidding with our forces not even being able to make a nimble, 40 knot ship avoid a much slower 23,000 ton ship plus our entire coastguard being trained by a non-qualified "expert" in the wrong and dangerous method of intercepting ships that led to needless deaths.
And if everything is secretive, how can you "dare say" SG is in a little better shape when you don't have any info to make a statement from? Your imagination? The same imagination that produced inline skate force, "carshing" Fantails and carry SAR like handbag?
But we, unlike you, have been in there and we KNOW.
-
actually, if i were the aussie commander, i would prefer to have more ships (at least more than 10 lar) available at any one time, or on station, so that i would at least have a response capability nearby in case it is needed....
(less ships arnd = more time required to get boots/forces there right?)
-
Who exactly in the region is going to attack Australia via the sea? Indonesia? I don't thnk so.
And why does lionnoisy not include the Armidale class patrol boat fleet? Which actually takes the lion's share of coastline patrol against tasks that would be wasted on bigger platforms and actually consitute a large part of peacetime operations.
Also lionnoisy creates the fatal error of assuming that peacetime readiness equals mobilized readiness. In which case he might as well say we must call up all our NSmen to defend Singapore 365 days of the year because our move-on-the-moment force ready level is actually a very small percentage of our total force. He assumes that we must send a large portion of our fleet to sea, drive all our tanks, run all our soldiers and fly all our aircraft without realizing the need for this thing called "reserve" as well as the costs involved in running everything.
And of course he keeps going "Collin's class partial blind and crippled" when the problems have already been long solved, the class given a nod by the yanks as one of the deadilest and most advanced SSKs in the world, as well as even managing to slip past USN antisubmarine defences and "kill" their SSNs and Destroyers, as well as vital ships, which was such a significant feat that it got the yanks to rethink their naval tactics.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Who are you kidding with our forces not even being able to make a nimble, 40 knot ship avoid a much slower 23,000 ton ship plus our entire coastguard being trained by a non-qualified "expert" in the wrong and dangerous method of intercepting ships that led to needless deaths.
And if everything is secretive, how can you "dare say" SG is in a little better shape when you don't have any info to make a statement from? Your imagination? The same imagination that produced inline skate force, "carshing" Fantails and carry SAR like handbag?
But we, unlike you, have been in there and we KNOW.
Excuse me. But none of the RSN ships, except the MGBs can hit that speed.And you're sullying the memories of those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. Who are you to laugh at the crew? And are you saying that you can handle the ship better? It was not the matter of nimbleness here.
-
Originally posted by arball:
actually, if i were the aussie commander, i would prefer to have more ships (at least more than 10 lar) available at any one time, or on station, so that i would at least have a response capability nearby in case it is needed....
(less ships arnd = more time required to get boots/forces there right?)
10 is quite ok already. You can't have too many ships going around at any 1 point. Definitely at any point in time, some ships will undergo refits. Launching a ship takes $$ also.And can you imagine the poor crew keep going out to sea? It would be detrimental.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Excuse me. But none of the RSN ships, except the MGBs can hit that speed.And you're sullying the memories of those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. Who are you to laugh at the crew? And are you saying that you can handle the ship better? It was not the matter of nimbleness here.
You just need to read lionnoisy's past threads to understand why people reply to him like that, and that's not because they have an issue with their own armed forces but because they are parodying the way he writes with an equal disregard for the simple reason this guy didn't come here to seek discussion, but a soapbox for his anti-oz views.And as for laughing at the crew don't know where you got that, but it was a case of incompetence that got those at the helm charged in the court of law for being found wanting at their duties the eventually cost the lives of four of their comrades, so yes, under their duties they should have handled the ship better and was I in their place it would also be my duty to handle the ship better. You might as well say we could not handle the POW training better then the commando "trainers" who dunked their trainees or the coastguard members being taught the wrong and dangerous method of intecepting boats by non-qualified personnel.
I don't know about laughing at anyone, but those incidents would had made us the laughing stock of the world had it not been for our efficent PR.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You just need to read lionnoisy's past threads to understand why people reply to him like that, and that's not because they have an issue with their own armed forces but because they are parodying the way he writes with an equal disregard for the simple reason this guy didn't come here to seek discussion, but a soapbox for his anti-oz views.And as for laughing at the crew don't know where you got that, but it was a case of incompetence that got those at the helm charged in the court of law for being found wanting at their duties the eventually cost the lives of four of their comrades, so yes, under their duties they should have handled the ship better and was I in their place it would also be my duty to handle the ship better. You might as well say we could not handle the POW training better then the commando "trainers" who dunked their trainees or the coastguard members being taught the wrong and dangerous method of intecepting boats by non-qualified personnel.
I don't know about laughing at anyone, but those incidents would had made us the laughing stock of the world had it not been for our efficent PR.
While incompetence is indeed the case, things are often complicated on the bridge. And it's not surprising something like that happens, because the area involved is a fairly congested area and the ship was patrolling the area which makes it even more dangerous.
-
hi huys cool down.
read
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/
VOLUME 1: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
VOLUME 2: DEFENCE MATERIEL ORGANISATION
read Sect 2 Reports on performances on both volumes then talk.
Oz themselves classify the ships projects as medium to high risks.
No reading.No talking!!
Collins Class SSK
''Opinion:This is a high risk project using an unproven design from a shipyard unfamiliar with either oceanic or tropical sub operationg conditions.A marvellos opportunity for the Australia shipbuilding industry.''
reported assessed by Janes Fighting Ships 90-91
http://www.textfiles.com/fun/armstech.txt
Now Oz is installing US nuke Sub Combat sys on Collins !!
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/sea1439ph4a.cfm
Another unproven combination!!
This poor sub has only declared
Avhieve ''Operational Release'' in Mar 20004.
http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=3617
But ASC (Australia Sub Corp) declares it is the most powerful
conventional sub!!Wah!!What if is declared Fully Operational!!
ASC has been certified as Oz next Sub desigher!!
OMG!ASC possess only Collins class experience.
The result or product.....i can say far from satifactory!!
How much they know about sub design??
''When the Australian government planned the acquisition of their new submarine force, they aimed at a submarine more capable than any existing design in the world. Moreover, they made the bold and daring decision to build the submarines in Australia, a country with no experience of design and construction of submarines.''
fr http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/collins.html
The Germans just know how to make jokes!
This looks like i just get my driving livcense and want to race
in SG night racing this year!!
-
Maybe you should try english lessons so you can read the race car manual in the first place.
Yawn, it's amusing how your nervour laughter in your own post demostrates your own inability to downplay the fact that despite all you say, the Collins is working.
Did Singapore have any pior experience in making or operating SPHs? Are you implying our own Primus is a joke?
Did Singapore have any pior experience in making or operating IFVs? Are you implying our Bionix is far from satifactory?
Did Singapore have any pior experience in making next gen ARs? Are you implying the our SAR-21 is a piece of junk?
Now Oz is installing US nuke Sub Combat sys on Collins !!
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/sea1439ph4a.cfm
Another unproven combination!!
This poor sub has only declared
An unproven combination is trying to launch F-18Es off LSDs or fitting our troops with inline skates. How on earth can the system they fit into the Collins be "unproven" given it's a system made for submarines by GD with no relation to the propulsion? SSN or SSK, the system will work.
What will not work is trying to launch F-18Es off LSD like you tried to argue for.
This is what the "unproven" combination did:
HMAS Sheean had "held its own" during two rigorous weeks of combat trials off Hawaii with the Los Angeles class attack sub USS Olympia. The two subs swapped roles as hunter and prey and scored roughly equal numbers of hits. During its mock attacks on Olympia and on two US destroyers, Sheean fired 28 torpedoes. The chief-of-staff of the Australian Navy's submarine force reported that "a respectable percentage of shots Sheean fired at Olympia were hits that would have destroyed the powerful US vessel."[9] In the RIMPAC 02 exercises, playing a 'rogue' submarine Sheean penetrated the US Navy surface unit screen to ‘sink’ both the amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa and dock landing ship USS Rushmore.
Sinking a 688I class SSN as well as penetrating the advanced ASW screen of the USN is indeed no mean feat, no surprise you failed to mentioned it in here given how selective you are about your articles.
In any case the Aussies are smarter then you, the only way to get an SSK suited for their open water needs is to build one themselves and get the experience from it for the simple reason no SSK class in the world really suits what they need. What they created in the Collins is expected of a first-generation design with teething problems but eventually they got pretty competent at it. Navies around the world anknowledge the Collins as a very capable SSK and it seems that it is that all you have in your pocket is trying to put a spin to any media article you can scrounge up, which is kind of sad.
I could actually list the problems we had with our own-made systems just like you, like how the SAR-21 was quite a piece of junk when it was first issued and plenty of things didn't work as advertised, not to mention hated by the SAF soldier... of how the Primus was rendered "partial blind and crippled" during it's first few tests with the grunts because of undiscovered problems and what else. But unlike you I have some common sense that militaries generally experience problems with new systems, but the experience is more then worth it.
-
What's more is that you seem to have missed out that problems aside the experience and technology the Aussies got from their ambitious Collins project gave them experience in SSK systems and warfare that puts them pretty much the leader in operating advanced SSK technologies, far ahead even of our own.
-
The role of seeking and destroying an enemy submarine is one of the most difficult faced by Australia's six new Collins class submarines. The success off Hawaii in August has boosted morale dramatically among submarine crews who have had to endure years of hearing their boats condemned as noisy and vulnerable.
A 1999 report by the then CSIRO chief, Malcolm McIntosh, and former BHP managing director John Prescott said the Collins' combat system should be junked, the vessels were noisy and vulnerable to attack, their engines broke down regularly, a badly shaped hull and fin made too much disturbance when they moved at speed under water, the view from the periscope was blurry, the communications system outdated and the propellers were likely to crack.
Commander Steve Davies, chief-of-staff in the navy's submarine force, said that during the past three years those problems had been fixed to the point where the submarines were able to match the best of the US Navy's giant underwater fleet.
During its mock attacks on the Olympia and on two US destroyers, the Sheean fired 28 torpedoes. Commander Davies said "a respectable percentage" of shots Sheean fired at Olympia were hits that would have destroyed the powerful US vessel.
Commodore Davies, Australia's most experienced Collins commander, said the two vessels were very evenly matched. The submarines also practised landing special forces.
The exercises provided a crucial test for the Australian submarine, which has been as much criticised at home as it has been feted abroad.
The Olympia, 110 metres long and 12 metres across the beam, is twice the displacement of the Sheean, at 80 metres by eight metres. The Olympia carries up to 120 crew; the Sheean 45. Many of the Americans are engineers caring for their reactor.
The Collins is powered by diesel and electric motors and its roles include undersea warfare - finding and destroying other submarines - destroying enemy warships and merchant ships, surveillance and intelligence collection, support for special forces and covert transport.
Commander Davies said the US sub's size was not an advantage: "It just means you make more noise when you go faster."
He said cooperation with the US submarine force had increased significantly recently. "That has come about because they're interested in the Collins class and in our submarine force generally."
While the Americans run the world's most powerful submarine arm, they acknowledge that changes in international conditions in the past decade and new priorities have left them with tactics to learn from the small Australian submarine arm.
Commander Davies said Australian submariners were used to operating in shallow water. "That's one of the things the Americans are looking towards us for experience in.
"Ten years ago their submarine force was chasing Russian submarines around the deep ocean. Now, as with all submarine forces, it's more focused on closer inshore operations, intelligence collection or working with special forces. They're looking to us as a submarine force which has a long experience in that sort of thing."
The six Collins' combat systems are to be upgraded further and they will get more modern torpedoes. Those the Sheean used in its clashes with the Olympia were developed in the 1970s; the Americans used a far more sophisticated generation.
While smaller than the US nuclear boats, the Collins is one of the world's biggest conventional submarines. It was designed to cover long distances and the Sheean easily reached Hawaii without refuelling.
-
Deadliest Diesel Boat in the World Goes to Sea
Australia has completed the refurbishment and upgrades on the first of its six Collins class subs. The United States, in a rare move, gave Australia access to American sonar and underwater warfare systems technology for this. Australia is spending nearly a hundred million dollars each, to upgrade the sonar and fire control systems on its six Collins class subs, and this new deal with the U.S. means that those diesel electric subs will carry the most advanced electronics in the world. The Collins class boats, mainly because of the quality of their crews, have proved to be among the most capable diesel-electric subs in the world. This is known because Collins class boats often train with U.S. Navy ships and aircraft, and usually come out ahead.
This has made the American admirals more concerned about the threat from diesel-electric subs. For the moment, however, none of America's potential naval foes have submarine crews as well trained as the Australians. The new electronics will provide the Collins class boats with combat capabilities similar to the new U.S. Virginian class SSNs.
The Collins class boats were built in Australia during the 1990s, and are based on a Swedish design (the Type 471.) At 3,000 tons displacement, the Collins are half the size of the American Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs. However, boats that size are nearly twice the size of subs Europeans are accustomed to designing and building for their own use. Australia needed larger boats because of the sheer size of the oceans that surround Australia. There were a lot of technical problems with the Collins class boats, which the media(lionnoisy) jumped all over. The design of these subs was novel and ambitious, using a lot of automation. This reduced the crew size to 45.
-
You know something LN, if you chose to discuss Aussie issues in a clear logical and up to date manner, i'm pretty sure you wont be getting the kind of flak you have been.Unless, you love to receive them which would point to you being kinda...
Posting outdated articles and claiming as if there werent retifications or improvements since, is utterly worst off then claiming the internet was born yesterday.
Australia plans to increase their sub fleet size and have them styled similar to the newest Uk submarines in the sense that the nuclear reactor purchased whole sale and as a complete unit from US, will last a life time without maintainence and will be installed in a larger sub than that of the collins class. And yes they are going to build the sub themselves. The collins are one of the best subs in our part of the world. They are without doubt the best subs in our region.
-
No surprise he managed to screw it up again, given he has a very limited knowledge of anything military beyond whatever he sees on the media.
And unfortunately for him, he seems to draw his own naive conclusions from the media, such as launching F-18Es off LHDs and running for his life carrying handbag SAR.
In any case it's not surprising he wants to slam the Collins, trying to paint it as an unreliable, noisy boat that is unable to fight with old articles. The truth of the matter is this, if it is as unreliable, noisy, and unable to fight as he says, there is no way it would have been able to go up against the most efficent antisubmarine force in the world and wreck havoc with it to the point the USN are looking to the Australian Navy for experience in submarine warfare against SSKs.
This is the same pattern as in the TAR-21 thread, which made him feel threatened when he realized the TAR-21 was the superior weapon to his beloved SAR (which he never even trained with in the first place) So it was not surprising that when he, not even knowing anything about the rifle started to make a lame argument that "it needs as least two hands to run for your life with" without even knowing anything about it, when the TAR in reality is not only much lighter, but also no grunt in his right mind will want to run carrying his SAR by the scope handle, plainly ridiculus!
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
This is the same pattern as in the TAR-21 thread, which made him feel threatened when he realized the TAR-21 was the superior weapon to his beloved SAR (which he never even trained with in the first place) So it was not surprising that when he, not even knowing anything about the rifle started to make a lame argument that "it needs as least two hands to run for your life with" without even knowing anything about it, when the TAR in reality is not only much lighter, but also no grunt in his right mind will want to run carrying his SAR by the scope handle, plainly ridiculus!
Obviously he is not in NS, coz he doesnt know what is rifle sling.
-
Why US did not lease Collins for long term training?
1.US Navy leased Swedish sub Gotland SSK with AIP for 2 years training.
US should have leased the best in conventional sub to train,right?
May be Oz has not enough subs lah!!
Why no Full Operational Cabalitity declared so far
Under the original contract and subsequent modifications,
NOT a single Collins has been declared achieving
Full Operational Cabalitity!!
Always vertify all news
US has deep involvement in Collins retifications and modifications
for so many years.Dunt buy their story so easy,just like we dunt buy
SG story so easy.
Retifiaction or modifications
Collins projects costs over ran from A3.9 billion to 6 billion
for ORIGINAL project.Schedule is much behind schedule.
After that,there are so called modifications
to Collins,non stop after they are launched.
Are the modifications is in fact retifications?
Billions of $$ are just spent.Why it take so short period to scrap
the original few billion $$ spent?
Even in March 2004,
''The Operational Release rating does not release contractors from responsibilities to address aspects that require outstanding rectification or modification''
http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=3617
Singapore naval defense industry
lets read from other angles.Defense industry must be supported from
civilain industry to provide know how and men power.
''Singapore's Transport Engineering achievements include:
- 70% global market share of the conversion of Floating Production Storage Offloading (FPSO)
- 70% world market share in jack-up rigs
- 20% world market share for ship repair
- Asia's #1 MRO hub''
http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/transport_engineering.html
SG made naval ships for few decades.This why now we can deliver frigates lah.
pl place order here:
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
-
bah you are hopeless
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/collins/
We only build the frigates from blueprints. They build subs you know the difference in tech right?!?!
It is fool hardy and embarassing for you to even try comparing our naval industry or strength with our close ally, Australia.
You are going to get your face kick into your *** by others and no one's going to help you pull it out.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Who exactly in the region is going to attack Australia via the sea? Indonesia? I don't thnk so.
And why does lionnoisy not include the Armidale class patrol boat fleet? Which actually takes the lion's share of coastline patrol against tasks that would be wasted on bigger platforms and actually consitute a large part of peacetime operations.
...ok I include it. 6.6 ships of Armidale class patrol boat can go for tasks a day.
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/patrol/
But with'' Rafael Typhoon 25mm naval stabilised deck gun and two 12.7mm machine guns,''it takes the role of Marine Police,
not naval defense force.It is not good enough to fight with heavy armed pirates!!
'' The new patrol boats will improve the Royal Australian Navy’s capability to intercept and apprehend vessels suspected of illegal fishing, quarantine, customs or immigration offences. (lion note:sound like SG ICA and Police Coast Guard jobs!!) Trials will continue for the remainder of the year to ensure the fuel system works reliably and will cope with the environmental conditions in the northern wet season.. This risk is assessed as medium..'' 34 (17 of 76) in http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_defence_DAR_09_v2_s2.pdfok i assume it can detect and track threats.But how?
How much the PB can do?
Any threat most likely come with much heavy fire power.
when oz can fix the engine problems?
2.Have u mixed up with SG Patrol Vessel?
Weapons
76 mm OTO MELARA SRGM
MISTRAL Surface to Air Missile/
WHITEHEAD TorpedoesSG Patrol vessel can hit threats from ,surface,and air / submarine!!
Dunt cheat by the name.Not every patrol boat is the same ,mates
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/navy/assets/vessels.html
-
*sigh* havent you seen what a 25mm CG can do? More so for a Typhoon 25mm? What surface pirate can engage and live?
1 25mm round is the size of a coke bottle except heavier.
-
Originally posted by CM06:
bah you are hopeless
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/collins/
We only build the frigates from blueprints. They build subs you know the difference in tech right?!?!
It is fool hardy and embarassing for you to even try comparing our naval industry or strength with our close ally, Australia.
You are going to get your face kick into your *** by others and no one's going to help you pull it out.
yes damn difflcult to build sub. But what is the products look like? Since the delivery of last ships,how many days each ship can sail? seriouly over budget ,long delay, Just build one class with so many problems and claim to be sub designer!! Upgrade upgrade every where (in the ship)! Upgrade upgrade every year! -
LOL
I dunno what to say!
-
erm if you don upgrade you become outdated....like you.
Collins class is designed by kockums. Aussies build them.
