Another I hate Australia thread
-
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=
Adelaide-Class Guided Missile Frigate Upgrade
http://www.anao.gov.au/director/publications/auditreports/2007-2008.cfm?item_id=B5C6475C1560A6E8AAF2A8DA9DC9D8EF
Management of the FFG Capability Upgrade11Year: 2007/2008Tabled: Wednesday, 31 October 2007Portfolio:DefenceAgency:Department of Defence
Defence Materiel OrganisationThe audit follows on from Audit Report No. 45 2004-2005, Management of Selected Defence Systems Program Offices, May 2005. That report is being considered by the JCPAA, as part of its current inquiry into Defence Financial Management and Equipment Acquisition at the Department of Defence and DMO.
''Conclusions
18. The FFG Upgrade Project has experienced extensive delays in meeting the contracted capability upgrade requirements specified in the late 1990s. The number of FFGs to be upgraded has been reduced from six to four, and the scheduled acceptance of the fourth and final ship has been delayed by four and a half years to June 2009. Since the last ANAO audit in 2005, the project delays are attributable to a range of Underwater Warfare System and Electronic Support System performance deficiencies. Considerable risk remains to the delivery of contractually compliant capability to Navy, given the maturity of these systems.6''
The Armidale Class Patrol Boat Project: Project Management29Year: 2004/2005Tabled: Friday, 25 February 2005Portfolio:DefenceAgency:Department of DefenceThe objective of the audit was to provide an independent assurance of the effectiveness of Defence's management of the acquisition, and future provision of the Armidale Class Patrol Boats capability, relating to the in-service support contract, provision of infrastructure, and crewing sustainability.
http://www.anao.gov.au/search.cfm?cat_id=4&arg=&pageNumber=2
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2004-05_Audit_Report_29.pdf
''The 12 ACPBs will be required to deliver up to 3600 sea days per year, and will be operated by 18 separate RAN crews'''
(lion note:10 ships a per day sails)
Shall PB is to be added either anti air or anti sub function?
Collins class submarine
'' most powerful conventional sub in the world''---
http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/home.aspx
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2001-02_Audit_Report_30.pdf
page 16 of 154
''21. OT&E on the Collins-class submarines is experiencing significant difficulties caused mainly by the amount of engineering development still under way in the program as well as significant in-service support problems. The Collins class has shifted from development into operational service without a distinct end to development T&E, placing further
demands on the overall program.
22. Many Collins-class performance deficiencies were not corrected prior to DMO offering the submarines to Navy for acceptance into service.
These have caused extra cost and delays in gaining required naval capability and in achieving acceptance into naval service. The need to spend substantial amounts on modifications to achieve ‘limited capability level’ improvements in two submarines, and to extend the Collins program by seven years to accommodate modifications and upgrades to
all Collins submarines, reinforces the importance of this issue. The submarines’ existing and planned redesign, modification, upgrade and sustainability enhancement costs represent an increase of 39 per cent on the approved submarine project cost of $5.09 billion (December 2000
prices).
23. Shortages of Navy technical personnel have led to a chronic
shortage of T&E trained personnel in Navy’s T&E agency (RANTEAA).''
1.6 to 2.2 ships of Collins for tasking,depending in how u read the reports!!
5 out of 6 SSK in docks almost at the same time??
No. of weeks required
FCD = Full-Cycle Docking--52
MCD = Mid-Cycle Docking--5
AMP = Assisted Maintenance Period--4
ID = Intermediate Docking—9 to 14
CED = Certifi cation Extension Docking--14
CEM = Certifi cation Extension Maintenance Period--5
SMP = Self Maintenance Period--2
IMAV = Intermediate Maintenance Availability—8
http://www.asc.com.au/cms_resources/documents/annualreports/ASC_Annual_Report_2004.pdf
-
but who cares about what the aussies are doing? i think u should be more critical of our local defense industries... unless u happen to stay in australia...
anyway the aussies will never project their power into this region, at least not in our lifetime probably... and the ones who should really care the indonesians and not us... they are the ones who has the most problems with the aussies, not us...
speaking about the indonesians, why not make some critiques about the state of their military hardware and software?? i believe it mght be in even worse position than the aussies...
-
Please dont tell me you're gonna use a 76mm gun, or a torpedo or a harpoon against a pirate.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
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!This is just an example of you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la i can't hear you"
Going by your logic are you implying that our SAR-21 is a total waste of money because it was outclassed by the TAR-21 the moment it came out and we spent even more money to make more variants and in the end it's still heavier and the advanced versions haven't found their way to the grunt?Going by your logic it means our Bx would also be a waste of money and time given not only did we not manage to replace the M113s it was supposed to despite years spent on design and funding, we now have to spend more time and money to come up with a Bx2 because the orginal Bionix was found to be NOT COMPATIBLE with our SAF 3G vision!
Also does this mean our Light Tank Project was a total waste despite 20 years and millions spent when in the end we decided just to get Leopard 2?
All the media nonsense apart, if you look at the entire Collins project from the standpoint of experience gained in sub manufacture, technology transfer with the Yanks which put their SSKs on par in hunter-killer ability as an Virgina class SSN, plus ADCAP torpedoes as partr of experience-for-technology with the yanks, as well as experience in submarine warfare penetrating the most effective ASW net in the world, PLUS unique technologies developed in the program means that the Australians actually managed to kill multiple birds with one stone and got a VERY good deal with the Collins program.
So you can say all you want lionnoisy, but the Aussies actually made a very good investment and deal. If ST Marine want to build a local sub right now, we will have to rely on blueprints from other countries, and then spend time and money FIGURING out how to develop our technology for our own needs, and then test it and implement it and then troubleshoot it. On the other hand, the Aussies are already into their second generation of advanced SSKs while we are just starting on our first generation.
So yes, the Aussies paid a hefty price to get the technologies and experience to be the most lethal SSK force in the world, but a the end of the day they managed to trump the USN and as a reward even got yank technologies and ADCAP torpedos! And that is something ST will be hard-pressed to get. Somehow this fact seems to be lost on you if one day the Austraian submarine force ever decide to take on the RSN, the RSN will be in very serious trouble.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Please dont tell me you're gonna use a 76mm gun, or a torpedo or a harpoon against a pirate.
He seems to think that pirates use submarines, military aircraft and warships.And indeed, what is his imaginary "threat" to australia that he keeps talking about that they need to defend from?
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
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!Don't upgrade.... you say the subs are outdated.
Upgrade regularly.... you say that the subs got problems.
So how? I take it that you're still using Windows 95?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
So yes, the Aussies paid a hefty price to get the technologies and experience to be the most lethal SSK force in the world, but a the end of the day they managed to trump the USN and as a reward even got yank technologies and ADCAP torpedos! And that is something ST will be hard-pressed to get. Somehow this fact seems to be lost on you if one day the Austraian submarine force ever decide to take on the RSN, the RSN will be in very serious trouble.
oh yeah... the ADCAP torpedoes look awesome... destroyer escorts dun seem to have much hope once it's hit by it...
-
and so the battle rages on....
oya, lionnoisy, can dun keep cutting and pasting articles? cos i hate scrolling them...perhaps you can try to summarise them by typing them out lar, might help improve your thought process too. unless getting screamed at everyday on sgforums constitutes an cheap thrill for you....
-
Originally posted by arball:
and so the battle rages on....
oya, lionnoisy, can dun keep cutting and pasting articles? cos i hate scrolling them...perhaps you can try to summarise them by typing them out lar, might help improve your thought process too. unless getting screamed at everyday on sgforums constitutes an cheap thrill for you....
Actually I'm not sure if he has any form of critical thinking.... CRITICAL thinking on anything non Singapore maybe, as in he seems to operate on two main modes:1)Play up anything on Singapore and give it a good spin
2)Play down anything in other countries that are better then Singapore, and give them a negative spin if possible... his attempt to downplay the TAR-21, SAF and Singapore security peacetime blunders is a prime example of him shooting off his mouth in his desperate attempts to defend his precious notion of Singaporean weapons and security "superiority".
Intellectual intergity is something pesky to him and as we can see from his carry-SAR-like-handbag and F-18E-launch-from-LHD threads, he has no issues with warping reality or the laws of logic and physics to suit his own fantasies.
Hence it's no surprise while the Australians now have most advanced SSKs in the world, managed to trump the USN in exercises that led to the yanks trading off ADCAP torpedos for experience from the Aussies, as well as planning their next generation submarines, lionnoisy is still stuck in trying to create his own fantasy world that despite all apperances the Aussies are not making it with their submarine programme when by all measures they got a very good deal from the whole saga.
This is no surprise when all you know how to do is to quote articles from the media and demostrate no form of critical thinking except CRITICAL thinking about other countries.
Since he's so keen on media articles, then prehaps he could love to explain some other media articles about the Australian Defence Forces:
Like how if the Collins is "partial blind and crippled" it managed to outfox and defeat a 688I class SSN, plus score several hits on American ships despite an entire fleet trying to hunt ONE Collin's class sub? The performance was so exceptional that the Americans decided to help the Australians with their submarine program in exchange for SSK hunting experience.
Like how if the ADF is supposedly crippled and unable to fight, their troops have distinguished themsleves in combat in Afganistan in one instance managing to kill over 300 of the enemy in a firefight without loss?
-
'Orphan System' Syndrome is the main cause of almost all
oz defense procurement problems!!pl read lah...
US has not finalised nuke Combat Sys
Glory to US Navy assistances.Now US nuke come to help.
unforuntalely,US is still trail and error in the nuke sub Combat Sys!!
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/sea1439ph4a.cfm
''Current Status
Where we are today (February 2008)
As of February 2008, the Project Team is pleased to announce that we have:· Successfully installed the system in HMAS WALLER during the Full Cycle Docking (FCD) which completed in May 2007, completed Harbour certification testing (referred to as Category 4 testing) and Sea Trials Certification (referred to as Category 5 testing). Interim Operational Release for WALLER is scheduled for late Mar 08.
· Installation of a similar TI02 system in HMAS FARNCOMB is well underway. Interim Operational Release for FARNCOMB is scheduled for second quarter 09.
Installation of the latest AN/BYG 1 V(8) TI06 system in HMAS DECHAINEUX is also well underway. Interim Operational Release for DECHAINEUX is scheduled for last quarter 09.''
read here.US is still under R and D.
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2007/Navy/0604562N.pdf
''DATE:
February 2006
AN/BYG-1 TI00/02
FY05: Continued to resolve DT/OT discrepancies associated with AN/BYG-1 TI00/TI02.
Began engineering development process for selection and protyping of new technologies for TI06.
FY06: Continue development, integration and test of the next generation AN/BYG-1 (TI06) for 688/688I Class submarines scheduled for delivery in
FY07.
FY07: Continue development, integration and test of the next generation AN/BYG-1 (TI06) for 688/688I Class submarines scheduled for delivered in FY 07''
The Collins reports
if u want to cry,read the followings.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/1999/collins.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP03.htm
:l HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Sheean
These two were launched in 2000.But why:from 1999 report''
- ''Two Collins Class submarines, HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Sheean, will now be upgraded at a cost of $266 million to increased operational capability by December 2000. This decision reaffirms the Government's commitment to sustaining Australia's submarine capability and rectifying shortcomings identified in the McIntosh-Prescott Report.
- Later this year, the Government will consider proposals to bring all six Collins Class submarines to satisfactory completion.''
- (lion note:Just from dock and went to dock again!!)
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jfs/jfs010202_collins_sub.shtml
'Orphan Systems'
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
''Only One Amongst Many: Ongoing Problems in Defence Procurement
Yet, in reality, the Collins submarine program is not amongst the worst managed by Defence, in terms of either additional costs or time overrun. At present there are 15 Defence acquisition programs which have exceeded their approved cost by a combined total of $568 million...
Even by the worst interpretation of performance, the Collins program would rank twelfth amongst these. Many of the programs are characterised by changes to overseas systems to meet specifications developed by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for peculiarly Australian requirements. These systems are unique to Australia and typically have proven difficult both to develop and maintain. Within Defence they have attracted the nickname 'orphan systems'...''
Only two sub defending Oz a day and at least last for few years!!
-
Can any one object to the following figures?
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_Defence_DAR_03_v1_s2.pdf
Is it enough to defend Oz?I dunt want we need send SAF to help!!
.............................(Adelaide Class)
Guided missile FFG...ANZAC FFG...Collins SSK
Platforms in services--------------4.....................8...............6
URD---------------------------------1046...............1850..........817
(unit ready days)
Achieved----------------------------951..................1829.........802
Substantially achieved-----------874..................1669.........583
Platforms avaiable per day(max):2.9.................5.1..........2.2
Total:10!!
Patrol boats ?Ok ok.assume 10 boats as marine police a day!!
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.''
-
Nobody is arguing with the numbers, you are mistaking peacetime readiness for wartime abilities, which is no surprise given all you know how to do is to tally numbers without even knowing how things really work.
The URD figures will naturally change when a military goes to heightened alert, for maintaining a high URD for no reason (especially out of proportion to current threat levels) is not only wasteful, but means you are running down your own forces for no good reason.
Unless you are going to come out with some fantasy situtation where the Indonesian navy launched a whole fleet of stealth ships that can sail at 200 knots and reach Australia within 24 hours, I think you're talking rubbish. You are mixing up URD for actual readiness in different alert levels.
Going by your logic, I can say that we may have 250,000 personnel in our military, but at any one time only a small proportion (less then 10 percent) is actually ready to go or out in ops in ten minutes case anything breaks out. Going by your logic I can conclude that the SAF then, is unable to defend Singapore.
I think you are deluding yourself if you think just by repeating your old posts people will bother to read them. But I managed to spot yet another mistake in your post:
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.''
This is yet another example of you not knowing your homework and relying on the politically-charged media to formulate your arguments.
For your information, propeller design is among one of the most difficult aspects of submarine design, for having a wrong or inadequate screw design will result in the submarine wasting energy or worse, creating cavitation even at low speeds. A lot of effort is spent designing the specific propeller for the specific class and even then screw design is a very specific art.
It is not surprising given this is the first time they are working with making their own screws that they are going to need some help from the yanks, the whole injunctment thing is more of a political battle then a technical one.
What do you mean by how can they give their propellers to the yanks? The yanks are far ahead in this field and the Australian navy stands nothing to lose and everything to gain from this exchange by getting American help... but once again the politics and the media, and you by extension, decide to jump all over it without even knowing what is the case or doing your homework.
-
Only two sub defending Oz a day and at least last for few years!!
Another example of you talking rubbish. You seem to think the only way to defend any nation is to flood the ocean with hundreds of warships.
Firstly what is the purpose of an SSK? It is not a picket line ship to form a gaunlet but a hunter-killer that often operates alone.
What this mean is that the purpose of these subs is not to defend each and every inch of Australian coastline but to be at the right place at the right time, not go on extensive patrols for no good reason. That role is better served by other cheaper means.
And before you talk more rubbish, remember that one Collins sub is more then enough to wreck havoc with an enemy fleet, as just one sub proved against the USN.
-
oh some of u say,upgrading is good and normal.
But the projects for Collins,for example,are too excessive.
Pl read then talk here.Eg,
HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Sheean were upgraded in
2000,the same year that they were launched!!
Oz under defense or SG over defense?
1.If we include the 10 Oz Patrol Boats,combatant naval platforms
defending Oz is total 20 in any day.Pl bear in mind the weapons in Patrol Boats are'' Rafael Typhoon 25mm naval stabilised deck gun and two 12.7mm machine guns,''a low fire power in naval
defense.Collins SSK are the most powerful SK lah.Just 2 is enough a day to protect Oz.
Do u really think 10 combatant naval platforms,and 10
Patrol Boats which act as Coastal Guards,can effectively
defend Oz against serious threats ?
If u think so,then SG naval defense force is excessive!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Navy
Total 31 combatant naval platforms.Say 60% operational in any day,that is 18 platforms defending SG in any day!!.
10+10 combatant naval platforms defending Oz in any day.
.
18 combatant naval platforms defending little red dot in any day.
ANZAC frigate of Oz
Formidable class of Spore
Collins depth is more classified after HMAS Dechainux incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_class_submarine
''More trouble however followed, when in 2005, it was revealed that the maximum diving depth of the Collins class had been reduced following an incident in February 2003, when a seawater hose failed on HMAS Dechainux, flooding the engine room and almost sinking the vessel. The maximum depth remains classified. The government claims that the problems of the Collins class are now solved or on their way to resolution.''
The depth reduced from over 300 m in original design to over 180m.
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/submarine.html
most powerful SSK!!
-
We got 18 meh?????
Eh! Use your brain leh!
We have only 11 PVs, 6 MCVs for patrolling!
And not all will sail at once, and even if you include LST and FFS you think can hit 18?!
BULLSHIT
-
So lionnoisy
what is your point? You are only merely posting all these articles without stating anything.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
So lionnoisy
what is your point? You are only merely posting all these articles without stating anything.
his point is trying to confuse ppl with cut & paste -
Total 31 combatant naval platforms.Say 60% operational in any day,that is 18 platforms defending SG in any day!!.
Where did you get this info about 60 percent of our platforms out at sea a day?
Wishful thinking?
It's wrong on so many levels that it's almost laughable. Do you have any idea of the concept of unit and crew turnover? As well as this concept called reserve?
For a person who loves to find so many numbers in the media you seem to be oddly absent in relying on numbers when it comes to the SAF, choosing to invent your own numbers instead. This is really laughable.
And how many of those 18 "patrolling" platforms actually fit your description of "high firepower"? Minesweepers? Endurance class?
oh some of u say,upgrading is good and normal.
But the projects for Collins,for example,are too excessive.
Pl read then talk here.Eg,
HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Sheean were upgraded in
2000,the same year that they were launched!!
I'm sure you would consider these upgrade excessive because they put the Collins as the most lethal SSKs in the world and certainly way beyond our own capabilities, something you would not like to admit.
The facts however are this:
The hunter-killer abilities of the Collins are now on par with the latest USN Virgina class SSNs, the among most advanced nuclear hunter killer subs in the world and way ahead of any in the region.
The Australians now have ADCAP torpedos, which are the AMMRAMS of the Submarine world
Consider another case, we never even made full use of our Bionix IFVs before we spent millions more upgrading them to Bionix 2 and literally revamping the system, going by your logic this would be an excessive upgrade as well.
Collins depth is more classified after HMAS Dechainux incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_class_submarine
''More trouble however followed, when in 2005, it was revealed that the maximum diving depth of the Collins class had been reduced following an incident in February 2003, when a seawater hose failed on HMAS Dechainux, flooding the engine room and almost sinking the vessel. The maximum depth remains classified. The government claims that the problems of the Collins class are now solved or on their way to resolution.''
The depth reduced from over 300 m in original design to over 180m.
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/submarine.html
most powerful SSK!!
The question I believe is so what?
The real fact at the end of day is that Aussies still operate the most advanced SSK in the world, have trumped the USN with it, and are on their way to a second generation of locally-built SSKs which will draw from the lessons learnt from the Collins class.
Would you criticize the F-22 Raptor for having a crash and hence meaning it is not the most lethal air superiority fighter in the world today or what about the B-2 which just crashed recently? Ultimately incidents aside militaries look at the big picture. What matters at the end of the day if not the Collins have teething issues expected of a first-generation design by a nation learning to build its own submarines in a very ambitious way, what matters is that the Australians have learnt a great deal from that experience, now operate the most lethal SSK in the world, and are going to use that experience
If we went by your logic then the Americans should have stopped all SSN development after Scorpion and Thresher and went back to conventional boats. PURE RUBBISH.
In an actual war, it will be us the Singapore Navy turning to the Australian Navy for help on how to conduct Submarine warfare so you best swallow your pride and learn a little bit.
But I am not surprised given you don't do your homework.
I don't think you know what are the implications of having the hunter-killer abilities of a VirginIa Class SSN, especially in an SSK
I don't think you know the implication ADCAP torpedos will have in naval warfare in this region
I don't think you know what a feat the Australians have achieved in creating the world's first big ocean SSK and getting it to defeat the ASW net of the USN.
The only thing you seem to know however, is the believe blindly in any media article without bothering to make any sense of the facts and implications of what is truly happening. The military and media rarely mix and trying to take the media position in here usually means you are going to get debunked quite quickly.
In fact the only reason you seem to stick to your media articles is that they reflect negatively on the ADF, choosing instead to ignore the knowledge and common sense of the people in here, many of whom are actually trained in military affairs.
Are you not behaving like a little kid? Your thread on LHDs bring used for F-18Es is a prime example of that. What happened in there? After acting all man and trying to accuse the forumers of not noticing this development and getting trashed you lost your appitite for a proper debate and decided to start more pointless threads?
Of course you will not, given all you do is to feel threatened that Singaporeans are going to Australia, trying to convince them otherwise in Speaker's Corner and failing, and then going to Military Nuts to relieve yourself of your fustrations by trying to paint Australians as incompetent in doing anything related to defence when in actual fact you are actually showing yourself more to be a person who literally knows NUTS about military affairs.
-
Total 31 combatant naval platforms.Say 60% operational in any day,that is 18 platforms defending SG in any day!!.
Another case of trying to launch F-18Es off LHDs, common sense apparently does not figure into your estimates.
If you want to make up figures at least come up with a realistic number. 60 percent for peacetime is pure wishful thinking.
If the RSN fields 60 percent of its strength each and every day it will actually be hard-pressed to be a fighting force when the stuff actually hits the fan. You might as well say the RSN runs Exercise Malabar 24/7!
So are you also implying that when we go for any of the annual naval military exercises we have to lower our naval defences because we certainly will not have enough ships to meet your magical and imagined 60 percent?
It's pretty akin to saying we field all of our Guard Battalions on ops from the moment they do AIT until they ORD, which is pure nonsense. Even our units who do POI (24/7 ops) cannot maintain a 60 personnel out in the field rate 24/7 in peacetime, in the long run it will be disaster.
In short, this smells like another case of lionnoisy running out of things to say and desperately trying to save his position by invention fantastic figures.
Seriously, if you cannot be trusted to even make an intellectually honest estimate in your own posts how do you expect people to even bother with whatever you are posting- it is quite apparent you are not interested in any honest discussion at all.
And for the record I didn't even bother to read whatever you cut and paste, like others we just skim through them to pick out any glaring errors that you make, and the sad thing is they are very easy to spot.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
We got 18 meh?????
Eh! Use your brain leh!
We have only 11 PVs, 6 MCVs for patrolling!
And not all will sail at once, and even if you include LST and FFS you think can hit 18?!
BULLSHIT
He likes to smoke what, he thinks our ships all have unlimited fuel, can be sailed 24/7 all around the year without needing any time in port or other activities.The crew on the other hand also does not figure into his calculations. They magically teleport onto the ship and do not require rest, supplies, or mission briefing.
Even penguin fastcraft get more breaks then his concept of our RSN
Or maybe when they don't have enough to make 18 ships, they will get our Endurance class to do coastal patrol.
Or borrow people from 6SIR doing POI on Jurong Island to patrol in Aluminium Assault Boats. Pls lah lionnoisy, now you are inventing an inline skate navy. Your military "ideas" all require several laws of physics and logistics to be suspended, such as your antigravity SAR-21 that according to you, is best carried like a handbag.
-
Oz under strength or SG over strength?
Think it is a case of more of needs !!!
Singapore sit in the middle of the 2 most important straits, one of the most busy port and both neighbour countries is close !
OZ ? far down under ..... which long skretch of rough open sea as buffer ...... which is a natural defense .... also enable better long range dectection and monitoring ... !!! That why they have bigger ships for open ocean patrols .... then us having more smaller ones ... !
Who cares if the Aussie like to upgrade their ships and sub !!! they have the money !!! its their money !
Who cares if their sub spend 88 day out at sea ..... if they can do their job when the time comes that all it counts !Stop telling the Aussie how to run their navy, when you do not even own a sampan !!!
-
LOL, exactly. Going by lionnoisy's logic the Swiss need to position an MG post every 200 meters in their mountain ranges. The concept of NATURAL BUFFERS does not exist to him, the entire world is just like a Risk board to him.
I can see how this thread is going to end, given he is getting badly defeated, he is going to do several of these few predictable actions :
1) come up with another lame argument that disregard the laws of common sense and physics in a desperate attempt to save his position
2) cut and paste more repeated media articles that nobody bothers to read and quote them out of context
3) quietly abandon this thread, lick his wounds for a while and then start another one later.
In either case it's fun to see him get pwned.
The problem with lionnoisy is that he's too afraid to face the truth. He would so much rather believe in a world that everybody who leaves Singapore is making a mistake because Australia can't be such a better place then an island he has so much misplaced passions for and in anger he redirects his insecurities an inferiority complex onto Australia to resolve his own inferiority complex.
But the truth is, if lionnoisy is truly confident that the SAF/ Singapore truly better, we won't have to make so much noise about how bad Australia/ADF is. Is is precisely because he has an inferiority complex that he is so quick to try to put Australia down. In his world things like this can never exist:
These following statements will cause lionnoisy a lot of discomfort:
On June 30, Australia defeated Singapore 3-0 in their final match prior to the Asian Cup.
Nepal cleaned up the remaining 7 wickets in two hours to register a 205-run victory over Singapore on the last day of the ACC Premier League match at the TU Cricket Ground.
King's College London (United Kingdom) defeated University of California Hastings (USA) National University of Singapore in law debate
Playoff for 1st-4th Positions 12 April Philippines defeated Singapore 3-0
India defeated. Singapore 3-0
In Round 9 at St Andrew’s College, New Zealand defeated Singapore
Malaysian Warriors defeated Singapore Wombats @ the Rubber Institute in KL
In his world these things cannot exist and if they do are just some illusion- hence he will spend every effort trying to find out anything negative about any country that seems to hold any kind of advantage over Singapore.
But in reality TRUE Singaporeans are confident about their own nationality, and know when to defend it or not.
-
1. 3 full crews good enough for 6 SSK
Although only 3 three full crews in services for 6 SSK,
it is more than enough!!Why,it is because there are only
3.6 ships not- in- dock in any days!!
U need time to test sys after come out from docks,and train while the sub out to sea.So,actually,how much time u can deploy sub and defend Oz?
above: no. in weeks for each sub under maintenance and upgrading.
Note:No. of weeks required
FCD = Full-Cycle Docking--52
MCD = Mid-Cycle Docking--5
AMP = Assisted Maintenance Period--4
ID = Intermediate Docking—9 to 14
CED = Certifi cation Extension Docking--14
CEM = Certifi cation Extension Maintenance Period--5
SMP = Self Maintenance Period--2
IMAV = Intermediate Maintenance Availability—8
2. Bonuses to keep sailors on subs
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23534519-31477,00.html
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.
The submarine service has been so badly hit by the crisis that the navy was forced to slash the number of the fleet's sailing days for the third time in as many years.''
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 and confirm the official report here.
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/2006-2007_Defence_DAR_03_v1_s2.pdf
3.What is it?
in oz sub.
i still cant find other sub in other country carrying this object?
pl tell me what is it?is it just to warn crews propellers etc submerged in the water?
-
Originally posted by CM06:
erm if you don upgrade you become outdated....like you.
Collins class is designed by kockums. Aussies build them.
If this is the case,then when and where did ASC learn sub
designing?ASC claims
It is the country’s only submarine designer/builder/maintainer
http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/news_article.aspx?id=122
2.ASC becomes warship design authority
again,when and where did ASC get the know how?
http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/news_article.aspx?id=72
-
eplies to all questions and critics:
1.Am i look anti-oz?
I present facts here ,most if not all from oz repuatable,official and reliable sources.Some of u just quote without sources!!
I wont bother third world or 2 and half world countries.Reasons:
it is expected.But do u expect a big country and 1 st world
like oz ran in this way?
I put up so many issues of oz is for all here to learn somethings valuable,good for u and SG!!Dunt judge a book ,a person and a country by its cover.
Do u have other no. for oz naval combatant platforms
can sail a day?If u have ,tell us here with officail or reliable sources.
NO hear say nor picking from this or that forums.
If u agree oz 10 + 10 Patrol boats can sail a day and think that it is adequate,then SG naval cambatant platforms of 18(60 % of 31 ships in services) must be excessive.
If u think not enough,what is your opinions?
Why Oz can delay defense major projects lightly?
How can we avoid delay,from their expensive lessons?
The most expensive lessons is the serious threats come to her
door!!
2.Other means of survelliance cant replace naval combatant ships
They can just detect and track,but cant hit the targets.
The coastal line in south east oz already runs 2000 km.
Most of the major cities are there.How about other isolated
major cities like Perth?
3. Any US official stamp of approval for Collins existing sys
Dunt talk about the incoming nuke sub combat sys which is still
under installation.It is another pioneer---nuke sub combat sys installed in SSK!!OMG!It just like modern sys not compatiable in Oz Vietnam era air frame Seaspirit naval heli which has just been scraped!
Tell me where did u read that US offical
openly praise Collins?Pl bear in mind the conflict of interst
for US officials who helps Collins to rectify and supply US sys
to Collins.
Again,why did yanks lease Swedish sub iso Collins to learn
against SSK warfare?Do u know Collins is not installed AIP?
Do u really believe Collins just need few minutes in 24 hours
to snorkel?In war,this few minutes will kill any sub!
4. SG and oz defense industry
Every new stuff will get problems initially.SG also experience.
But this is the cutlure and attlitudes that make the different.
How can u expalin so many delays in so many projects in oz,
a model for many Sporeans!!
I am sorry give u this culture shock.
Have u read :
A 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
B .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
Mates,the main cause is system failure from the above reports!!
SG defense industries has been learning and growing steps by steps for few decades,from making bullets for Vietnam war:
Small arms to crew serve :M16,CIS 50 MG,Ultimax,...SAR 21,
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System (SRAMS) etc
Military vehicles:upgrading SM1 tank,M113 APC to design and built
Bionix etc...
Field Guns:FH 88.FH 2000,SPH,Light SPH etc
Naval ships:Very strong in civilian ship repairs and buildings ,
oil rigs etc
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
Have u noted ST just start from small and old models
and progress to modern design and making?
with the large civilian experience,SG is in a better position
to build surface ships,but not sub.
Swedish took 100 years and few generations to build sub.
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''(aviation repairs,mainteanance & over haul)
http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/transport_engineering.html
I cant believe www.asc.com.au can become sub and war ship designers,with barely one class sub making and two warships
making experiences!!
If u say ASC design Collins sub,then what did www.kockums.se
involve in Collins?Did kockums just made the bow and escape section for the 1 st ship?
besides ASC and Metal storm,are there any defense industry in Oz?Any small arms manufacture?
