Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Are Mid Life Upgrades a waste of time and money
Volkodav    1/23/2009 5:12:42 AM
Considering our bad record with behind schedule, over budget and below expected capability MLU's are they really worth doing or should we, case by case be looking to replace or supplement the ADF's frontline combat equipment rather than automatically upgrading it? A good example that comes to mind it the M-113, there were proven, affordable upgrades available but the decision was made to gold plate what should have been a straight forward phased upgrade resulting in massive delays and cost increases. Would it not have been better to have run an obsolescence program incorporating some basic improvements while at the same time acquiring a modern AIFV to supplement the APC's in the Mech INF. With the FFG's would it not have made more sense to have bought and upgraded all 4 Kidd class DDG's as replacements for the DDG's and then retiring the four original FFG's without replacement and providing MELBOURNE and NEWCASTLE with minimal upgrades to allow them to serve until the AWD's became available. Something that is often forgotten is heavily utilised platforms get tired and will be less suitable for upgrade. i.e. the ASLAV's have had a very busy life and replacement may make more sense than a MLU, where the Abrams we bought, though older than the ASLAV's, had spent most of their lives in storage making then good value to upgrade.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
HERALD1357    Question from the Peanut Gallery   1/26/2009 5:01:38 AM
The four Kidds were offered to Australia for around $100 M USD in 1997 or thereabouts.
 
Aside from the manning issues, why were these destroyers rejected?
 
The installation of an AEGIS array was not that tough. It was well within Australian industry capacity at the time. Considering that the superstructure could be razed and rebuilt and that the Mark 26 launchers and magazines could be ripped out for the Mark 41 VLS, what was the real reason for the rejection?
 
What happened?   

Curious.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/26/2009 5:30:30 AM
Aside from the manning issues, why were these destroyers rejected?

we got screwed on Manoora and Kanimbla and the Govt decided that we would no longer buy large second hand ships on their watch.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/26/2009 5:47:11 AM


Aside from the manning issues, why were these destroyers rejected?





we got screwed on Manoora and Kanimbla and the Govt decided that we would no longer buy large second hand ships on their watch.


Ugh, that Newport News Class debacle.
 
US version of the Upholder fiasco.
 
Don't blame you one bit.
 
Herald

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/26/2009 7:58:06 AM


Aside from the manning issues, why were these destroyers rejected?


 
we got screwed on Manoora and Kanimbla and the Govt decided that we would no longer buy large second hand ships on their watch.
I remember when they were talking about buying the Kidds, they said that only three out of the four were in a state to be considered anyway. I guess the decision reflects as much on the Government's faith in the Navy's engineers to pick up any defencts as in the Americans.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/26/2009 2:59:59 PM
I guess the decision reflects as much on the Government's faith in the Navy's engineers to pick up any defencts as in the Americans. 
Negligence, incompetence and indolence on both sides.  They turned out to be probably the best Task Force Command vessels in the Gulf - but at a price.
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       1/26/2009 4:55:50 PM
Getting back to the F-18 and Super Hornet issue, I would suggest that the 24 Super Honets we are acquiring should be used to replace the 24 F-18's that are in the worse condition.  The Super Hornet is not a suitable replacement for the F111, and neither is the F35.  We should replace the F111 with either the F15 (latest version) or the Su 32/34, preferably the latter as thye would also boost our anti-maritime forces.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Sukhois?   1/26/2009 6:11:19 PM
As a naval strike bird?
 
I would be interested to see you defend that choice against a BEAGLE.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       1/26/2009 7:17:06 PM

As a naval strike bird?

 

I would be interested to see you defend that choice against a BEAGLE.

 

Herald



I was going to suggest the same myself: the latest F-15s, in the South Korean -K models
and moreso in Singapore's -SG models,
are probably better maritime strikers than the Fullbacks (duck-billed 2-seat Flanker),
a leap ahead of late-1980s tech F-15Es that made their combat debuts in Desert Storm (1990-1991).
Geez, just because the West don't have Brahmos or Yakhont, our maritime attack jets aren't competitive?
Would he feel better if F-15s had a toilet installed, too?
 
(might as well opt for -SGs...not like that FB-22 is ever going to see the light of day,..
or that the US would sell it to anyone if it did.)
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/27/2009 1:24:53 AM


I was going to suggest the same myself: the latest F-15s, in the South Korean -K models and more-so in Singapore's -SG models, are probably better maritime strikers than the Fullbacks (duck-billed 2-seat Flanker), a leap ahead of late-1980s tech F-15Es that made their combat debuts in Desert Storm (1990-1991).

Geez, just because the West don't have Brahmos or Yakhont, our maritime attack jets aren't competitive?

Would he feel better if F-15s had a toilet installed, too?

 (might as well opt for -SGs...not like that FB-22 is ever going to see the light of day,..
or that the US would sell it to anyone if it did.)


If you want a competitive rocket to a Yakhont which is a fairly decent ramjet missile when it works, why not hang a  Standard RGM-165 off the BEAGLE's or Fullback's rail?
 
Raytheon has thought of that.  It works. New seeker head required for ships but.............can you say KABOOM?
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       1/27/2009 2:47:12 AM
M113 should have been straightforward, although I think it has had some upgrades over the years.  Contrast with FV432 upgrade from Mk 2 to Mk 3 with a follow-on batch currently underway.  The vehicle is the same age as M113 and the program is going extremely well and the users are very happy.  Suggests the M113 program was either over ambitious, badly managed or incompetant engineering, or all of the above.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics