Why would you need more than 6 subs ?

Subs, like many aircraft, are pressure vessels and as such like aircraft have to undertake rigorous maintenance regime based on the number of pressurisation cycles rather than the number of miles or hours or whatever. This means that the RAN often has a mismatch between available crews and available boats, often enough this means we have a crew without a boat. If we had more boats this would not happen, the available crews would be fully employed at all time, at the cost of having a sub sit idle at other times.

Further if the RAN were to make available another crew then more subs would be needed to fully employ this crew at all times.

This is a very rough explanation, there are other issues with sub sustainability that effect how we employ our sub force, such as speed of overhauls, but that is more or less how it goes with the sub force.

No just the usual flag waving…. and “its the best thing since sliced bread” type of comments.

Tempest414 obviously knows about some of the issues im talking about. The other is the fact, do we need a main battle tank?
Not to mention the logistical nighmare in moving one!
When you consider how poor some aussie roads are, that states like QLD have a narrow gauge rail line, most bridges and rolling stock cant carry it, which leaves airlifting them the only viable option. And when they were ordered we had no C-17s. Now that we do, we can lift one (!) at a time.
But even then, we will never deploy them overseas and our crews will simply use American M1A1s… cheaper to buy a simulator?

Tanks are like fighters, there are only a handful on the world market, all are highly lethal and survivable, all have their good and bad points. It gets down to how the deal works out and how a country structures it’s alliance framework, which is why we went with the US option, the through life support is extensive and cheap.

All tanks are logistical nightmares, have a look at how the Centurions got to Vietnam, and once there how they got to AO Surfers to fight the Battle of Coral/Balmoral. Not only that all tanks are incredibly cantankerous, the best life we got from a Centurion engine in Vietnam was 1750 hours, most engines crapped-out at about 1000 hours. Similarly in 1991 when the British moved their tank fleet in Saudi Arabia to exercise for the invasion of Iraq they lost a tank every 2.5 miles from engine failure, they could work out at which point they would start leaving tanks behind through lack of spare power packs. After some experience they got this figure up to 6.5 miles so didn’t have to abandon tanks in the advance.

America doesn’t always deploy tanks overseas, they didn’t in Somalia in 1993 and were saved by a pair of old Pakistani M60s at least once. Our experience in Vietnam showed why we need tanks, even if only a handful, in the next 30 years we might be the Pakistan with the old M1s saving the day where light armour can’t.

Here are some photos of an Abrams tank on rail in the Territory.
http://s1131.photobucket.com/user/drewbigboy/media/100_0971.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

The reason you cant find it is because its never been released to the media or published…… to presume because YOU don’t know about doesn’t mean there is nothing wrong with them. And to simply keep presuming its the best thing in the world since sliced bread without question is er… well a little presumptuous.

This is the military we are talking about, where poor decisions are made and people simply get promoted for it.

What about those who are responsible for supporting the Abrams, what about if they haven’t heard about massive problems with them in service?

The Super Hornet was decided in a pub with Brendan Nelson in a drunken night in 2006. I defy anyone to buy a multi-billion-dollar fighter wing from France or Europe in a single booze-filled night and have it work out so well.

That’s why we buy from the US!

For those wondering about the C27J, have a read of this.

http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=333&pubtype=-1

In particular note Figure 1 which shows a map of Queensland with C130 accessible airfields and C27J accessible airfields, there’s a huge difference.

Also the $1.4 billion includes all support equipment, 3 years spares and a comprehensive training package. That’s where the Super Hornet beats the Rafale, in the Total Package Approach and by giving total costs upfront and out in the open.

If this pirate situation is troublesome and prolonged then the push for more suitable ships to combat gains validity. I’ve seen discussions concerning the costs of using helicopters in Afghanistan for jobs that STOL fixed wing planes could easily do if they were available, helicopter being about 5 times as expensive to use as a STOL fixed wing plane. This really adds up over 12 years, and would be the same if the pirate thing goes on for a decade.