100% my thoughts as well. Spend our money on long range attack and defence that doesn’t have to be manned and maintained by 100s of staff like these boats. The ADF can’t retain its personnel it’s the worst it’s ever been right now.
@@TONSBERG100theory is move army with their himars to island further away from mainland to better project force, they will likely also take naval strike missiles as well. This was pretty much how the WW2 in the pacific was won. Island hopping.
I hope the spec is better than the last batch from the Spanish that couldn't carry one of our tanks without major modifications. Also, this will not let us conduct a forced landing somewhere. Good for humanitarian work and its great that we are building them in Australia for a change
Austal ship building works best defence marsters of engineering brilliant thanks 👍👍👍👍 Australian made very strong defence against terrisom God bless 🙏 all defence forces very good policy safer for everyone in Australia 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It'll be great to have this capability again. Till these become operational in numbers, we have to rely on 🇺🇸 to get a lot of our stuff from our ships, to shore. That's not something we should take lightly.
Ummm, I am Australian, but I don't really understand fully why Australia would need a lot of landing craft. We aren't like Japan that have some island chain to protect or anything like that, exactly what would we be doing with these landing craft? Is it just to be able to send infantry to places like East Timor in case Indonesia invade East Timor? Since they are medium sized, they must be only for those kind of ranges, and not for sending soldiers to Guam to join a US coalition or anything like that etc. So it must be specifically for stuff above us near Indonesia, maybe also having the ability to send infantry into PNG in case Indonesia invade PNG as well.
Any full scale war will involve landing on Indonesian and pacific islands in order to defend Australia, by forming a larger area of denial around Australia.
1. Most obvious requirement would probably be for Indo-Pacific operations where there are a lot of islands and we need to transfer large amounts of equipment and stores as well as personnel. 2. We also have very long coast much of which is not well served by roads or transport equipment that could support large scale army movements within Australia so movement of troops and equipment by ship will sometimes be the best mobility option for operations in Australia where the enemy has established operations in the country or is expected to attempt to. 3. We do in fact have around 8,000 islands some of which the army will need to access but that is not the main reason why they are being built I would say.
And who and what will these craft land ? 1) the ship that carries them will be sunk by drone subs. 2) Australia has an ADF - Aus defence force, not designed or capable of anything more than skirmishes or guerrilla covet opes.
I've been anticipating someone like you to appear. You've clearly shown that you have no understanding of how the Australian Defence Force operates. Due to the war in Ukraine, other militaries worldwide have strategized ways to counter drone threats with the benefit of hindsight. Russia's failure to effectively counter drones is evident in comparison to more advanced countries.
Pointless busy work to keep the lights on at Austal. The future frigates should be the priority not more landing craft. The Government has also been cutting the number of infantry fighting vehicles the Army is getting. Makes no sense.
True, landing craft are useless, except in a very defined and safe use. The idea of using a WWII style 'storming the beaches' deployment is laughable. They are targets waiting for anyone with a small cannon to blow holes into. That may be why there are only 18 planned, which means 6 will be available for use at any one time.
Isn’t every part of Australia’s navy designed to nest with the US Navy and not expected to work independently? I always assumed that’s why the highest navel rank in Australia is Vice Admiral.
@@robertlees883 the highest rank is supposedly dependant on the level of responsibilities that person holds. Bit difficult when the largest ship we have is a supply and replenishment hull and our other "warships" apart from subs (what we have still operational) are nothing more than token coast guard vessels with. no strategic or at times tactical reach.
Strange to see a Labor/greens government in Australia 🇦🇺 spending billions on defence. Normally cut the defence budget by half. What are they not telling us is the big question
I’m thinking large sea skimming transport planes make more sense long range no need for ships can get from a to b very fast can not only carry troops assault vehicles humanitarian aid but mine autonomous submarines water craft ect
What the Ukraine conflict has brought to every military is the reality of UAV’s/FPV’s. It’s likely a patrol boat (or even a border force vessel) could encounter an 2:47 adversary (foreign military, or even smugglers) who possess these weapons and could sync these vessels. Reality that Australia, and every military must face, is that every military piece of hardware must be able to defend itself from these threats. Therefore our patrol vessels must have iron fist or equivalent like active defences . 30 mm weapon systems must be able to track and neutralise these drones. If we do not produce this hardware such that it can defend against these threats, then all we are doing is building targets.
Not sure the ADF needs new landing craft. Especially built by Austal who seem to build poor quality boats as seen by our current naval and border force fleet plagued with problems. Our money should be focused on long range strategic defence not overpriced barges
No, they did work for the USA but screwed up big time. Now, the USA got us back by denying ghost bats with weapons. AUKUS is dead. Australia needs its own technology because the USA is unreliable.
😂😂ANNOUNCING A $2 BILLION PROJECT THAT WILL OVER RUN BUY $5 BILLION IS MORE LIKE IT 😂😂AND 🤷♂️ LANDING CRAFT FOR WHAT ?? AUSTRALIA!! BECAUSE THERE NOT OCEAN GOING AND THERE TO BIG TO TRANSPORT SO 🤷♂️ THE WAR THESE DAYS IS LARGE DRONES ARMED TO THE TEETH AND FLOWN BUY GAMERS 😂😂
@@carisi2k11 the NH-90, on which the Taipans were based, is European. The Taipans were modified for Australian requirements and assembled here with our trademark "it's Friday arvo and it's almost beer o'clock" build quality. It's notable that no other nation has had to retire their fleet of NH-90s, so we obviously gave them some sort of Aussie flavour.
@@RaytheonTechnologies_Official Norway has already dumped the NH90 (2022) for not meeting capability obligations for parts and reliability, replaced by MH-60 Seahawks, Sweden has announced it is replacing the NH-90, again to to problems with capability, with an H-60 variant (2022), Greece has announced in this year that they are replacing the NH-90 with H-60 variants, and Belgium has announce that they are replacing some of their NH-90 with Airbus H145. Clearly there are bigger problems.
we should just invest in LCAC and actually build better ships or grab LHDs like the Americans(not the shitty Spanish ones that re a bitch to maintain and fall apart ez)
The Australian government should actually be spending money on these other things instead. 1. Converting one of the Canberra class helicopter docks into a carrier for the F-35B, similar to what Japan did to their Izumo. 2. 63 F-35A's are delivered, however another 9 are on order. Cancel 8 of those ordered, and instead place those 8 orders for F-35B. 3. For Australia's new frigate, choose one that has an American VLS, so Australia can use all the missiles Australia already have, as well as the new Tomahawk that Australia has acquired. 4. Use the Hobart class as part of an Australian carrier strike group, to protect the converted Canberra class. 5. The acquisition of the Naval Strike Missile seems silly, this only has a range of 250km (Australian ships would have to get ridiculously close to a Chinese ship to strike), at the very minimum Australia should have chosen either the extended range version of the block II Harpoon missile, which has a range of 300km, or the type 17 SSM missile made by Japan which has a range of 400km and can be fired BTW from American VLS (because Japanese ships use American VLS).
Main reason the Canberra class is not converted to Air Craft carrier, is it will need huge modifications that will make it unsuitable for any other role. Mods would include aircraft fuel storage and ammunition bunker to arm the aircraft, and even then, they could only support operations of 8 F35s for a week, before needing to be resupplied. It's just not a good option.
There’s no need to spend all that money on F35Bs and the mods required for the LHDs. Air to air refuelling is a much more viable option to project and extend the reach of the F35s. Australia has never operated a VSTOL aircraft so the training, qualification and certification to get that would be time consuming and an endless money pit for 8 aircraft.
@@topendgold9284I don't get how this is always brought out as the answer despite the serious limitations of not having organic air power on our naval task forces. it's not like it doesn't already have fuel and ammunition bunkerage. And the Juan Carlos was originally designed as a STOVL carrier, I doubt the modifications for Australian service would have been very drastic especially in the fuel bunkerage layout.
More money wasted on behalf of Israelistan guaranteed they will never get crews to man them OOPS MY BAD PERSON THEM we have DEI military now.
3 місяці тому+3
Australia is 66% British. Muslims are just 2%. There are more Chinese than Muslims. There are more Philippines than Muslims. There are more Vietnamese than Muslims. The list goes on and on. 😂
Let’s see how long before it gets cut back by 50%!
So can I add a +1 to the LCM order for recreation fishing purposes?
Looks good if you can find the crews to man them
100% my thoughts as well. Spend our money on long range attack and defence that doesn’t have to be manned and maintained by 100s of staff like these boats. The ADF can’t retain its personnel it’s the worst it’s ever been right now.
Don't die for a government that hates straight white men
Yeah, gone are the days when crew automation was unnecessary.
Funny how sea to shore projection is becoming again a priority for many leading navies.
Can anyone explain to me why the Assies want this capability.
Shouldn't they be building more offensive Navel ships like Frigates.
@@TONSBERG100theory is move army with their himars to island further away from mainland to better project force, they will likely also take naval strike missiles as well. This was pretty much how the WW2 in the pacific was won. Island hopping.
It's because we have an excess of sea shells and we need somewhere to sell them.
@@garry19681 thank you. Now I understand better.
@@TONSBERG100Island hopping
I hope the spec is better than the last batch from the Spanish that couldn't carry one of our tanks without major modifications. Also, this will not let us conduct a forced landing somewhere. Good for humanitarian work and its great that we are building them in Australia for a change
Austal ship building works best defence marsters of engineering brilliant thanks 👍👍👍👍 Australian made very strong defence against terrisom God bless 🙏 all defence forces very good policy safer for everyone in Australia 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It'll be great to have this capability again. Till these become operational in numbers, we have to rely on 🇺🇸 to get a lot of our stuff from our ships, to shore. That's not something we should take lightly.
Ummm, I am Australian, but I don't really understand fully why Australia would need a lot of landing craft. We aren't like Japan that have some island chain to protect or anything like that, exactly what would we be doing with these landing craft?
Is it just to be able to send infantry to places like East Timor in case Indonesia invade East Timor? Since they are medium sized, they must be only for those kind of ranges, and not for sending soldiers to Guam to join a US coalition or anything like that etc. So it must be specifically for stuff above us near Indonesia, maybe also having the ability to send infantry into PNG in case Indonesia invade PNG as well.
The entire Pacific is just Islands and Littoral regions and these crafts specialise in that area. Thats why Australia wants them
Use your brain, you'll realise pretty quickly why it's necessary
We are probably building them to give to our near neighbours
We seem to do a lot of this at the moment and they run them aground or sink them
Any full scale war will involve landing on Indonesian and pacific islands in order to defend Australia, by forming a larger area of denial around Australia.
1. Most obvious requirement would probably be for Indo-Pacific operations where there are a lot of islands and we need to transfer large amounts of equipment and stores as well as personnel.
2. We also have very long coast much of which is not well served by roads or transport equipment that could support large scale army movements within Australia so movement of troops and equipment by ship will sometimes be the best mobility option for operations in Australia where the enemy has established operations in the country or is expected to attempt to.
3. We do in fact have around 8,000 islands some of which the army will need to access but that is not the main reason why they are being built I would say.
And who and what will these craft land ?
1) the ship that carries them will be sunk by drone subs.
2) Australia has an ADF - Aus defence force, not designed or capable of anything more than skirmishes or guerrilla covet opes.
I've been anticipating someone like you to appear. You've clearly shown that you have no understanding of how the Australian Defence Force operates. Due to the war in Ukraine, other militaries worldwide have strategized ways to counter drone threats with the benefit of hindsight. Russia's failure to effectively counter drones is evident in comparison to more advanced countries.
$2Bn or $111m per vessel. Did the CFEMU do the pricing?
Might not be just the per unit cost but include others things.
@@lancebond2338regardless as a tax payer, that’s a lot of money for a landing craft. Classic Labour!
@@bjones5240 Labor/Libs, what’s the difference?
@@lancebond2338 true! The CFMEU would be the worst regardless. $2bn is absolutely pathetic value for money.
@@bjones5240 it depends, without knowing the details, hard to say. Might include infrastructure upgrades.
Pointless busy work to keep the lights on at Austal. The future frigates should be the priority not more landing craft. The Government has also been cutting the number of infantry fighting vehicles the Army is getting. Makes no sense.
True, landing craft are useless, except in a very defined and safe use. The idea of using a WWII style 'storming the beaches' deployment is laughable. They are targets waiting for anyone with a small cannon to blow holes into.
That may be why there are only 18 planned, which means 6 will be available for use at any one time.
More landing craft? We don't have any...
Why have 18 landing craft when there are no warships to protect them and no obvious need.
Isn’t every part of Australia’s navy designed to nest with the US Navy and not expected to work independently?
I always assumed that’s why the highest navel rank in Australia is Vice Admiral.
@@robertlees883 the highest rank is supposedly dependant on the level of responsibilities that person holds. Bit difficult when the largest ship we have is a supply and replenishment hull and our other "warships" apart from subs (what we have still operational) are nothing more than token coast guard vessels with. no strategic or at times tactical reach.
There must be a serious threat for us to built this capability…
There’s really no threat. They just couldn’t find a replacement from the old boats they decommissioned.
No not really..
Strange to see a Labor/greens government in Australia 🇦🇺 spending billions on defence. Normally cut the defence budget by half. What are they not telling us is the big question
@bigman23DOTS you want to hope. Don't forget the conscription law is still in Australia
@@craigmorris7186 They're obeying their US masters.
Is 18 enough?
Australia is an isolated island, yet its defence forces want to build landing craft for offensive action...
You ever think we can use it to surround an invading force by landing behind them
Best defense is a good offence.
Yeah, cause we wouldn't possibly want them to defend any of our thousands of islands or coasts.
Wait, wtf does Australia need landing craft for?
Solomon Islands since its pro china now
What defence system has it
I’m thinking large sea skimming transport planes make more sense long range no need for ships can get from a to b very fast can not only carry troops assault vehicles humanitarian aid but mine autonomous submarines water craft ect
Shame Australia doesn’t have the boots to use them.
No owned by Australia
Until Labor cancels it, that is.
What the Ukraine conflict has brought to every military is the reality of UAV’s/FPV’s.
It’s likely a patrol boat (or even a border force vessel) could encounter an 2:47 adversary (foreign military, or even smugglers) who possess these weapons and could sync these vessels.
Reality that Australia, and every military must face, is that every military piece of hardware must be able to defend itself from these threats.
Therefore our patrol vessels must have iron fist or equivalent like active defences . 30 mm weapon systems must be able to track and neutralise these drones.
If we do not produce this hardware such that it can defend against these threats, then all we are doing is building targets.
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
18? how many for day or Phillipines campaign or inchon or saipan or iwo jima?
Australian defense force. Building things they need 50 years too late.....
Not sure the ADF needs new landing craft. Especially built by Austal who seem to build poor quality boats as seen by our current naval and border force fleet plagued with problems. Our money should be focused on long range strategic defence not overpriced barges
Seeing the use of sea and air drones being used by Ukraine defending itself against Russias war I am not sure these would last very long? Laurie. NZ.
Great news now for the ocean going landing craft!
How did the lunch lady's apprentice end up giving this speech?
666 likes, time to change that
Isn't Austal being purchased by a foreign entity?
China 😅😅😅😅😅😅
No, they did work for the USA but screwed up big time. Now, the USA got us back by denying ghost bats with weapons. AUKUS is dead. Australia needs its own technology because the USA is unreliable.
Korean conglomerate, Hanwa, is considering buying Austal.
😂😂ANNOUNCING A $2 BILLION PROJECT THAT WILL OVER RUN BUY $5 BILLION IS MORE LIKE IT 😂😂AND 🤷♂️ LANDING CRAFT FOR WHAT ?? AUSTRALIA!! BECAUSE THERE NOT OCEAN GOING AND THERE TO BIG TO TRANSPORT SO 🤷♂️ THE WAR THESE DAYS IS LARGE DRONES ARMED TO THE TEETH AND FLOWN BUY GAMERS 😂😂
What Labor needs a ferry service to up keep voters.
DEAR OZ...
TAKE OVER OUR NAVAL PROGRAM
Do you really want the people responsible for the Collins class submarines and the Taipan helicopters to take over... anything?
@@RaytheonTechnologies_Official The Taipans are french.
@@carisi2k11 the NH-90, on which the Taipans were based, is European. The Taipans were modified for Australian requirements and assembled here with our trademark "it's Friday arvo and it's almost beer o'clock" build quality. It's notable that no other nation has had to retire their fleet of NH-90s, so we obviously gave them some sort of Aussie flavour.
@@RaytheonTechnologies_Official Norway has already dumped the NH90 (2022) for not meeting capability obligations for parts and reliability, replaced by MH-60 Seahawks, Sweden has announced it is replacing the NH-90, again to to problems with capability, with an H-60 variant (2022), Greece has announced in this year that they are replacing the NH-90 with H-60 variants, and Belgium has announce that they are replacing some of their NH-90 with Airbus H145. Clearly there are bigger problems.
we should just invest in LCAC and actually build better ships or grab LHDs like the Americans(not the shitty Spanish ones that re a bitch to maintain and fall apart ez)
The Australian government should actually be spending money on these other things instead.
1. Converting one of the Canberra class helicopter docks into a carrier for the F-35B, similar to what Japan did to their Izumo.
2. 63 F-35A's are delivered, however another 9 are on order. Cancel 8 of those ordered, and instead place those 8 orders for F-35B.
3. For Australia's new frigate, choose one that has an American VLS, so Australia can use all the missiles Australia already have, as well as the new Tomahawk that Australia has acquired.
4. Use the Hobart class as part of an Australian carrier strike group, to protect the converted Canberra class.
5. The acquisition of the Naval Strike Missile seems silly, this only has a range of 250km (Australian ships would have to get ridiculously close to a Chinese ship to strike), at the very minimum Australia should have chosen either the extended range version of the block II Harpoon missile, which has a range of 300km, or the type 17 SSM missile made by Japan which has a range of 400km and can be fired BTW from American VLS (because Japanese ships use American VLS).
Main reason the Canberra class is not converted to Air Craft carrier, is it will need huge modifications that will make it unsuitable for any other role. Mods would include aircraft fuel storage and ammunition bunker to arm the aircraft, and even then, they could only support operations of 8 F35s for a week, before needing to be resupplied. It's just not a good option.
There’s no need to spend all that money on F35Bs and the mods required for the LHDs. Air to air refuelling is a much more viable option to project and extend the reach of the F35s. Australia has never operated a VSTOL aircraft so the training, qualification and certification to get that would be time consuming and an endless money pit for 8 aircraft.
@@topendgold9284I don't get how this is always brought out as the answer despite the serious limitations of not having organic air power on our naval task forces. it's not like it doesn't already have fuel and ammunition bunkerage. And the Juan Carlos was originally designed as a STOVL carrier, I doubt the modifications for Australian service would have been very drastic especially in the fuel bunkerage layout.
More money wasted on behalf of Israelistan guaranteed they will never get crews to man them OOPS MY BAD PERSON THEM we have DEI military now.
Australia is 66% British. Muslims are just 2%. There are more Chinese than Muslims. There are more Philippines than Muslims. There are more Vietnamese than Muslims. The list goes on and on. 😂
Let me guess ready in 2045 well after the dust settles in this coming war