Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Capt Jack]

I see Australia has bought the Largs Bay for $100 million.  I bet it cost a lot more than that to build, what 5-6 years ago. Another waste of our money then

http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/04/australia-acquires-ex-uk-bay-class-lsd/

[pugwash]

Not only are the Austr;ian Navy getting a bargain costwise they are getting one of the most useful assets in the RFA  fleet
(or so I have read in Warship World -  before anybody says I am wrong)

Geoff

[sailorboy61]

Not only are the Austr;ian Navy getting a bargain costwise they are getting one of the most useful assets in the RFA  fleet
(or so I have read in Warship World -  before anybody says I am wrong)

Geoff

Oh No.....there must be ANOTHER war coming...... didn't we go here before selling stuff down under???

[pugwash]

According to a question answered in the House the cost of procurement of the 4 ships of the Bay class was £660 million
Largs Bay was accepted into service 16 December 2006 - so for a ship 4yr 4 months old the Aussies have saved £100 million
($100 australian = £65 million) 

The mind boggles  at our stupid politicians - AGAIN.
Geoff

[sailorboy61]

Didnt they pay that for each or the usless 'new' forts? No takers for the one laid up in Liverpool then...wonder why??

[Tutssy]

Hi Geoff

I think it must be for their expenses.



Regards  Al

[Bryan Young]

Just who said that the "new" Forts were useless? The main problem is that we didn't build more of them! Personally I didn't like them much but that's only an opinion. But having only 2 of them must severely limit their usefulness. RN ships need re-fuelling much more often than they need re-ammunitioning or re-provisioning with food or general stores. So with only 2 "Wave" class and the 2 Forts, global coverage for the remnants of the Fleet is just about an impossibilty. The poster of that "observation" obviously has no idea whatsoever of the need for an efficient and "on hand" logistical train.
As far as the "Bay" class is concerned.....well, I think we will rue the day we reduced their numbers. Perhaps some short memories here, but a Bay class RFA was one of the first major ships "on hand" to assist after the Hiaitian disaster. Cheers. BY.

[Colin Bishop]

I agree with Brian there. I went aboard Largs Bay at Portmouth a couple of years ago and spent some time talking to her First Officer. These ships are extremely versatile and valuable assets and can perform many of the duties of a naval vessel at a much reduced cost. We ought to be building more of them, not selling the ones we've got. Yes, as the Government says, 'hard decisions have had to be taken'. But why do they all seem to be the wrong ones?

Colin

[sailorboy61]

Just who said that the "new" Forts were useless? The main problem is that we didn't build more of them! Personally I didn't like them much but that's only an opinion. But having only 2 of them must severely limit their usefulness. RN ships need re-fuelling much more often than they need re-ammunitioning or re-provisioning with food or general stores. So with only 2 "Wave" class and the 2 Forts, global coverage for the remnants of the Fleet is just about an impossibilty. The poster of that "observation" obviously has no idea whatsoever of the need for an efficient and "on hand" logistical train.
As far as the "Bay" class is concerned.....well, I think we will rue the day we reduced their numbers. Perhaps some short memories here, but a Bay class RFA was one of the first major ships "on hand" to assist after the Hiaitian disaster. Cheers. BY.

Having also sailed on both several times...I didn't like them either...... the useless referred to the fact they were both, certainly in the time I had on them and talking to others.... broken to some extent or other.... gear boxes, non reversing engines converted to reversing with 'magic' cam shaftsetc. The reason they didnt build more is they were over budget by miles, the two costing a whole class worth of tax payers booty. And thats not even mentioning the fact they always look to be going backwards..........

[Bryan Young]

Mainly to "sailorboy"....while I agree with much of what you said, just when did you serve on one? As with the "Sir Galahad", the new Forts had many and various teething problems. They both seem pretty reliable nowadays.
My point is that having "one stop" ships is that flexibility is reduced. If two or more ships are (say) 1000 miles apart and one needs fuel and the other needs missiles...well, the ship can't be in 2 places at once, can it. So, as I said, we need more of them, not less. BY.

[sailorboy61]

Yes, Bryan, I totally agree...more were needed.... but because they were such a 'botch' job and so expensive it was never going to happen. I agree with your previous, there should have been more Leaf class, and in my opinion 'old' Forts too. (which in my opinion were probably the best ships I worked on bar some G1/2 container ships from the 70s). I spent my time on both Vic and George 10/12years ago... mid life, and they were still problematic...... which goes back to comments I made in earlier threads that less 'committee' time should have been spent on designing and argueing over who had what space (eg seawolf 'ready for' but not fitted) and a commercial  hulls eg Leafs be bought and modifed ( the AOR is only a fancy boxboat hull.... from the 1980s). A commercial hull running in20/30 builds has some proven pedigree rather than a 2 off, two yard build. All opinion of course, and not meant to be inflammatory to anyone with a differing one!!

[plugger]

We will look after her for a few years, then sell it back for 200million, when our new Canberra class are commissioned.

[sailorboy61]

We will look after her for a few years, then sell it back for 200million, when our new Canberra class are commissioned.

Many a true word is spoken in jest!!!

[pugwash]

But we couldn't afford to buy it back. Anyway I think they will find it is too useful to part with.

Geoff

[RaaArtyGunner]

But we couldn't afford to buy it back. Anyway I think they will find it is too useful to part with.

Geoff

You won't have to buy it just lease it, like we did when we sold our Skyhawk Naval fighters to NZ then leased them back from the Kiwis to train the RAN in air defence.