The problem was the ship in port had limited crew and limited time to control the fire before it reached a critical size and intensity. Fire while having major life extension and repair is sadly common. I can recall a French SSN having to be repaired following a major fire.
My own personal opinion baked by some friends who served is that the lack of crew made it possible for the fire to reach the intensity it did. Instead of having 900 sailors and officers the complement on hand was minimal. So the reaction time is dismal. The same fire while the ship was underway would be extinguished in minutes.

News reports stated BHR's fire suppression system was offline for maintenance when the fire occurred....

Regards,
 
As often as not when we try to diversify sources of supply that might enable more room in foreign policy the shit doesn't work. The ARH Tiger was a monumental clusterfuck despite all the promise it showed on paper, and the MH90 has been a mixed blessing. If shit weapons platforms that mean we can't play on the foreign policy stage is the alternative to being on board with the USA then I doubt it is a better alternative.
It depends whose foreign policy stage we end up performing and why we are there in the first place. Australia has a long history of forgetting whose policy we are being used for. The Tiger and MH90 were good on paper and weren't American. The Tiger in particular was chosen because Army could not make up what it's role was to be (scout or armed enforcer) and plumbed for more than a scout but less than an armed enforcer. The MH90 was just not up to the task assigned to it.
 
Last edited:
As often as not when we try to diversify sources of supply that might enable more room in foreign policy the shit doesn't work. The ARH Tiger was a monumental clusterfuck despite all the promise it showed on paper, and the MH90 has been a mixed blessing. If shit weapons platforms that mean we can't play on the foreign policy stage is the alternative to being on board with the USA then I doubt it is a better alternative.
I never quite understood how that shit came to happen when the Europeans were able to deploy their choppers in fairly rough conditions like Africa and Afghanistan as well.
 
I never quite understood how that shit came to happen when the Europeans were able to deploy their choppers in fairly rough conditions like Africa and Afghanistan as well.

I read not long ago that with the small user base we basically became the lead user, getting our first machines in 2004 and all 22 by 2010 when only 50 had been delivered overall. It panned out that we assumed a large amount of the up front risk as an export customer, not a good situation to be in.

It depends whose foreign policy stage we end up performing and why we are there in the first place. Australia has a long history of forgetting whose policy we are being used for. The Tiger and MH90 were good on paper and weren't American. The Tiger in particular was chosen because Army could make up what it's role was to be (scout or armed enforcer) and plumbed for more than a scout but less than an armed enforcer. The MH90 was just not up to the task assigned to it.

The Tiger has a range of 430 miles vs 250 for the Apache, that alone is a big tick in its favour and when it was selected the requirement wasn't for a heavily armed killer. I personally like the Tiger, it strikes me as elegant rather than the brutish Apache. but if it doesn't bloody work then I'm not one to follow the sunk costs fallacy too far.

Funnily enough the Navy likes the MH90 and thinks the Army should 'just get over it', which probably has merit but the Army is the biggest user so the Navy shouldn't be the tail waging the dog.
 
To be completely honest most politicians really don't seem to understand much about the needs of the Military in Australia. We have a hilarious moment when a pollie showed a complete lack of understanding of what a submarine is and how they work.

I understand that not everyone understands what a submarine is, however before you open your mouth you really should understand the technology in a basic sense.
 
That's a good explanation of the pump jet, I've never heard of that before.

ASPI has done a couple of articles about leasing. If accurate leasing is difficult, although I expect a sweetheart deal might make it happen.

 

Pangur

Donor
To be completely honest most politicians really don't seem to understand much about the needs of the Military in Australia. We have a hilarious moment when a pollie showed a complete lack of understanding of what a submarine is and how they work.

I understand that not everyone understands what a submarine is, however before you open your mouth you really should understand the technology in a basic sense.
Hanson is easily the worse example of politician we have currently, she understands next to nothing about pretty much most things, I can't help but wonder with this example if she was set up
 
Top