Some here must know we had our 2 new very large amphibious assault ships, Canberra & Adelaide built in Spain, then fitted out here. This like the submarines, despite the fact that the yanks would have provided us with cheap, suitable & proven vessels more quickly.

So I wonder how many would also know that these ships are both limping back to Sydney one from Townsville & one from Perth, followed by attendant large tugs, as there is a fair chance they will not make it on their own power. Yes they can get further away from home port before they break than our current subs, but not much, but we may have to tow them home.

So bad are the electrical problems with these new ships, that they are trying to destroy themselves. Their propellers & the hulls are being eaten away by stray electrical current. Perhaps having bought these defective Spanish things, we could now buy some large American built tugs, to tow them around.

Firstly we have to get the damn politicians the hell out of the decisions on what to buy & where, then we need to get the seaman officers the hell out of it too.

They probably knew what they needed, in the days of sailing ships, but today's ships are mechanical contrivances. It is engineers that understand how these things work, & what is required. Our navy does not have a senior engineering qualified officer. It is run by seaman with arts degrees, just like the public service, & we all know how well that works.

I wonder why the fact that this failure in this huge investment is not all over the media. Guess they are too busy with global warming & same sex marriage to notice

Nothing wrong with being old fashion.

First work out exactly what you want something you are buying to do.

Second look around for what is available to do the job.

Third check the reliability of your choice.

Fourth buy it.

How simple is that, add politicians and others to the system ='s disaster over and over again.

Just look at the trillion dollar F35.

Another waste by the warmongers,assult ships. Who will we be assulting next time? The good folk of New Caledonia. If these ships were to sink without trace, not that I wish any harm to those on board, I would be pleased no end.

'Defence' in Australia is a sick joke. Crappy Collins class submarines -most of them in dry dock most of the time. Rubbish from France to arrive in 50 years (nothing to do with defence, but all about keeping the idiot Pyne in parliament- plus the fact the they are a French design: the French can't keep a secret, and are the leading lights in the replacement of Europe with Eurabia.

Our one and only reliable ally is America. They make good armaments, and that is where we should be getting ours from.

Oh god Paul, you really are sick. We need defence, probably more than most countries, with our mineral wealth, but we need stuff that works. With a large enough quality defence force, you will never have to use it. No one has invaded the US since the Alamo

In a country where many of the road & rail bridges could not support one of our tanks, such ships would be the only reasonable way of getting our army's equipment to the sight of an invasion.

Our old amphibious assault ships have indeed been to New Caledonia, along with Fiji, & Indonesia, where their landing capacity was very helpful in the humanitarian missions after cyclones or Tsunami.

Even if they never actually defend us, they are a real requirement for emergency relief after one of our regular cyclones, & those of our neighbours.

After our last big one it was 72 hours before any relief got through to a couple of our coastal villages near Cardwell. This type of ship with their 20 knot tank landing craft & their helicopters could have been there in hours, but they are no use when broken down.

One of the old ones was also very useful as a headquarters & base in Bougainville, when we were running the peacekeeping mission that finally brought an end to the civil war there.

Okay Hassy, why are these leftovers from the 'Spanish Amada' purchased with taxpayer billions called attack ships. Who are we going to be attacking? I am all for civil defence but we don't need this kind of expensive crap to undertake civil defence. Simply another case of the war boys getting their (big) toys! Our military is all about pandering to inflated egos.

You're right about one thing Paul, we don't need anything this big. Sir Francis Drake taught us long ago, that Spanish ships are big & look great, but aren't fit for purpose. We do need something fairly large however, as they must be able to carry landing craft capable of carrying a couple of large heavily laden trucks, [or a tank], & a few helicopters.

A bigger problem is we need enough well trained stokers, [navy for mechanic these days] so we can actually run the damn things reliably, & engineering officers capable of understanding the things well enough to develop & oversee maintenance schedules that will keep them running.

I was shocked to learn Australia does not possess one decent battleship, not one, not even one of those you can put in your pocket, a pocket battleship. Yet we have our very own admiral, but do not possess one lousy WWII, or even WWI, surplus battleship to lead the fleet, with our very own admiral, Admiral Brassbottom on the poop deck! How can our navy be expected to take on the might of the Pacific fleet of that aggressive expansionists nation of Tuvalu, war canoes and all, without a decent battleship? Is our navy expected to put to sea in rubber dinghies and floaties? I ask you!

Hasbeen, the RAN's Landing Helicopter Doc (LHD) ships were purchased from Spain to replace two Newport class tank landing ships second hand from the US. The US ships were found to be riddled with rust, they required extensive remediation and modifications lasting four years.

The US does not have any new ships comparable to the Spanish LHDs. The US America-class amphibious assault ships are about twice the size and cost US$3.4B each.

The new RAN ships are designed for amphibious operations in the waters around Australia, deploying helicopters and landing craft. But they also have a ski-jump flight deck and could operate F-35B jets, making them mini-aircraft carriers: http://blog.tomw.net.au/search/label/Canberra%20Class%20Ship

What was wrong with building suitable ships in Australia?

Come on Tomw, I know one of the men responsible for much of the multimillion refit at New Castle on one of them. Apart from one slightly dicky gearbox, he found the ship in remarkably good condition.

Perhaps you could explain why they spent 10s of million on her, if she was full of rust. They were much more use than these two.

Is Mise, build here? Just think subs.

Has been build here. Can we do any worse than buying from countries that would not give their best away..
Abbott,s attempt at making himself a super sized runt first signing a blank piece of paper for a road in vic, that was already said to be not on. Then buying an airplane that has never got of the ground. What are we employing to look after our interests. Self indulgent soles are.

don't worry when Labour comes to power they are likely to open up the people smuggling trade again. We will then need to further boost Border control.

You are a sad case runner. Is that fact or fiction. At least I state fact. Not figment of imagination.

Mise, the "islands" for the LHDs (the bit sticking up above the flight deck) were built in Australia. The hulls were built in Spain and transported to Victoria and the islands added. Australia had no recent experience of building a ship like the LHDs. With only two required it was not worth doing in Australia. http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd

Even Russia, who have experience in ship building, decided to purchase the "Mistral" LHD design from France and have their first two ships built in France. Unfortunately for the Russians, France imposed a trade embargo and refused to deliver the ships, which were instead sold to Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Egyptian_purchase

doog

u must be less than 10 years old. I might be sad in your eyes but my memory is still quite clear.

"With only two required it was not worth doing in Australia"

Could have been a start and the wages component would have been paid in Australia and taxes collected here.
Australian produced steel could have been used etc.