This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Volkodav
Then again the T22, T23 or T123 would mean the government of the day actually ordered ...
Then again the T22, T23 or T123 would mean the government of the day actually ordered a warship rather than an armed yatch for the RAN.
The New Surface Combatant (NSC) project which was what it was called before Anzac class did consider a larger more capable ship in the ~5,000 tonne class of the German Type 123 but the Government thanks to Dibb and Lange was convinced to go down the tier II patrol frigate line and the RAN and RNZN were able to sneak this up to an upgradeable frigate.
As to their replacement I think it’s a bit early to get into platform vs platform. Obviously there will be offers from ASC and BAES (at least) which will probably be centered on the F100 IP and Type 26 respectively. At this point the debate should be on specifying capability. The F100 IP could generate a very good ASW frigate but it won’t be as silent as the diesel electric propulsion of the Type 26
I think it’s too late to push the barrow of a fleet wide single surface combatant class because the AWD program wasn’t specified for such. Which is why the Government and DMO wanted the F100 and the Navy wanted the Evolved AWD. The F100 was good enough for the spec but the Navy knew the Ev AWD was what they needed in the fleet. But as soon as we went from building off the shelf DDG 51s to a competitive, 'evovled' option AWD they should have specified the AWD for an all figate and destroyers replacement either as a single type or variants (like Spurance and Kidd).
As part of the Cost and Operational Analysis Exercise (COEA) for DDX (aka analysis of alternatives) in the late 90s the USN’s NAVSEA developed a range of design concepts. One was a very nice ‘21st century Spruance/Kidd’ ship with electric propulsion (the 3B1) that could be built with or without AEGIS and provide an awful lot of capability. Such a ship concept could have been specified for the AWD and built without too much additional complexity and cost from the current program.
hey guys just wondering and don't know where else to ask this bit of a stupid question
if one had no military experience whatsoever, and he wanted to join the navy and later be stationed in japan, what are the steps he must take?
obviously joining the navy in the first place. then how many years must you be at home before being able to be "stationed" overseas? do you get to pick where you want? whats the possibility they send you somewhere else?
help is greatly appreciated
Most overseas postings are operational, in the Navy you have to apply specifically for these and then get selected.
Generally you get to pick where you want to go, but the needs of the Navy can sometime outweigh those of the individual
Chances of the getting stationed in Japan are pretty much zero.
LYNDAL CURTIS: You’ve had to replace all of them now?
STEPHEN SMITH: All the transformers have now been replaced because all of our evidence points to the transformer problem being a class-wide problem, and so every ship, whether it’s a Navy ship or a civilian ship of that class, throughout the world, has now been alerted to the issue and the difficulty. So we think we’re dealing not with a Choules specific problem, but with a class-wide problem.
LYNDAL CURTIS: And when will HMAS Choules be back in service?
STEPHEN SMITH: My most recent advice, which was in the last couple of days, is that we expect Choules to be back in action by April-May.
Acording to Smith it appears that the transformer problem is not just isolated to Choules and that it is a class wide issue. When he says "civilian" ship, I assume he is referring to RFA ships, or are these transformers also in commercial (civilian) ships too?
I wonder if there will be compensation sought from the manufacturer? Maybe something like the RR engine issue on the A380's perhaps?
Or would the transformers be to far out any warranty period to make a claim against the manufacturer?
And still another 3-4mths before Choules is back in service too, than will make it 10 or 11mths out of service.
Well if he does mean RFA ships then any such fault or risk is being kept very quiet in the UK.
At least, i've heard nothing about it.
Rob,
It suprised me too, everything that I have read (and I only have access to material in the public arena), seemed to indicate that it was a problem isolated to Choules, this is the first time that I've heard it to be a class wide issue.
For a Def Min to make a statement like he did, if it wasn't factual and turned out to be false, it would certainly leave the door open to some sort of legal action by the manufacturer, you would think so anyway.
Be interesting to see what develops further out of this for both the RAN and the RFA too.
Yeah I get that he's most likely more informed than myself, which isn't too hard to achieve
But my point was that if such a crippling defect existed across the whole fleet, i'd really expect the UK media to be all over it. They generally are when SNAFUs turn up in the defence sector anyway.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see where this leads. The only way it could only be an isolated incident for Choules - off the top of my head - is that the propulsion systems may have been tinkered with for RAN requirements? I've got no idea if this has/has not happened however.
The New Surface Combatant (NSC) project which was what it was called before Anzac class did consider a larger more capable ship in the ~5,000 tonne class of the German Type 123 but the Government thanks to Dibb and Lange was convinced to go down the tier II patrol frigate line and the RAN and RNZN were able to sneak this up to an upgradeable frigate.
As to their replacement I think it’s a bit early to get into platform vs platform. Obviously there will be offers from ASC and BAES (at least) which will probably be centered on the F100 IP and Type 26 respectively. At this point the debate should be on specifying capability. The F100 IP could generate a very good ASW frigate but it won’t be as silent as the diesel electric propulsion of the Type 26
I think it’s too late to push the barrow of a fleet wide single surface combatant class because the AWD program wasn’t specified for such. Which is why the Government and DMO wanted the F100 and the Navy wanted the Evolved AWD. The F100 was good enough for the spec but the Navy knew the Ev AWD was what they needed in the fleet. But as soon as we went from building off the shelf DDG 51s to a competitive, 'evovled' option AWD they should have specified the AWD for an all figate and destroyers replacement either as a single type or variants (like Spurance and Kidd).
As part of the Cost and Operational Analysis Exercise (COEA) for DDX (aka analysis of alternatives) in the late 90s the USN’s NAVSEA developed a range of design concepts. One was a very nice ‘21st century Spruance/Kidd’ ship with electric propulsion (the 3B1) that could be built with or without AEGIS and provide an awful lot of capability. Such a ship concept could have been specified for the AWD and built without too much additional complexity and cost from the current program.
Too late for that now…
Ironically had we gone for the T45 with AEGIS and SPY3 as proposed or SPY-1D(v) to de-risk we would have had the perfect modern platform on which to base our future major combatant force. Four AEGIS AWDs followed by four CEAFAR ASW orientated DDG/FFGs, followed by four AUSPAR GP DDGs. Best of both worlds, a superb UK platform with equaly superb US CS and weapons with US/Aust state of the art radars and directors. Plenty of reserve power generation capacity, more than adequate helicopter facilities, economical to run.
I've been on a bit of a LCS binge over the last few days but one of the major things I've learnt is one of the main CONOPS for them is clearing out and maintaining security of the SEA BASE.
Seeing as how the ADF's main warfighting role is likely to be force projection with the 2 x LHD's, establishing and maintaining Sea Bases, I find it odd that SEA 5000 almost ignores these later developments and concentrates on blue water ASW and TLAM.
I know that SEA 1180 toys with the concept but it seems highly unlikely that the 1180 result will be anything other than a souped up ACPB.
If 1180 turns out to be an all singing 2000 ton + ship with the Mine warfare and surface warfare capability the problem will not exist.
I believe we should be carefully reassessing SEA 5000 and SEA 1180 together to make sure they are complimentary. Any serious degrading of 1180 has a huge effect on the force balance, a consideration that hasn't applied to previous patrol forces.
I was just glancing back to the RAN in 1999, if the same events with ET occured today we would absolutely stuffed. No HMAS Manoora or Kanimbla, all six LCH's gone without a replacement, then there's HMAS Tobroken, the all but problem solving HMAS Choules, three Adelaide class frigates left. Ohh but wait, we have the Skandi Bergan!!!
Is it just me or what the hell happened to our navy???
