Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

IMG_0616.JPG

IMG_0615.JPG

IMG_0614.JPG

IMG_0613.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

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 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old January 29th, 2013   #10291
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,126
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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.

Too late for that now…
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013   #10292
Defense Professional / Analyst
Corporal
StoresBasher's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 188
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanz View Post
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.
StoresBasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10293
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 541
Threads:
Just came across this on the Defence website regarding HMAS Choules:

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Interview with Lyndal Curtis, ABC

The relevant couple of paragraphs:

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.
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10294
Moderator
Brigadier General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,965
Threads:
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.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10295
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 541
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
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.
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10296
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 19
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
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

I guess what John is saying it right. I came across these articles. That talk similar.
prkralex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10297
Moderator
Brigadier General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,965
Threads:
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.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10298
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 156
Threads:
How much did New Zealand influence Australia's decision to go with the Meko design?

I couldn't help but notice that New Zealand hasn't been mentioned as a possible partner for the SEA 5000 project.
hauritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10299
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,080
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
How much did New Zealand influence Australia's decision to go with the Meko design?

.
Not much at all - its usually swinging the other way around.... there's a number of reasons why we tend to take the lead
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013   #10300
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,080
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
The Japanese Ministry of Defence is in process of deciding if and how much information it will share with RAN about its submarine technology. This report published yesterday in Asashi Shimbum Defense Ministry mulls request to provide submarine technology for Australian Navy and reposted on Pacific Sentinel
The interest would be in propulsion and energy generation - everything else is covered off and there are better options for those IMO
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2013   #10301
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,653
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
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.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2013   #10302
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 854
Threads:
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.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2013   #10303
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 161
Threads:
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???
rand0m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2013   #10304
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,126
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rand0m View Post
No HMAS Manoora or Kanimbla,
Neither ship was used in INTERFET. They were both still in Newcastle getting rebuilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rand0m View Post
Is it just me or what the hell happened to our navy???
It has become to expensive to run thanks to a collapse in effeciency. Even without a disinterested government it would be in crisis.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2013   #10305
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,162
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post

It has become to expensive to run thanks to a collapse in effeciency. Even without a disinterested government it would be in crisis.
So outsourcing was not the answer to closing down the trade training schools,who would have thought that........
t68 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 PM.