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

Nellis_14_1298-1.JPG

Nellis_14_0771-1.JPG

Nellis_14_0887-1.JPG

Nellis_14_0043-1.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 t68 So outsourcing was not the answer to closing down the trade training schools,who would have thought ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old February 3rd, 2013   #10306
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,308
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
So outsourcing was not the answer to closing down the trade training schools,who would have thought that........
The lack of adequately trained people onboard makes the civilian contractors task near impossible as there is no one operating the equipment day to day with the technical competence to identify the real issues or root causes to the contractor. i.e. the contractors have to trouble shoot without being able to operate the systems and without the full story of what the problem is.

Much easier to have properly trained people on board in the first place, although then you get the issue of Gina and co poaching them, maybe we need a mining tax to compensate (i.e. use to improve wages and conditions for critical trades) for the damage being done to other industries and the ADF.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2013   #10307
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,308
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
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.
Too be honest, and probably quite clear from a number of my previous posts, I am of the opinion that the ANZACs should be replaced with a mix of additional AWDs (say a total of 8) and beefed up SEA 1180 OCVs able to accommodate USN LCS mission modules over and above a decent baseline combat system. I question the need for a GP frigate let alone a specialist ASW frigate when a mix of AWDs and corvettes (ADMKIIs idea) would provide greater capability and versatility and similar or lower cost.

Not all SEA 1180 would be high end combatants; say only 40 t0 60 % or 8 to 12 hulls would be built to the high end spec with uprated propulsion, power generation, open architecture CS and improved damage control arrangements. Of these only some would be fitted to the full spec for training and operational purposes with the remainder able to be easily upgraded during assisted dockings if required.

The remaining 8 to 12 hulls would share a high level of commonality however would be slower, cheaper to run, less able to be upgraded to full spec, but above all significantly cheaper to operate while remaining fully capable of carrying out all required duties, be it border protection, survey, MCM. In addition many of the crew for the specialist mission modules would be reservists who only join the ships for training and operations otherwise they would employ their modules from shore for regular training as well as making extensive use of simulators.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2013   #10308
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 296
Threads:
Volkodav, would you have some of the 8 AWD's with Auspar instead of Aegis? And what armament would you suggest for the high end Sea 118o corvettes?
hairyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2013   #10309
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,816
Threads:
I think more like this (IMO):

4 x AWD (3 + 1 election promise)
6 x Frigates (based of a common hull (F100 or Type 26) with Auspar and SM-2/ESSM/harpoon and 5"). Basically all the ANZAC stuff on a new hull. Maybe additional cells are possible. Could be upgraded further to fire PAC-3.
6 x Blue water 2000t OCV - Able to support 2 helo's. These could operate like mother ships for the patrol boats also go out for deep water work chasing whales and Bob Brown. Able to carry ~100-200 additional personal for amphibious, refugee, triage/medical, aid or resupply etc (longer stay - processing on board?).
10-14 x 1000t OCV replacement patrol boats but with helo spots for landing. No hanger or hanger only for UAV. Increase space for refugees (~75 emergency short stay) etc. Some of these will be fitted for mine and survey work.

You get 10 front line combatants while a reduction, these will only be combatants, war time stuff. 6 frigates will be based off a ~5-7,000t hull.

You get 20 OCV's.

6 quite large ones, that can stay at sea for months, be "mini" amphibious ships, extract personnel, help in disaster relief, blue water patrol, partial process small numbers of people on board. Mono steel hull. They can refuel and operate sea class helos. Very little weapon systems.

14 smaller ones that can feed and work with the 6 larger ones and do all the day to day patrol work. Alloy hulled cats. Can land helos, or/and operate a UAV. Also deploy ribs and UUV's. Only some fitted with weapons.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013   #10310
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,308
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
Volkodav, would you have some of the 8 AWD's with Auspar instead of Aegis? And what armament would you suggest for the high end Sea 118o corvettes?
Depends on numbers and timing. If we go a fouth AWD make it a repeat of the first three (may not be possible due to unavailability of some now obsolete systems but could be close) and follow later with another four built to an improved Batch II design but still with AEGIS / SPY-1. What would probably work better would be build three Batch II ships following the first three and then go for a new, or significantly evolved, design (with AUSPAR) sometime down the track (probably after the high end SEA 1180 corvettes) for the last two but make it three or four to increase total numbers to where they should be.

For the corvette probably an updated 9LV CMS with a scaled CEAFAR. Maybe space and weight for VLS but would go the self defence length Mk41 rather than the over kill of strike length, maybe even stand alone ExLS instead. Either way I would be tempted to go for RAM to start with and probably Griffin as well.

I have always been a fan of the Oto Melara and would look to fit a Super Rapido optioning DAVIDE with DART and VULCANO. If possible an all electric propusion system with a GT (the lower level hulls would only have diesels) providing the extra power required.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013   #10311
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 296
Threads:
Would all of these ships (AWD, new frigate, new OCV's) be armed with the Norwegian ship to ship missile that Australia is helping to fund?
hairyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013   #10312
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 54
Threads:
ESSM or RAM

Just wondering Volkodav,

Would you go ESSM or RAM? I was just thinking that if you bother to put the weight and volume of a VLS into a 2000t corvette that you would probably want to have the range that ESSM offers. Otherwise just stick a 21 cell launcher on the back for RAM.
protoplasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013   #10313
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,816
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
Would all of these ships (AWD, new frigate, new OCV's) be armed with the Norwegian ship to ship missile that Australia is helping to fund?
OCV, quite possibly. With some sort of stanflex container system (if we go down that road). Ships could load the JSM missiles for littoral support work when operating in higher threat environments, where escorts could be off focused on escorting LHD's etc or in archipelago areas where large ships and deep drafts would be difficult to operate (all around north Australia, Indonesia, but also other similar areas world wide). It would make more sense than a giant harpoon launcher on these small ships.

However I can't imagine its the primary role of that missile. I have a feeling it is more appropriate for F-35's. But who knows, once in service, they might try to fire it from helos, subs and OCV's..

ESSM seems overkill for an Australian corvette or OCV. Realistically they are more likely to deal with RPG's and the like. You wouldn't want to put a corvette up as a ship in a missile slug match.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013   #10314
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,537
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
Would all of these ships (AWD, new frigate, new OCV's) be armed with the Norwegian ship to ship missile that Australia is helping to fund?
So far only a new maritime strike weapon for AIR-6000 - Next Generation Air Combat Capability has been announced.

That gobbledygook means a new anti-ship missile for the JSF.

However the project to acquire this missile is known as Joint Program 3023, which implies that such capability might be used Jointly within ADF, ie: by Navy and RAAF, however such has not yet been announced or included in the Defence Capability Plan, as far as I've seen.

I expect RAN will be looking to replace it's sub-surface Harpoon Block 1C and surface-launched Block II missile capabilities within the next decade or so, but no firm plans have been made public yet, to the best of my knowledge.
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #10315
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,055
Threads:
Just seen on Cantabria's facebook; an entry in english by RANDET boss LCDR Savvakis, it includes the fact that she is bringing her own helo, an SH60B "Toro 07". There was some speculation previously on this thread.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #10316
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,252
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
Would all of these ships (AWD, new frigate, new OCV's) be armed with the Norwegian ship to ship missile that Australia is helping to fund?
Australia is not funding the NSM or any other Norwegian missile. Australia jointly funded with Norway - eight years ago - a very simple integration study to see if the NSM could be carried and used by the F-35.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #10317
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,308
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by protoplasm View Post
Just wondering Volkodav,

Would you go ESSM or RAM? I was just thinking that if you bother to put the weight and volume of a VLS into a 2000t corvette that you would probably want to have the range that ESSM offers. Otherwise just stick a 21 cell launcher on the back for RAM.
Space and weight for VLS but fit RAM initially. There may never be a need to fit the VLS but on the other hand you can never tell what the future holds so being able to fit a VLS or ExLS if required would be good.

If a pair of Mk144s are all that planned for the F-125 Frigate so should be fine for an OCV.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #10318
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 22
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Just seen on Cantabria's facebook; an entry in english by RANDET boss LCDR Savvakis, it includes the fact that she is bringing her own helo, an SH60B "Toro 07". There was some speculation previously on this thread.
Photo of it conducting a VERTREP here ESPS Cantabria demonstrates her versatility | Royal Australian Navy
SouthernSky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #10319
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,055
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernSky View Post
I've totally led all astray by misreading that page, it was the F100's helo "Toro 07" and NOT Cantabria's. Mea Culpa folks.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #10320
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 822
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
I've totally led all astray by misreading that page, it was the F100's helo "Toro 07" and NOT Cantabria's. Mea Culpa folks.
That's OK mate - you have helped via Southernsky to uncover the truth...

Finally - the real reason the squids want the spanish to come and play with our navy:

LSCIS Kristal Moona stated that the throw off firing was the highlight of the passage through the GoA, she said after the fact 'I knew that both ships had taken all possible precautions but there was always that sense of what if? I couldn't help but squeeze the person next to me!'
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 AM.