Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

For those that don’t know, the Hobarts have a very competent bistatic ASW suite.

Fair call, but unless the Type 26 is completely screwed up it should be significantly better.

In many ways, as you and some others on here know, air warfare is easier from a design and platform perspective, than ASW.

With air warfare, its about the effectiveness and capability of the core systems rather than the platform. You can literally install the key elements on a variety of different platforms, even in buildings or on trucks.

With ASW the platform is far more critical. Yes you need quality in the component systems, but the quality and performance of the platform is critical too. Particulatly in terms of signatures.

This is both in how the platforms signature affects the performance of its sensors, but also in how hard it is for the submarine to find the platgorm that is Hunting it.

 

[Stampede]

wait? That's real?

Actor Russel Crowe appointed honorary commander of the Royal Australian Navy

Famous Oscar-winning actor Russel Crowe has been appointed an honorary commander in the Royal Australian Navy during a ceremony held at Fleet Base East in Sydney.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Uhuh.. I hope we get more out of the arrangement than that. At least narrate a RAN tv series like the one the UK does on its navy.

Four was a completely reasonable number. We should have built the four at the very least. With three, as soon as you go in to upgrade one you loose effective sustainable deployment capability and it starts stuffing with your entire pipeline for that platform. Not only that, but supporting so few platforms the cost per unit in logistical support and upgrade development is very, very high.. Hence the $6billion upgrade for 3 ships. That 4th ship could have derisked the upgrade as well.

Norway could afford 5 Nansen class, but we could only build 3 Hobarts?

Attrition can happen in peace time!
Norway lost one of the Nansen class and recently NZ also lost a ship.
Ship numbers matter on many levels.
The RAN are looking good with Hunters and Mogami.
What’s planned and what we get we’ll wait and see.

Over the ditch NZ take note as you replace your fleet

Cheers S

 

[spoz]

Fair call, but unless the Type 26 is completely screwed up it should be significantly better.

In many ways, as you and some others on here know, air warfare is easier from a design and platform perspective, than ASW.

With air warfare, its about the effectiveness and capability of the core systems rather than the platform. You can literally install the key elements on a variety of different platforms, even in buildings or on trucks.

With ASW the platform is far more critical. Yes you need quality in the component systems, but the quality and performance of the platform is critical too. Particulatly in terms of signatures.

This is both in how the platforms signature affects the performance of its sensors, but also in how hard it is for the submarine to find the platgorm that is Hunting it.

Indeed. The Hobarts are primarily AAW ships with a reasonable ASW capability; the T 26s, with their hull quieting, are primarily ASW ships with reasonable AAW capability. Both will have good above water situational awareness; the T26s will be better sub surface. That is, after all, why we bought the design. We haven’t quite “done a Constellation” to them, and the T26 was a better base for modification in the first place than the Italian FREMM anyway, but it’s important for all to remember what the primary aim of the design is and where the main strength lies.

 

[Volkodav]

Indeed. The Hobarts are primarily AAW ships with a reasonable ASW capability; the T 26s, with their hull quieting, are primarily ASW ships with reasonable AAW capability. Both will have good above water situational awareness; the T26s will be better sub surface. That is, after all, why we bought the design. We haven’t quite “done a Constellation” to them, and the T26 was a better base for modification in the first place than the Italian FREMM anyway, but it’s important for all to remember what the primary aim of the design is and where the main strength lies.

Exactly.

The RN used to refer to first, second and third rate in terms of capability. Im not sure if they stopped doing so in the 60s or 70s.

Basically they took key surface combatant capabilities, such as ASW, anti air, anti surface and air diection, and rated them for effectiveness.

Frigates for instance would be first rate or second rate in one area and third rate in the others or not have them at all. Destroyers tended to be second rate in all. etc