Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. aussienscale

    aussienscale Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Northern Rivers, NSW
    Correct Spaz for the JC, But as has been mentioned before, specifically GF, there are significant changes internally for the Canberra's that take that out of the mix.

    And one of the bigger reasons why when suggested by Abbott, was knocked on the head as not viable with too much work and money to be spent to bring them up the the levels required, a cost IIRC that would come close to getting something like Cavour for instance.

    Again it comes down for force structure, Orbat and Conops, not a simple swish of the pen to change, let alone the money, manning, and the obvious election coming up and instability with Aus politics. I think we are still a decade away from having a serious conversation, sadly

    Cheers
     
  2. Stampede

    Stampede Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Not sure if this is the correct thread, but regarding the similarities and /or differences between the Juan Carlos 1 and the Canberra class I'm perplexed.
    I have read at one end they are exactly the same ship to the other end ; having such extensive structural differences to the point they are actually a different class of ship.
    Confusing to be sure and not privy to concrete answers I can only speculate.

    With my layman's Admiral hat, I suggest from my own research that they are all but identical, but for the internal Island structure having Individual Navy specific requirements in design and layout. Maybe some other minor differences but no deal breakers.
    Again externally they appear the same across the Class.
    I'm open to the fact I may be wrong and maybe this is getting in to the Hush hush security territory.
    Either way I'm sure you could land a Harrier on the deck tomorrow and a F35B with some deck heat treating.
    Simplistic answer for sure, as a true F35B capability will need some significant coin.
    The question is actually how much coin in real terms.
    To be honest, some of the figures to enable F35B flight operations look so ridiculously large as to suggest they are nothing more than fiscal scare tactics to avoid going down this path. We are not building a Nimitz, just adding some modest Fixed wing capacity.
    That said, spending any money on any defence capability has to be justified in the big scheme of thing and at this stage the F35B is not the priority.

    Maybe one for down the track

    Regards S.
     
  3. MARKMILES77

    MARKMILES77 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    14
    First upgraded ANZAC with the new radar fitted is undocked. Screen Shot 2018-12-01 at 8.33.40 am.png
     
    robsta83 likes this.
  4. hairyman

    hairyman Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    8
    It looks a bit top heavy does'nt it. Is there much weight in that structure?
     
  5. oldsig127

    oldsig127 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Largely hollow aluminium structure, and you have to remember that the heavy weight to the old rotating radar is removed.

    On the other hand, maybe they never thought of that issue. Perhaps you should drop them a line? ;)

    oldsig
     
  6. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,845
    Likes Received:
    902
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Probably less than the previous structure with the SPS 49 atop CEAFAR 1.
    Sorry oldsig, simultaneous post but my sentiments entirely.
     
    oldsig127 likes this.
  7. hauritz

    hauritz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    134
    A lot of modern warships are a lot bulkier looking than they actually are.

    I know that in the case of the Zumwalt class for example that a lot of its deck housing is a combination of Balsawood and carbon fibre.
     
  8. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Sydney
    Wonder if it frees up any topweight.
    But at least sensor wise they are top notch.
     
  9. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,218
    Likes Received:
    331
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    I believe only the Zumwalt has the composite deckhouse, the two sister ships have steel deckhouses.
     
  10. hauritz

    hauritz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    134
    I will post this here since I think it is of some relevance to the RAN
    Early report blames confused watchstanders, possible design flaws for Norway’s sunken frigate
    There would seem to be some question not only of potential design flaws but also the build quality of these ships. In Australia's case the Hobarts were Australian built ... but we do have other ships that were built in Spain. Obviously we should wait for the final report but eyewitness accounts of what sounds like bulkheads failing is a little concerning.

    It sounds like water was entering the bulkheads through the propeller shaft seals.

    It seems that the initial flooding should have been contained but instead just started leaking into other compartments via the propeller shaft.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2018
  11. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,381
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    NSW

    Obviously we have to wait for the reports, but I’m not sure if the are talking about the total collapse of the internal bulk heads or more about the stuffing boxes where the prop shafts runthru the bulkheads
     
  12. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,599
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Australia
    Just another bleat from me about the paucity of publicity from DoD and Navy .... it this case surrounding the launch of NUSHIP Supply. I have held of suggesting the government and Navy PR remain on holiday in the expectation there would be a little more forthcoming than a 30 to 40 second official glimps of the ship sliding down the ramp. There are one or two slightly longer videos but none are official.

    It really is beyond belief that the DDG and now the AOR progress have been so poorly documented.
     
    Gomer, Tasman and PeterM like this.
  13. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,599
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Australia
    Actually my understanding is they are exactly the same below the flight deck. The issue is how many sorties they can maintain and how many aircraft they can support. ........ And the fact we are not planning to operate them that way under our current structure .... at this time.
     
    PeterM and Gomer like this.
  14. oldsig127

    oldsig127 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    Brisbane
    It's worse than that, it's insanely stupid. Even an unsubstantiated and unlikely rumour of something going *wrong* can be guaranteed air time and column inches without Government or DoD input at all. I know that good news is probably a hard sell to those media voices who'd rather die in the ditch than give positive publicity to Defence, but *someone* must have a minute or two of empty airspace

    oldsig
     
  15. aussienscale

    aussienscale Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Northern Rivers, NSW
    IIRC, and I will see if I can find it again, was some time ago that GF mentioned that fact that certain rather critical changes had been made to the Canberra's below the flight deck ?

    The internal changes to the island have been pretty well documented by Navy and DOD, with a few basic diagrams being out at the time giving general changes to Ops, Comms C&C and briefing room layout changes.

    Pretty sure GF had said, without going into too much detail, that critical changes had been made to both fuel bunkerage arrangements and also magazine capabilities/standards on what could be carried.

    Could take some time to find, it could have been in one of 6 or so threads

    Cheers, happy to be corrected
     
  16. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    142
    Location:
    qld
    Found some on the Juan Carlos/Canberra thread, I have put them up there.
     
    aussienscale likes this.
  17. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    507
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    I recall something similar, that there was only limited provision for aviation fuel and/or space/displacement available in a magazine which aircraft could be loaded from.

    As a side note, the RAS gear fitted to the JC1 was deleted from the Canberra-class LHD design, which would suggest that the plumbing for fuel lines and bunkerage is different between the Spanish and Australian vessels. If they were both still otherwise the same, why delete the capability for RAN LHD's to replenish escorting vessels?
     
    aussienscale likes this.
  18. Beam

    Beam New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    I
    If I recall correctly, one comment was the reason for deleting the RASgear was so the pollies could not use that as an excuse not to renew our AOR vessels.
     
  19. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,599
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Australia
    It was suggested that there marked differences but then information was provided indicating that the bunkerage and weapons stowage are precisely the same. This make senses as messing about with fuel tanks is no small matter.

    Certainly the superstructure is quite different.
     
    aussienscale likes this.
  20. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Sydney
    I recalled this being clarified several years ago. Basically removal of RAS gear, bulkhead in the magazine, etc.

    With regards to completeness isn't there some Accommodation differences between the JC1 and the Canberras, however I don't think these are structural changes, more like difference furnishings, the Canberras have more potential accommodation (by packing more into rooms?). I guess like anything quoted, context is important.

    But neither Aus nor Spain intends to use the LHD as a full blown carrier. Neither are operating F-35's off them, currently. They don't have the massive stores of Jp5 something like the US carriers or UK carriers (or even USMC LHD's or even spains old PDA). The F-35 takes on a lot more Jp5 than the Harrier. So even with the standard design it is something to be considered particularly regarding the number of embarked aircraft and sortie rate. So without a decent set of AOR's it would be pointless to even talk about embarking anything more than helicopters at this stage. Which is a whole different thing, we need to sort out the helicopters. What are we doing with the Tigers for instance... UAV's etc. We are only now really getting in to the networked battlespace aspect.

    The F-35B equation is also changing, with the UK bringing its carriers and planes into service and Japan ordering possibly 100, we could be on the cusp of a wave of nations placing F-35B's orders. Singapore was looking at them as well (Commentary: The Republic of Singapore Air Force's likely new fighter jet - Story dated from 2018 Oct). If both of those acquired F-35b's then that would significantly change the outlook for Australia.

    With a significant base at Lombrum, there are also changing security requirements.

    I think at this stage, its more about keeping options open than actually selection the F-35B.