Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
True ..... but the exemption fo the Nav lights was issued by AMSA noting they have carriage of that convention. Navy could ignore compliance but they are still obliged to comply to the maximum degrees practical.
AMSA has a lot of involvement in the sea trials and had both AOR’s under commercial survey for delivery. Believe me when I say that many in AMSA would prefer not to be involved.
Must be getting near scran time
Thanks for the info, I was referring more to the internal hoops we had to jump through before requesting a waiver from the Flag Authority. The contracts are worded in such a way that we were obligated to review the requirement, determine how we could meet it, and only after determining it was detrimental to mission effectiveness or of excessive embuggerance, could we recommend a waiver.
We still had individuals who would get a bee in their bonnet about a MARPOL or SOLAS requirement and want to double hull the fuel tanks in surface combatants, or paint one of the RHIBs dayglow orange/red.
On the subs the nav light issue was related to two new secret squirrel masts replacing the legacy mast that had the nav light fixed to its top. It was a case of, while we technically don't have to, we would like to get that light back where it belongs.
We still had individuals who would get a bee in their bonnet about a MARPOL or SOLAS requirement and want to double hull the fuel tanks in surface combatants, or paint one of the RHIBs dayglow orange/red.
On the subs the nav light issue was related to two new secret squirrel masts replacing the legacy mast that had the nav light fixed to its top. It was a case of, while we technically don't have to, we would like to get that light back where it belongs.
I see the australian has something on the hunters.
www.theaustralian.com.au
Weight within margins, on time. Sounds quite boring. Great to see..
NoCookies | The Australian
www.theaustralian.com.au
Weight within margins, on time. Sounds quite boring. Great to see..
justinterested
New Member
In this same Defence Force Special in the Australian, there was a report by Kym Bergmann on the Arafura Class OPV. In this, he quotes the Lurssen CEO as saying "For example, there was a reduction in aviation systems not required to support unmanned aerial vehicles while no change was made to the aft deck structural strength.” This seems to contradict earlier statements by the same author and others. I guess it could mean that the Arafura loses the capacity to refuel helicopters, but still retains the deck strength?I see the australian has something on the hunters.
NoCookies | The Australian
Weight within margins, on time. Sounds quite boring. Great to see..
Its a mystery
Lets just see what the actual vessel looks like in the water and see what it can and cannot do.
Cheers
Regards S
Git_Kraken
Active Member
I'm not sure if Australia uses some sort of flight deck management system which gives the Landing Safety Officer the pitch, roll, wind over the deck, and a bunch of other important information for safe approaches and landings of piloted helicopters. That might be the type of system they are referring to. If UAS are the way they are going, then the ship may not require those other LSO type systems. But they would still need the structural strength to take a heavy landing of a UAS. /speculation
This submarine conversation is still doing the rounds in the public domain
ABC today
www.abc.net.au
Like it or not it still begs the question if all is well with the submarine build.
If it's tracking well then defence will need to satisfy the public to put to rest this speculation.
Can you do actually do that with such a large sensitive strategically important project?
Challenge's all round!
Regards S
ABC today
Australia considers German submarine option as tensions with French company grow
Defence Department sources say the Navy has started looking into German-made Type 214 submarines to be operational before the $90 billion French-designed fleet is ready.
www.abc.net.au
Like it or not it still begs the question if all is well with the submarine build.
If it's tracking well then defence will need to satisfy the public to put to rest this speculation.
Can you do actually do that with such a large sensitive strategically important project?
Challenge's all round!
Regards S
May say more about certain people's and organisation's agendas than about anything else. Even if they decided to go with 214s, when would the first one be delivered? 2028 or so? With the first Attack a couple of years later? And you would then (potentially) have three different s/m designs in service with three different logistics trains and, probably more significant, three different training requirements when the RAN has always had difficulty in keeping the training pipeline full for one class. If there's any truth in it, it's probably just Brown remaining abreast of submarine developments elsewhere in the Western world which is what incumbents of that sort of position do all the time. If so, interesting that it got out into the media - bad day for somebody I would have thought.
mmmmm, I don't know, 5 minutes on the web tells me
Collins class 3,100 tonnes @ 77m long - Range 21,300 km
Attack class 4,500 tonnes @ 97m long - Range 33,000 km
Type 214 1,690 tonnes @ 65m long - Range 22,000 km
You would be better off upgrading and adding to the Collins class
The only person doing the considering is "Defense Correspondent"
Andrew Greene who had 15 column cm to fill and nothing to put in it
PS Wasn't it the German offer the Type 216 a Concept ONLY design (not started) ?
Collins class 3,100 tonnes @ 77m long - Range 21,300 km
Attack class 4,500 tonnes @ 97m long - Range 33,000 km
Type 214 1,690 tonnes @ 65m long - Range 22,000 km
You would be better off upgrading and adding to the Collins class
The only person doing the considering is "Defense Correspondent"
Andrew Greene who had 15 column cm to fill and nothing to put in it
PS Wasn't it the German offer the Type 216 a Concept ONLY design (not started) ?
Last edited:
We left this too late. I doubt an interim submarine would be in the water much sooner than the French boat. Best plan B now would be to extend the life of the Collins and look at acquiring UUVs or even XLUUVs.
www.lockheedmartin.com
Orca - Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (XLUUV)
Lockheed Martin is designing Orca, the U.S. Navy’s Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (XLUUV). Orca is being designed to support multiple critical missions.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
So let me get this straight.....
A Defence article on the ABC?
Written by Andrew Greene?
Quoting Rex Patrick?
Ignore, delete.
A Defence article on the ABC?
Written by Andrew Greene?
Quoting Rex Patrick?
Ignore, delete.
Rang
The 214 is not exactly your Stella performer and as Caleb Larson says at the end of this link Why Germany's Type 214 Submarine Isn't Exactly a 'Stealth Submarine' “a reasonable boat for close coastal defence but not suitable for power projection or words to that effect.
I would also like to hear (no I wouldn’t) Rex Patrick, Robert Gottliebsen and other Attack class detractors comment on the well publicised shortcomings of the T 214 and explain where it would fit in the RAN’s CONOPS.
The French class was always going to face challenges. But it will be the only boat of its type in the world. A diesel boat that will be able to run with nukes. The holy grail, and something no other nation had really even attempted to do (although China has some large diesels). Any sub we looked at was going to either face serious short comings or require significant development.
Yes, we should heavily refit Collins for another full life. Yes we should probably push that program up the priority ladder as well. It is too late to start building new Collins or Son of Collins.
The 214 is meaningless. When ever this is mentioned it should raise alarm bells. We were never going to buy that boat, and technologically, its old tech, size wise it, two classes too small. It was never an oceanic submarine. Its smaller than the Oberon class, and would make less sense than activating HMAS Oberon and building more o boats. Obviously an impossible idea, I guess I have to state that these days. If people are interested what does it take to convert a defensive sub into an offensive sub, look at the S80 program. Laid down in 2005, launched a month ago, expect delivery 2023.
Anything else is going to steal resources, people, money from the Attack project. Sufferen is still going through trials, and is expected to be handed over later this year. We always knew designing and building a submarine would take time, and honestly Robert probably won't be alive to see it in the water and Rex won't be in parliament and certainly his relevance is already questionable.
Yes, we should heavily refit Collins for another full life. Yes we should probably push that program up the priority ladder as well. It is too late to start building new Collins or Son of Collins.
The 214 is meaningless. When ever this is mentioned it should raise alarm bells. We were never going to buy that boat, and technologically, its old tech, size wise it, two classes too small. It was never an oceanic submarine. Its smaller than the Oberon class, and would make less sense than activating HMAS Oberon and building more o boats. Obviously an impossible idea, I guess I have to state that these days. If people are interested what does it take to convert a defensive sub into an offensive sub, look at the S80 program. Laid down in 2005, launched a month ago, expect delivery 2023.
Anything else is going to steal resources, people, money from the Attack project. Sufferen is still going through trials, and is expected to be handed over later this year. We always knew designing and building a submarine would take time, and honestly Robert probably won't be alive to see it in the water and Rex won't be in parliament and certainly his relevance is already questionable.
Have a look back through the thread. I am sure that this has been thrashed out earlier.
- Status