When discussing reusing Voyager I was more referring to the tragic, accidental way in which she was lost, hence my reference to Canberra which had also been lost in dubious circumstances (possibly torpedoed by mistake during the battle of Savo island).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Either way 64 VLS would be much more desirable IMO given the current situation and the fact we haven't cut any steel for them yet. A rolling build is great and all, but we won't have as much time and resources for one of Australia's magical "upgrades" mid life. So we better hope that what we build meets our needs for the life of the ship.
IMO the greatest capability of the OPV will be the helipad and hanger. Should be able to take a full sized helo or 2 UAV's.
I don't see british type naming coming back anytime soon, I think they are very cool names, but its very distinctive for them. Australia does the place name thing, I think its become very distinctive. If anything we should expand it. HMAS Dunnydoo, HMAS Dapto, HMAS Oodnadatta, HMAS Humpybong HMAS Ozenkadnook.
Well if we want to be a regional power we need to act like one. I think its shown how much Australia has changed in the last 16 years. I'm sure the Canberra coming into Suva was actually a big thing for Bainimarama. I see this heart and mind winning capability pushing Fiji much closer to Australia than she has been of recent. The ability to put a small Australian regional city or two in Suva or where ever it is needed for as long as needed. I guess we could have built the capability without the ships, but there was never the imperative, funding or the frame work about what we should aim for. While the ship get the attention, its really the capability that the army can provide that where the real power comes from.
And while the C-17 have moved more tonnage, they fly away, they don't have the same presence as the ships. They imply commitment. They bring there own capabilities to the doorstep rather than dumping loads at an airfield (as its perceived). I imagine the Canberras will visit Fiji on a very regular basis. They really are strategic projection ships and the Canberra class name is very apt.
I hope it forces Australia and other nations like PNG and Fiji to get along. They are big early symbols that things have changed significantly.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Voyager disaster is probably the worst incident in the history of the RAN, a war loss is one thing but to be run over by your own Flagship in peacetime is another and then the way the survivors were treated made the whole incident worse.
The battle of Savo Island was a cluster f..... from the start. I suspect every allied ship was hit by friendly fire that night, the sudden appearance of enemy forces at point blank range can do that. If the Japanese commander had not got cold feet and run home after the battle they would have wiped out the invasion fleet.
CREF my earlier - this is not just a service specific demonstration of soft power. without wanting to appear flippant - in these scenarios its "HMAS DFAT" - despite the fact that they are military assets etc.... At a military level these vessels are a floating HQJOC - they are a joint and centralised command enabler
there are a raft of other capabilities which have contributed to Aust being able to effectively project this support
the ship, the C-17's are just the visible manifestations of that capability which are physically obvious and get the most attention
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The sheer military power that a single Canberra and a couple of escorts could bring to bear, should ensure that everyone in the South Pacific region behaves themselves. Only PNG and Fiji possess any real military at all and they would be outclassed by the advanced military capabilities that even a single Canberra would carry. Of course i haven't included NZ for obvious reasons.
There are actually four "v"s we could use noting HMAS Vengeance served for a while waiting for Melbourne (R21) to commission. This would give you
Voyager
Vendetta
Vampire
Vengeance
all with a lot of history
Can ESSM still be quad-packed in SDS launchers? Just curious is all.
yep, Mk41 system and Mk25 cannister friendly
http://cfile236.uf.daum.net/image/1738644C4D986A9A22AD74
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-162_DAT/RIM-162-ESSM-003.jpg
Mk25 launcher
http://www.ussbadger-1071.org/menus/weapons/seasparrow/Image772.jpg
launcher and systems
Mk-25 missile launcher
Mk-29 missile launcher
Mk-41 Vertical Launching System (VLS)
Mk-48 Vertical Launching System (VLS)
Mk-57 Vertical Launching System (VLS) (DDG-1000 class)
Unfortunately I dont think the Vs will get a run in this overly PC world we live in. Both Vendetta and Vengeance will be seen as unacceptable ie suggestive of law breaking, and Voyagers' unfortunate and controversial fate I think rules this name out as well. Very unfortunate as these are great names with great history.
Rivers, bays, towns in some form I think are the most likely names for the OPVs.
Learn something new everyday, I always though the quad packs were too large, as they were for the Mk-48 vls. Sort of changes my perspective re US carrier and phatship self defence.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes, very true about Vengeance (Colossus Class Light Fleet Carrier, served for a couple of years before being modified and ending up as the Brazilian Minas Gerais).
And of course there was the Heavy Cruiser Shropshire that was transferred to the RAN to replace Canberra.
And as V mentioned, the cruisers Psyche, Pioneer and Encounter.
Certainly lots of names to pick from.
I still wonder why they didn't name the LHD's Australia and Canberra and keep Adelaide for one of the Future Frigates.
Maybe they are saving 'Australia' for when we get the announcement of the stretched and enlarged aviation focused LHD, HMAS Australia!!!
(Cough, choke, only joking!!!!)
Yep, those were the other options I was just thinking. Mk25 Canisters for ESSM can be deck mounted and launched just as Harpoon Block II is.
If the future ASuW missile replacement was something along the lines of LRASM and was VL capable, then switching ESSM to deck-mounted launch systems would be an easy upgrade and would free up those precious VLS cells...
STANFLEX Mk-56 containers would do the job, 12 ESSM each. If the Danes can fit them on a FAC we could easily provide space, weight and appropriate connections on OPVs, frigates and destroyers. In fact considering the CS on the Canberras is basically the same as the ANZACs each could grow an ASMD mast and find space for a couple of modular pallets at MLU time should the circumstances warrant it.Yep, those were the other options I was just thinking. Mk25 Canisters for ESSM can be deck mounted and launched just as Harpoon Block II is.
If the future ASuW missile replacement was something along the lines of LRASM and was VL capable, then switching ESSM to deck-mounted launch systems would be an easy upgrade and would free up those precious VLS cells...
Small correction John, Quality was not converted to ASW and you left out poor old Burdekin from the rivers.
Some more to choose from could be the Ton class; Snipe, Ibis, Hawk, Gull, Teal, and Curlew or perhaps Rushcutter and Shoalwater, maybe the O class SSKs; Oxley, Ovens, Otama, Otway, Orion and Onslow.
Anyway many to choose from and as long as they stay away from the politically correct interference of the naming committee and end up with a persons name like Choules, I'll be content with any outcome.
We are saving Australia and the state names for the Ford class CVNs (using money saved by reducing subs back to eight and buying baseline Soryus straight from Japan) we will order when King Tony returns to the throne. That's assuming he doesn't go to gaol for leaking national secrets to Uncle Rupert.
Actually, particularly if the OPVs have some sort of littoral and landing party/force support capability, we could recycle the LCH names. Although to be honest there are more than enough famous Bathurst names that could be used.
Not uncle Rupert, seminary mate Greg Sheridan
thank goodness he was deposed because a rushed build of next generation subs would be most damaging to the RANs capability
I'd hoped we were saving those for some future LCH replacement. By the time they are built the names will be ancient history.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Americans have gone way off course in naming their carriers, who is Carl Vinson and John C Stennis? Lets hope Australia doesn't go down that path. I do not want to see the HMAS Kevin Rudd commissioned, just because he released the original DWP that recommended 12 subs, thank you.Not uncle Rupert, seminary mate Greg Sheridan
Many of the LCH names would resonate with our South Pacific neighbours. I am all for naming RAN vessels after towns, rivers, districts and in some cases hard fought battles as it gives a sense of ownership to the wider community and is some thing you do not get when you name a vessel after a person.
Not to sure about HMAS Hammersley though!
I don't think we have had any RAN ships named after some of the famous WW1 battles.
- Status