I hop some of our engineering members explain, but the wings of recent Boeing and Airbus are composites with massive jet engines underneath, and from searching composite materials are better for ballistic protection. anyone's thoughts?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
justinterested
Member
The Type 26 frigate features a main mast constructed from advanced carbon fibre composite materials, manufactured by the Norwegian firm Umoe Mandal. It would probably weigh less than aluminium.
He is right though Karen!
A couple of points.
I don't think the weight for the Hunter is in the mast frame. The "heavyness" is in the radar panels and associated gear that has to be in the mast. I suspect the weight differential between aluminium and carbon fibre doesn't make a huge difference in this context. Whats a few kilos when the radar weighs tonnes
The T26 is different in that it is a much lighter radar mounted higher. Carbon fibre might have a weight advantage in this application.
Carbon fibre is a great material, but it can be an absolute pain to maintain. Repairing cracks in it are not easy, and sometimes it is cheaper to scrap and build a new one.
Carbon fibre has its weaknesses. It can be brittle. There are plenty of high end yachts that have suffered sudden mast failures as an example. It delaminates over time and is suseptible to water ingress. Carbon fibre usually has an outer layer for water protection, but once that is damaged, salt degrades the resin.
Any yachtie will tell you that anything carbon fibre means expensive to buy, expensive to keep and every weekend looking after it.
Murse
New Member
A decade of Collins subs mismanagement results in promotions all round, but alarm bells for AUKUS - Strategic Analysis Australia
I'm not sure the Collins LOTE is the right route after reading this.
I would seriously consider a Japanese or Korean stop gap from a safety perspective, not just a capability one.
I'm not sure the Collins LOTE is the right route after reading this.
I would seriously consider a Japanese or Korean stop gap from a safety perspective, not just a capability one.
Last edited:
Lolcake
Active Member
Or we perform the minimum amount of maintenance to keep them afloat and use the 11bn for bigger and better things like the two extra virginia options.
Realistically, if we placed an order for 6 SSK’s conventional subs from Japan how long would it take for them to deliver the first sub? My understanding is they have a hotline and currently pumping them out.
Is it possible to reallocate the 11billion to acquire new subs? Or is it too late? I feel this lote is going to drag on and the nuclear subs is going to be delayed due to it being such a big undertaking. Having 6 new conventional submarines makes sense to ease the pressure off Collin’s, and nuclear build.
Could we just acquire 6 Japanese subs and drop the virginia class from the plan. They can bridge the gap until 2040 when we have our Australian built aukus subs in the water. Dropping the pressure for the us to hand over Virginia boats.
Phase out Colin’s in the 2030s with Japan subs then phase out Japan subs in the 2050’s with the last of the aukus subs. This way we aren’t operating 3 classes of boat
Is it possible to reallocate the 11billion to acquire new subs? Or is it too late? I feel this lote is going to drag on and the nuclear subs is going to be delayed due to it being such a big undertaking. Having 6 new conventional submarines makes sense to ease the pressure off Collin’s, and nuclear build.
Could we just acquire 6 Japanese subs and drop the virginia class from the plan. They can bridge the gap until 2040 when we have our Australian built aukus subs in the water. Dropping the pressure for the us to hand over Virginia boats.
Phase out Colin’s in the 2030s with Japan subs then phase out Japan subs in the 2050’s with the last of the aukus subs. This way we aren’t operating 3 classes of boat
currently 10 planned Taigei, the 10th expected to be in service by 2031. If they build 12 like the Soryu, the last will be in service in 2033.
so you are looking at 2032 or 2034 for first export and 2037 or 2039 for the 6th. This would also delay the Japanese future submarine program…
Realistically, the only purchase we could make is the earlier Soryu boats first commissioned in 2009 which are a lot less capable than the new Taigeis.
6 upgraded Collins to 2038 probably the best we can do, by then we should have 3 Virginias and a whole bunch of AUUVs.
Like some sort of Life-Of-Type-Extension program, maybe?
We could ditch fancy ideas like new optronic masts and new engines and save a few quid that way.
Which, of course, is what they're doing.
Currently pumping them out for themselves (as Reptilia points out).
Realistically, unless they sell us one already in the water it would probably be a similar (but longer term) story to the Mogamis. Optimistically (very), maybe five years from a hot production line. More likely longer. Maybe 12 years, maybe fifteen for 6. Assuming their supply chain and production capacity can hold up. Which is a big ask. I imagine they'd have to ask themselves the same story the US is right now - how many can we build and is it enough?
I submit that a more realistic doomsday scenario may involve reaching out to Japan for the purchase or lease of several new or used submarines to help cover a capability gap at some point in the next decade. If something goes wrong, of course.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something people need to keep in mind is that the Japanese naval ship (and sub) building industrial capacity has been established and operating on build cycles to support Japan and JMSDF needs. This includes everything like the planned service lives of their vessels, when (or if) MLU or SLEP are done, the size of batch builds, etc. Japan might have some ability to increase production capacity, and/or accelerate delivery of vessels, or delay the replacement of some existing vessels.
However, it is also quite possible the Japan does not have sufficient 'extra' flexibility to accommodate Australia, and/or it might not be in Japan's interests to do so. With the naval shipbuilding industry built around being able to self-sustain the JMSDF, AFAIK it has never really operated as a commercial or export enterprise like TKMS. This could easily mean that build and delivery slots Australia might be interested in, would likely already be taken with orders from the JMSDF. That, or the slot is so far into the future that deliveries would not be available ahead of SSN's/
I can recall that the F-111 wings were treated with advanced composite material to extend their flying life beyond what the U.S.A.F could do ,another thought was on radar detection differences between a composite mast skin and aluminium skin mast sticking out at some height
Ah yes, 2+2=742.
Michael is yet again proving he is an agenda driven f'wit. The goose claims a lack of transparancy and of any appropriate level of review then lists the multiple reviews that were undertaken, all of which where done at the request of government for government.
What a w@nker.
Michael is just getting warmed up. He’ll circle this all the way back around as to why we should replace subs with B-21A’s…
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
We have w@nkers in the hobby industry too!
Hellyer, Jennings, Bergman - same…
Apologies in advance but the Collin’s Class expectation is very much a concern for myself.
The reality is HMAS Collins was commissioned 30 years ago.
The youngest Rankin 23 years.
They are now old subs.
Not middle aged.
Old!
We all know the history prior to AUKUS.
On that script they should currently be in transition to a new class of sub.
Be that the Attack class or preferably an alternative program that should have started in the early 20 teens.
Now Id like to be all fanboy with SSNs but
I can’t help but feel uncomfortable with the size of the endeavour.
So 2026 and we are still navigating what Collins future and potential is with the sad acknowledgment time is not on their side and the options are limited.
Surely when AUKUS was promoted all the bad case scenarios were workshopped.
I’d suggest no!
While I can understand that the core team that galvanised the setting up of AUKUS was by necessity secretive and small in number, surely there must of been an acknowledgment that Collins was getting on in years and a potential challenge.
Now I get click bait and the naysayers argument of negativity.
Journalists mentioned are on that bus, but sometimes when there’s smoke there’s fire.
Upshot I believe we have a problem.
I see absolutely no chance any Collins boats will see 2040.
If by miracle they do ,how capable and relevant will they be.
At best a training platform.
Seriously does anyone on DT honestly believe any Collins class will be in service beyond 2040
HMAS Rankin another 14 years ?
So our plan A is our plan B
Virginia Class 3 to 5 units and a transition to HMAS AUKUS in the early 40s.
We are not in a very good negotiating position.
Cheers S
Murse
New Member
I dont think we can ignore the subject matter regardless of the level of f'ckwittery or w*nker driven agenda's.
Im not suggesting we'd have Indo or Argie levels of ignorance WRT basic maintenance of old subs but I'd be extremely reluctant to serve on one.
Do we lean into Ghost Shark/Speartooth production and hope they can pick up the slack?
Do we get a stop-gap and hope the Japanese will give up a production slot or 4?
Or do we just hope the current plan works?