Why was Queenborough so lightly armed - only twin bofors up front
Seems an odd arrangement
MB
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Seems an odd arrangement
MB
“Queenbee” was an WW2 emergency destroyer originally fitted with 2x4” guns in A and B position plus 2xBofors Mk5 aft.
The RAN converted her to a fast Anti Sub frigate with her primary ASW weapon, Mortar Mk10 Limbo.
In this role she had no need for the 4” guns which were mainly a surface to surface weapon with no useful Anti Air capability, this was provided for by her Mk5 twin Bofors.
The armament of the WW2 Q class destroyer of which Queensborough was one, as built was 4x 4.7"(120mm) main guns, 2 forward and 2 aft. 1x 4 barrel pom poms,(40mm) 6 20mm, 8 21"TT and depth charges according to an old book I have on WW2 RN destroyers, also wiki.
Q and R-class destroyer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Q CLASS DESTROYER QUIBERON. FIVE Q CLASS DESTROYERS ON LOAN FROM BRITAIN FROM 1942 TO 1946 WERE ... | Australian War Memorial (awm.gov.au)The armament of the WW2 Q class destroyer of which Queensborough was one, as built was 4x 4.7"(120mm) main guns, 2 forward and 2 aft. 1x 4 barrel pom poms,(40mm) 6 20mm, 8 21"TT and depth charges according to an old book I have on WW2 RN destroyers, also wiki.
Q and R-class destroyer - Wikipedia
Here is a picture of the Quiberon from WW2, showing her armed with Mark X11 4.7in Guns.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I bow to others knowledge of naval systems but I’d like to back this up and comment on the general unfeasibility of replacing a crewed SSN or SSK completely with a solely battery-electric SS (SSE?) or AUV. The physics simply doesn’t stack up.
The Collins/Attack/AUKUS saga has highlighted that range is a critical factor for RAN subs. To get range a sub needs to be powered either by something where the fuel doesn’t run out (nuclear) or carries enough fuel to burn to provide the required amount of energy needed to reach the range provided (Diesel) or stores the energy directly (battery). In all three cases the sub also needs to contain the crew, weapons, sensors and the engines that will take that energy and convert it to forward movement.
So the rate at which energy can be stored is critical. The more dense the form of energy storage, the further the sub can go for a given fuel storage space. The following are theoretical maximum energy storage density in Mega Joules (MJ) per litre of volume for various sub power options:
Lead battery 0.5 MJ/L
Lithium battery 4.3 MJ/L
diesel fuel 45 MJ/L
Uranium U235 3,900,000 MJ/L
Energy density - Energy Education
Clearly, even the most efficient battery is ten times less efficient in energy storage than diesel fuel. Nuclear power is one million times more efficient. There is simply no way a submarine or UAV powered by battery alone will travel as far, or as fast, or carry as much as a similar sized SSK, let alone SSN. Some things engineering and research can resolve over time. But not basic physics.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Another contract for the Hunter program.
Plasan has won the contract for armouring the first three Hunter class ships using Bisalloy ballistic resistant steel.
Plasan & Bisalloy to armour Hunter class frigates
Plasan has won the contract for armouring the first three Hunter class ships using Bisalloy ballistic resistant steel.
Plasan & Bisalloy to armour Hunter class frigates
I’ve been looking into forward basing and the potential sites the RAN could use OPV’s and potential light frigate or corvettes at and Fiji, PNG and East Timor are all counties Australia is funding for significant naval base expansion and upgrading legal parameters and defence pacts so these all fit with Defence review but I can’t find anything of the current naval facilities at Cocos Kealing Island.. while RAAF are expanding the runway and conducting upgrades what are the facilities like for RAN vessels to dock?
I haven’t see any photos of the warfs or an understanding of what currently is their amd how they use the island for vessels at the moment and what would’ve needed to turn it into a naval base.
Anyone know more?
I haven’t see any photos of the warfs or an understanding of what currently is their amd how they use the island for vessels at the moment and what would’ve needed to turn it into a naval base.
Anyone know more?
buffy9
Well-Known Member
The topic was discussed fairly recently. In essence it is likely to be an extensive and expensive upgrade, whilst the current situation is suitable for border force and navy patrol vessels to deploy for temporary periods of time. The OPVs will be capable of continuing this effort.
On the other countries, these efforts are about improving their own ability to conduct maritime security whilst also making Australia the preferred partner. It isn't necessarily the case that Australian vessels will make use of them for operations.
Last edited:
I was looking to understand what the current facilities for navy vessels currently is? I haven’t seen any photos of a border or naval vessel berthed at cocos and interested to see and know what is built on the only to manage these vessels and what would be needed to enhance this capability.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
In terms of berthing facilities, if you go on maps you will find there are three wharfs/jetties present on the islands - two on West Island (where the airport is) and one on Bantam. None appear suitable for an ACPB at 57m, let alone an OPV or something larger. Not to mention the depth is very shallow close to all of the islands, so you can't just build a large wharf - it would need to be long, as alexsa stated, in order to reach the deeper lagoon. The hyperlink in my first reply also has details on more estate that is required, which is would be difficult to build up due to its protected status and as everything you need must be shipped in.
I've gone to CKI twice with border force and navy. With navy we simply anchored in the lagoon; with border force we stayed a bit further out because the ship had dynamic propulsion. If the aim was maritime security, we were there.
For larger naval vessels, I don't see a point. To set up a naval base or FOB there would need to be massive improvements in stored fuel, berthing and other services, whilst most warships are thankfully blue-water capable (owing to their size no doubt) with oilers to support operations even further out than CKI. The money could be spent on other projects.
Last edited:
Not sure of the depth of the lagoon within the Cocos / keeling Island group but interesting that sufficient depth is found for a patrol boat to anchor within the lagoon.
My understanding is large supply vessels for Cocos Island supply come from Zentner Shipping Company.
These unload to landing craft to connect to the islands main Piers.
Apparently they can enter the lagoon for operations.
Would be interesting to know what the largest vessel the lagoon can accommodate.
Is the issue depth or marine sensitivity?
Cheers S
Kind of makes you wish that rather than speculate on OPV replacement with Corvettes/Light Frigates etc a replacement for the LCHs could take priority. Something large enough to operate independently to places like the Cocos Island while carrying both stores and necessary military systems required ,though sadly it might also end all the entertaining speculation on which military vehicles are air transportable on other forums.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
I mean, it is planned sort of. Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel Heavy (LMV-H) could be described as the successor class, though it is probably too early to tell what it may end up looking like. Of course any runs to CKI would in theory need escort, which is where the whole KK/OPV topic comes into it.
Australia buys ‘potent and powerful’ sea mines to deter China
Australia will make its first major investment in sea mines in decades to deter China from sending ships and submarines into the nation’s waters.
Perhaps a ’family’ of mines is on the way, given the surface, sub-surface and air-launched mentions below?
Australia will make its first major investment in sea mines since the Vietnam War, spending up to $1 billion on high-tech underwater weapons to deter China and other potential adversaries from sending ships and submarines into the nation’s waters.
Sea mines are self-contained explosive devices that can be placed in key strategic choke points, such as straits and harbours, to blow up encroaching enemy naval vessels.
The weapons have been used in virtually every maritime conflict since the 14th century, but fell out of favour with Western naval leaders in recent decades, including in Australia.
China has built up a stockpile of up to 100,000 sea mines as part of its massive military expansion.
Defence industry sources said the federal government would soon announce it had signed a contract to purchase a substantial number of sea mines from a European weapons supplier.
The Defence Department, sources said, intends to procure a sophisticated form of multi-influence ground mines that react to acoustic, magnetic and pressure influences of passing vessels. They can be laid on the ocean floor by ship, submarine or from the air.
The Department of Defence confirmed the upcoming purchase, telling The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age: “Defence is accelerating the acquisition of smart sea mines, which will help to secure sea lines of communication and protect Australia’s maritime approaches.”
“A modern sea mining capability is a significant deterrent to potential aggressors.”
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Regardless of which way decisions go with the OPV, submarine and naval programs generally, this decision will make all relevant platforms more useful. At $1 billion, less than half the cost of a new AWD or Frigate, it seems a very prudent investment.Australia buys ‘potent and powerful’ sea mines to deter China
Australia will make its first major investment in sea mines in decades to deter China from sending ships and submarines into the nation’s waters.www.smh.com.au
Perhaps a ’family’ of mines is on the way, given the surface, sub-surface and air-launched mentions below?
Australia will make its first major investment in sea mines since the Vietnam War, spending up to $1 billion on high-tech underwater weapons to deter China and other potential adversaries from sending ships and submarines into the nation’s waters.
Defence industry sources said the federal government would soon announce it had signed a contract to purchase a substantial number of sea mines from a European weapons supplier.
...
The Defence Department, sources said, intends to procure a sophisticated form of multi-influence ground mines that react to acoustic, magnetic and pressure influences of passing vessels. They can be laid on the ocean floor by ship, submarine or from the air. ...
Given the amount of development that has occurred since the Vietnam War with captor mines etc, I am slightly shocked to read that this is the first major investment in naval mines for Australia since the Vietnam War.
This is the sort of investment the ADF needs to acquire.
We will never be able to compete with China on mass but reducing their navy into certain routes so we can Crete kill zones and even the fight.
how are these mines laid on mass? By the new MCM?
Could the new unmanned submarines be capable of setting out and planting these in choke points?
We will never be able to compete with China on mass but reducing their navy into certain routes so we can Crete kill zones and even the fight.
how are these mines laid on mass? By the new MCM?
Could the new unmanned submarines be capable of setting out and planting these in choke points?
Wonder how many mines $1 bn buys?
And how long they will take to be delivered.
I'm guessing, delivery could be very fast.
It's a very smart buy I think, but I would have thought we would have already had a bit of a stockpile, I'm surprised we have not invested earlier. For those of us not aware of modern sea mines and how they can be used here is a good article I found earlier today.
And how long they will take to be delivered.
I'm guessing, delivery could be very fast.
It's a very smart buy I think, but I would have thought we would have already had a bit of a stockpile, I'm surprised we have not invested earlier. For those of us not aware of modern sea mines and how they can be used here is a good article I found earlier today.
Last edited:
OldTex
Well-Known Member
If sea mines were not in the DCP which is being reviewed, then this announcement effectively is 'leaking' a recommendation from the review. t seems the government are going to drip feed some of the recommendations before its public release.This might be a deliberate action to gauge public reactions with smaller surprises, but it can also help justify cuts in larger projects because of 'affordability' and 'budget constraints'.
But as has been mentioned, why does the ADF not have these systems already? The experiences in the Straits of Hormuz should have been obvious. Yes the ADF looked at what was needed to defeat these systems, but seem to have not taken the offensive lessons on board.
But as has been mentioned, why does the ADF not have these systems already? The experiences in the Straits of Hormuz should have been obvious. Yes the ADF looked at what was needed to defeat these systems, but seem to have not taken the offensive lessons on board.
There was an early 2000’s project to acquire a sea mine capability including a warstock.Wonder how many mines $1 bn buys?
And how long they will take to be delivered.
I'm guessing, delivery could be very fast.
It's a very smart buy I think, but I would have thought we would have already had a bit of a stockpile, I'm surprised we have not invested earlier. For those of us not aware of modern sea mines and how they can be used here is a good article I found earlier today.
It was largely cancelled without acquiring an operational capability, just a small training stock of mines for platform training, ie: subs, ships, CDT’s etc.
That whole ‘peace dividend’ thang…
The unmanned sub surface vessels 'may' be able to do it but the the USV would msot likely have to be carried close to the location in order to do it (unless you have a very large USV which has a range of 1000's of nautical miles .... in other words a full blown submarine with tubes and generation capacity).
There could be a role, in the future, for piggy backing a large USV close to the target location if you want it to going in harms way to drop a small number of mines within a harbour or in shallow water to reduce the risk of being caught. It all really depends on what is developed.