Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Brissy1982]

My opinions are from an engineering and ILS perspective. Search my posts for comments I've made in the past, I will acknowledge that they are pretty light on for specific details, but as a currently serving member I need to be careful about what I say. I would love to attach all the technical investigations and engineering reports I've read over the years but to do so would have ADFIS knocking on my door pretty quick.

Thanks @Flexson, I certainly wouldn't want you to get into any strife! I've taken a look at your previous posts which give some context as to why you hold your views.

 

[el Cid]

Thank you for providing zero credibility to support your thoughts or claims. You have also demonstrated an aversion to reading through links others have posted, since they directly address and in some cases counter and dispel claims or assumptions you have made.

For instance, the Australian PM Albanese met with the Spanish PM Sanchez in June 2022 in Madrid as part of a bilateral meeting ahead of a NATO summit that Spain was hosting. According to the reporting in a number of news sources, the Spanish PM raised the issue of the Navantia offer with the Australian PM.

The story as reported by the Age, was first linked here in this thread over a year ago. The reporting of the same story by the SMH was linked to in this thread earlier today.

To go from a PM to PM meeting ahead of an international summit that one of the PM's countries is hosting, to a belief that Australia is interested in a Navantia offer for warships because the Australian PM met with the Spanish PM in Spain is a rather questionable thought process, particularly given the reporting that it was the Spanish PM and not the Australian PM who brought up Navantia's offer.

I suspect, but do not know, that the meeting between the PM's would most likely have never happened if Spain had not been hosting the NATO summit. BTW here is a link to the NATO page on the 2022 NATO Summit which took place in Madrid from 28 June to 30 June 2022.

Given your claims which are at once both unsupported and rather outlandish, as well as your apparent refusal or inability to absorb posts which sometimes suggest something other than you claim, whilst directly refuting it in other cases, one begins to wonder whether or not one is posting just to get a reaction or response from others.

For example, claims were made that the F110 design could be changed to support 48 VLS cells, which is triple (3x) the number of cells the design is currently fitted with. Similarly, claims were made that the design could be changed to support two embarked naval helicopters which is twice (2x) what the F110 is currently designed for. Such changes to the fitout of a vessel are quite significant and would require some pretty significant redesign work, and all this for a ship design that is smaller than and has a lower planned displacement for the RAN's existing Hobart-class DDG, which the RAN has already found to be a bit too small. In order to accommodate such changes to a ship's fitout, either the design would need to be increased in size/displacement, or existing kit and spaces would need to be deleted/moved in favour of the claimed additions, or more likely both things would need to occur. The need for such redesign work would also significantly impact the ability to deliver vessels within the timeframe Navantia claimed was possible last year, and I and others questioned those claims at the time since they seemed overly optimistic, at best.

Now if one has actual, credible information which would illuminate the current situation, then by all means post it. However, to continue to cling to beliefs which are counter to information which is currently known and then compose posts based off those beliefs and assumptions which originate from them is to engage in posting with zero credibly and largely or entirely illogical & fantastical thinking.

The original design of the F110 includes 2 hangars, no need to redesign that. The F110 design will have margin of weight, can it be 6000 or can it be 7000, like the F100.

I see Sky News and the other video better informed than your sources, i dont go to the link because you summarize it, and from one media to other it is just a repetition. I dont see Navantia offering randomly 3 new Hobarts to Australia, it is more probable a petition, the offer needs work to be done for making the numbers. The unsolicited offer was for the corvettes, and this is because Australia is considering to purchase them in the near future.

Probably the delay in reviewing the offer is due to the unknown final price of each HUnter, to see the money avalaible, to see if they finally go for the Hunter, or how many Hunters, so probably australian navy is approving the offer but waiting to clarify the Hunter situtation. Have to understand that planned budget for 9 Hunters was 45 billion, wiki, so the final price of each Hunter is really unknown.

 

[el Cid]

Which posted videos? Can you please provide links?

Putting to one side issues with the comparability of costings, and your earlier claims that the “Hobart 2.0” are likely to be more expensive, as far as I’m aware there’s nothing stopping Hunters from using SM-3 and SM-6 if desired given it’s already integrated with a common combat system used by the Hobarts.

Needless to say I am unconvinced. The best course of action for us is accelerating Hunter production. So if Navantia have spare capacity and want to help, perhaps they can churn out hull blocks for the Hunters / an Australianised Arrowhead as a subcontractor for Babcock. But this brings significant quality and efficiency issues into the mix, and in any case as others have noted we should also be running a competitive process involving the Koreans as well.

To use to Sm3 you need the Spy radar for antiballistic capabalities. I dont think Ceafar does that, because of the range of radar.

 

[Volkodav]

To use to Sm3 you need the Spy radar for antiballistic capabalities. I dont think Ceafar does that, because of the range of radar.

Actually no.

The US conducted a study over a decade ago an SM-3 is actually able to be adapted to pretty much any of the Euro Air Warfare combatants, whether the SPY and or AEGIS or not.

In fact The Netherlands is planning to fit SM-3 to their AD Frigates.

 

[WaveWalker]

The surface fleet review is completed on time by the look of it. I don’t think it’s beyond reason that the government needs a few months to consider the report, discuss it and decide. Did anyone think the report was going to be immediately rubber stamped by the federal government?

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The surface fleet review is completed on time by the look of it. I don’t think it’s beyond reason that the government needs a few months to consider the report, discuss it and decide. Did anyone think the report was going to be immediately rubber stamped by the federal government?

I agree. There are almost certainly budgetary considerations. Whatever they decide to do will need to go through cabinet.

 

[Volkodav]

The government would have been kept informed on the direction the review was taking, as such this delay is a good sign.

Reading between the lines the delay is likely to be to workout how to spin the blindingly obvious conclusion the RAN is undersized and poorly equipped.

No guarantee anything will be done, but it is much harder to ignore a renowned foreign admiral.

That said, Australian government's did ignore both Henderson and Jellicoe.

 

[Aardvark144]

I would argue that the Government is not following rhetoric with action. As with the previous Government, both seem to be big in announcements but little else. The current Government seems to exhibit total paralysis when it comes to increasing funding for Defence. They seem to keep referencing SSNs and AUKUS as their 'get out of jail free' card for managing Defence. They were sprouting everywhere that Australia needs action now not later for Defence and what we have is the Government well into it's second year of office with the Navy yet to surface (sorry for the analogy) from the DSR and Surface Fleet review. If the Government was truly serious about funding Defence they would do so now, not promising an increase in funding beyond forward estimates and not taking another 4 to 6 months to make a decision of the surface fleet. I keep hearing tin cans rattling down the road.

 

[Brissy1982]

The surface fleet review is completed on time by the look of it. I don’t think it’s beyond reason that the government needs a few months to consider the report, discuss it and decide. Did anyone think the report was going to be immediately rubber stamped by the federal government?

I for one certainly never expected the recommendations of the surface fleet review would simply be rubber stamped - the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars of public funds obviously requires the appropriate approvals.

However, a lot of us have been anxiously awaiting some sort of an announcement about the key findings and recommendations made in the review - that hasn't happened and, it seems, won't happen for perhaps another 4-5 months. We all understand that the review's recommendations will be subject to government consideration before being approved, or not approved, and obviously it would not be appropriate for everything in the review to be published in the public domain as some of the material will be classified, but some sort of limited information release about the key findings and recommendations would be very welcome.

A lot of us, myself included, have become very jaded by defence reviews that are simply filed away in a dusty filing cabinet somewhere in Canberra, never to see the light of day, because governments find their recommendations to be inconvenient or unpalatable, and lack the political will to implement them. I'm concerned that the surface fleet review might suffer the same fate.

I'm hoping that @Volkodav is correct in his view that no news is good news, in that it may indicate that the current government is taking the review's recommendations seriously and just needs time to work out how best to implement them; however, only time will tell. In the meantime, all we can do is continue to wait anxiously to hear something.

 

[el Cid]

Actually no.

The US conducted a study over a decade ago an SM-3 is actually able to be adapted to pretty much any of the Euro Air Warfare combatants, whether the SPY and or AEGIS or not.

In fact The Netherlands is planning to fit SM-3 to their AD Frigates.

The Spy radar has the advantage of greater range, if Ran decides to have Sm-3 they will put them in the Hobarts or new Hobarts, not in the Hunters, because it would need the integration with the Ceafar while Aegis with Spy is ready for it, the better the radar the further the reach of the missile, more time for reaction, i doubt Ceafar has range for satellite tracking like the Spy.

After watching the videos again i conclude that the offer from Navantia maybe is not based in the F110 but still in the F100, so doubts on second hangar and having electric motors.

 

[Volkodav]

The Spy radar has the advantage of greater range, if Ran decides to have Sm-3 they will put them in the Hobarts or new Hobarts, not in the Hunters, because it would need the integration with the Ceafar while Aegis with Spy is ready for it, the better the radar the further the reach of the missile, more time for reaction, i doubt Ceafar has range for satellite tracking like the Spy.

After watching the videos again i conclude that the offer from Navantia maybe is not based in the F110 but still in the F100, so doubts on second hangar and having electric motors.

So I'm curious, are you a combat systems engineer? Perhaps you are a maritime warfare officer? Maybe you are a defence capability expert?

Or are you just a kid, watching YouTube videos, trying to tell actual defence professionals, serving naval officers, systems engineers etc. that you know more than they do?

 

[John Fedup]

One important thing about SPY7, this LM radar, chosen for Spanish and Canadian frigates, was initially a land based radar which is now being modified for marine use. Shouldn’t be an issue but it is not exactly tested and proven for naval use yet as far as I know.

 

[WaveWalker]

So I'm curious, are you a combat systems engineer? Perhaps you are a maritime warfare officer? Maybe you are a defence capability expert?

Or are you just a kid, watching YouTube videos, trying to tell actual defence professionals, serving naval officers, systems engineers etc. that you know more than they do?

I’m not sure it matters who he is, does it? Your reply smacks more of defensiveness, and an inability to take seriously input from people you consider lower in experience than you. Not a great leadership quality. I work at the top level of civil aviation and we listen to input from every crew member, regardless of qualification level, knowledge or experience.

@WaveWalker There is no need for this from you at all. @Volkodav is a SME (Subject Matter Expert), so pull your head in or the Moderators will do it for you.

Ngatimozart

 

[Volkodav]

I’m not sure it matters who he is, does it? Your reply smacks more of defensiveness, and an inability to take seriously input from people you consider lower in experience than you. Not a great leadership quality. I work at the top level of civil aviation and we listen to input from every crew member, regardless of qualification level, knowledge or experience.

Seriously, he is quoting YouTube and skynews are you are criticizing me? He has been sprouting fanboi rubbish for several days now, we have been tolerant yet he continues to lecture everyone as if he is the expert and we know nothing.

You may well listen to every crew member, but do you listen to the drunk passengers? How about to the kids who watch YouTube and think they know more about aviation than you, do you listen to them as they tell you that you know nothing and that they know more than you because "YouTube" and "skynews"?

Oh and "Not a great leadership quality."

I really don't care what you think, or who you think you are, but you making that statement after your first paragraph, then carrying on about how special and important you are, is hilariously contridictory.

I responded to him with publicly available fact, i.e. the Dutch are looking to acquire SM-3 for their airwarfare frigates, that have neither SPY or AEGIS, and he responded with factually incorrect opinion. Lecturing me about a capability he obviously has no idea about because it is classified.

Sorry but he is a fool.

 

[Lolcake]

Seriously, he is quoting YouTube and skynews are you are criticizing me? He has been sprouting fanboi rubbish for several days now, we have been tolerant yet he continues to lecture everyone as if he is the expert and we know nothing.

You may well listen to every crew member, but do you listen to the drunk passengers? How about to the kids who watch YouTube and think they know more about aviation than you, do you listen to them as they tell you that you know nothing and that they know more than you because "YouTube" and "skynews"?

Oh and "Not a great leadership quality."

I really don't care what you think, or who you think you are, but you making that statement after your first paragraph, then carrying on about how special and important you are, is hilariously contridictory.

I responded to him with publicly available fact, i.e. the Dutch are looking to acquire SM-3 for their airwarfare frigates, that have neither SPY or AEGIS, and he responded with factually incorrect opinion. Lecturing me about a capability he obviously has no idea about because it is classified.

Sorry but he is a fool.

Agree here completely, pure madness... this fellow is speculating on what capabilties SPY or CEAFAR has, whilst shitting on defence pro opinion doing so. Needs his brain checked.

Been mostly avoiding this thread for months due to fantasy fleet tripe and naval review speculation, now we are discussing/comparing radar capabilities on a forum with the tranquil thought of having their capabilities available in the public domain for disclosure. Insanity.

 

[Bob53]

The surface fleet review is completed on time by the look of it. I don’t think it’s beyond reason that the government needs a few months to consider the report, discuss it and decide. Did anyone think the report was going to be immediately rubber stamped by the federal government?

Well I was always of the view they would cherry pick and rip out the parts they didn’t like…eg the parts where you spend money. The parts where it says whoever said navies of the world are moving to smaller ships is talking nonsense.

 

[Bob53]

I for one certainly never expected the recommendations of the surface fleet review would simply be rubber stamped - the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars of public funds obviously requires the appropriate approvals.

However, a lot of us have been anxiously awaiting some sort of an announcement about the key findings and recommendations made in the review - that hasn't happened and, it seems, won't happen for perhaps another 4-5 months. We all understand that the review's recommendations will be subject to government consideration before being approved, or not approved, and obviously it would not be appropriate for everything in the review to be published in the public domain as some of the material will be classified, but some sort of limited information release about the key findings and recommendations would be very welcome.

A lot of us, myself included, have become very jaded by defence reviews that are simply filed away in a dusty filing cabinet somewhere in Canberra, never to see the light of day, because governments find their recommendations to be inconvenient or unpalatable, and lack the political will to implement them. I'm concerned that the surface fleet review might suffer the same fate.

I'm hoping that @Volkodav is correct in his view that no news is good news, in that it may indicate that the current government is taking the review's recommendations seriously and just needs time to work out how best to implement them; however, only time will tell. In the meantime, all we can do is continue to wait anxiously to hear something.

Aside from details about particular capabilities, the number of ships that the review recommends Australia should have wouldn’t be classified. It would just be embarrassing that the Gov conducts the review then ignores it. That’s the only reason Recommended fleet numbers will be classified.

 

[swerve]

...
I responded to him with publicly available fact, i.e. the Dutch are looking to acquire SM-3 for their airwarfare frigates, that have neither SPY or AEGIS, and he responded with factually incorrect opinion. Lecturing me about a capability he obviously has no idea about because it is classified.
...

Ah yes - a couple of years ago De Zeven Provinciën demonstrated that its Thales Smart-L radar & CMS could cue an SM-3 missile to intercept a ballistic missile outside the atmosphere.

Dutch frigate cues US destroyer's SM-3 interceptor in ballistic missile test

 

[el Cid]

One important thing about SPY7, this LM radar, chosen for Spanish and Canadian frigates, was initially a land based radar which is now being modified for marine use. Shouldn’t be an issue but it is not exactly tested and proven for naval use yet as far as I know.

No problem. Spy 7 , according to Lockheed Martin has range 3,3 times the Spy 1, which we know has 185 kms range, so Spy7 has 610 kms range. Have a look to the reason why australian navy wants 3 new Hobarts.

Aegis Combat System | Lockheed Martin
SPY-7 | Lockheed Martin

 

[el Cid]

Seriously, he is quoting YouTube and skynews are you are criticizing me? He has been sprouting fanboi rubbish for several days now, we have been tolerant yet he continues to lecture everyone as if he is the expert and we know nothing.

You may well listen to every crew member, but do you listen to the drunk passengers? How about to the kids who watch YouTube and think they know more about aviation than you, do you listen to them as they tell you that you know nothing and that they know more than you because "YouTube" and "skynews"?

Oh and "Not a great leadership quality."

I really don't care what you think, or who you think you are, but you making that statement after your first paragraph, then carrying on about how special and important you are, is hilariously contridictory.

I responded to him with publicly available fact, i.e. the Dutch are looking to acquire SM-3 for their airwarfare frigates, that have neither SPY or AEGIS, and he responded with factually incorrect opinion. Lecturing me about a capability he obviously has no idea about because it is classified.

Sorry but he is a fool.

The term fool is lack of respect, the term rubbish is also offensive, you should be corrected by the moderators, receive a warning and delete your message, otherwise this site will show lack of justice and personality.

@el Cid @Volkadov is a subject matter expert. You are not. He and other posters have taken the time to explain things for you, but you continuously refuse to learn. You haven't provided ANY reputable sources to back up your claims despite being requested too.

This is a warning. It is for the Moderators to undertake Moderation of this site; not you or any other poster who thinks that they know better. Given your posts your time on here may be very limited because your posts do not meet the posting quality that IS REQUIRED on here. Either improve your posting quality or face the consequences. You have been awarded 12 demerit points for 12 months due to poor post quality.

Ngatimozart.