Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

Yes, the changes were, quite frankly, a bit silly. A case of wish lists not being properly vetted, I think. We used to call the people who came up with such, “Ivans” - “I’ve an idea…”. They were never the people responsible for actually delivering the product, of course!

The proposed changes would have necessitated redoing quite a lot of the stress calculations, amongst other things. The Arafuras as they are would be an OK mine warfare mother ship; a few minor mods, not as extensive as those proposed, would actually make them pretty good in that role. As I’m now retired, I have no idea if that is on the cards but some of the comments recently by various senior officers about the future of the class suggest that it might be very possible. We certainly need the capability. Even though the Mogamis have some MW capability you would not want to have to devote them to it. Much better to use something not dissimilar to the Arafuras - a modern Ton class MHC anyone?

 

[Reptilia]

Yup.

There was a cabel of peeps that decided SEA 1905 was not needed and sought to cancel it. ADFHQ asked for some deeper justifications, so that became a cancel a dedicated MCM replacement and convert two Arafura* to be part-MCM, part-drone mothership. The remnants of the 1905 project would by the new MCM drones.

My mine warfare PWO peer was somewhat expressive about the silliness, but you can see who won that debate.

Good thing mines aren't a thing anymore!

* very early in this discussion I was shown the informal changes to Arafura. Some of the things that stick were the shafts shifted outboard significantly, space under the helideck converted to accommodation, helideck converted to ISO storage for half of it, bunch of CD support equipment forward of the bridge, some other structural changes. I'll let the naval architects in the chat ponder those minor changes.....

they certainly won’t be making any risky changes to the class if they build a few more…

some of the good news coming from the arafura is that range has exceeded what’s listed -7,400km and the listed endurance of 21 days can be easily extended out well past a month.

plenty of options whatever they decide.
-Flight deck and below. 5-6 20ft containers. - uav etc.
-2xmedium 8.5m rhib spaces with 10ton cranes. - could be swapped out for uuv.
-1xlarge stern ramp for 10.5m rhib. - could be swapped out for usv.
-space for 57mm MG etc

 

[SamB]

Yup.

There was a cabel of peeps that decided SEA 1905 was not needed and sought to cancel it. ADFHQ asked for some deeper justifications, so that became a cancel a dedicated MCM replacement and convert two Arafura* to be part-MCM, part-drone mothership. The remnants of the 1905 project would by the new MCM drones.

My mine warfare PWO peer was somewhat expressive about the silliness, but you can see who won that debate.

Good thing mines aren't a thing anymore!

* very early in this discussion I was shown the informal changes to Arafura. Some of the things that stick were the shafts shifted outboard significantly, space under the helideck converted to accommodation, helideck converted to ISO storage for half of it, bunch of CD support equipment forward of the bridge, some other structural changes. I'll let the naval architects in the chat ponder those minor changes.....

You guys have to get rid of all the controversy. Every western nation for the last hundreds years has tried to make the perfect ship, first go. There's enough planned ships that could stage and test different components/technology without it calling for a total recall of the entire class.

 

[SamB]

they certainly won’t be making any risky changes to the class if they build a few more…

some of the good news coming from the arafura is that range has exceeded what’s listed -7,400km and the listed endurance of 21 days can be easily extended out well past a month.

plenty of options whatever they decide.
-Flight deck and below. 5-6 20ft containers. - uav etc.
-2xmedium 8.5m rhib spaces with 10ton cranes. - could be swapped out for uuv.
-1xlarge stern ramp for 10.5m rhib. - could be swapped out for usv.
-space for 57mm MG etc

That's odd though. I'm not a marine engineer but when you change the hull design you have to put bigger engines in and more fuel. Range extension, I'll wait for sea trials.

Edit: and changing the hull design is a mugs game. Todjaeger is for ever saying, what capability is needed.