Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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?
 
Last edited:
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Takao said:
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.....
Click to expand...
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
 
S

SamB

Member
Takao said:
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.....
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

SamB

Member
Reptilia said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
SammyC said:
HMS Glasgow started construction in July 2017, so it has been two months shy of 9 years to the current status. Handover is not until some time next year.
Click to expand...
With two ships in the water and I'm assuming a third ship this year.

So far they appear to have been "laid down" at two year intervals and launched at the same rate.

Mogami is presumably a less complex warship, but also being built in a yard that has had a constant flow of work at a high tempo.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
StevoJH said:
With two ships in the water and I'm assuming a third ship this year.

So far they appear to have been "laid down" at two year intervals and launched at the same rate.

Mogami is presumably a less complex warship, but also being built in a yard that has had a constant flow of work at a high tempo.
Click to expand...
If we can get close to that drumbeat it would be a miracle. There just needs to be the will to do it. They have it, we need it. It can be done.
 
S

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
iambuzzard said:
If we can get close to that drumbeat it would be a miracle. There just needs to be the will to do it. They have it, we need it. It can be done.
Click to expand...
Trying to get to that drumbeat will just kill the yard once the build is finished.

If you launch a ship every 2 years the yard is going to be out of work in less then 20 years and no doubt the government will neglect to order anything to keep them going.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
StevoJH said:
Trying to get to that drumbeat will just kill the yard once the build is finished.

If you launch a ship every 2 years the yard is going to be out of work in less then 20 years and no doubt the government will neglect to order anything to keep them going.
Click to expand...
A fast drumbeat is a problem for long term shipyard health and it is a potential problem for Canada as well. It is a shame commercial work can't compensate. BC ferries awarded a contract to China as no Canadian yard could compete. Could also be that no Canadian company wanted to risk doing business with the most dysfunctional provincial government in Canada.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
StevoJH said:
Trying to get to that drumbeat will just kill the yard once the build is finished.

If you launch a ship every 2 years the yard is going to be out of work in less then 20 years and no doubt the government will neglect to order anything to keep them going.
Click to expand...
Fair question, but predicting twenty years out is very problematic.

A lot will happen within that timeframe.



Cheers as
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top