That proposal looks great, I wonder where the VLS is stationed on the ship.
Interesting that tie ups between Lurssen and Damen with CIVMEC and ASC appear to have been reported in the press or by defense. Interesting times for Austal.
Hardly a surprise, junior just deferred $8.5 billion of defence spending out to 2035! He's such a POS.
2035? - thats 5 years after everything was predicted to get nasty - and even thats been bought forward by 5 years.
Northland coast cleared of 'mines' in navy exercise - National - NZ Herald News
Doesn't look like either way Canada will be there.2035? - thats 5 years after everything was predicted to get nasty - and even thats been bought forward by 5 years.
it will either all be over bar the shouting or at the messy end of it all ...
I think the ADF will soon have many opportunities from CDF, especially from the RCN and RCAF. Any promising young officer must by now realize that the future in Canada is a dead end.
kind of funny about the crayfish reference. the tech used to recover the mines is australian - and was originally based on a development by an australian fisherman to stop seals raiding cray and abalone pots
Space and weight and electrical provisions on the hangar roof for a Mk 56 VLS or a RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher, plus an ASuW warfare package including 4x SSM capability and short-range cannon / 12.7mm weapons and according to the specs....That proposal looks great, I wonder where the VLS is stationed on the ship.
Overall that would provide a great capability and a great future for the RAN!
Hopefully taken up asap, would be nice to have something about to defend it;s self from multiple threats.Space and weight and electrical provisions on the hangar roof for a Mk 56 VLS or a RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher, plus an ASuW warfare package including 4x SSM capability and short-range cannon / 12.7mm weapons and according to the specs....
All as growth options I am sure...
This is all based on the assumption we get the 90m version. The 80m versions does not offer the same level of fruit and has no hanger. The 85m version has a hanger but lacks the extra bits of the 90m version.
A telling difference is in the crew numbers; 87 for the 90 v 40 for the 80.
Not necessarily. Not knowing how smart the ships are, I would suggest that if they aren't that smart then numbers can be reduced by being smart about how technology is utilised about the ships. For example, machinery spaces can be personnel free, monitored and run from one place, as well as throttle controls being on the bridge, meaning freed up stokers undertaking onboard maintenance whilst underway rather than standing underway watches in machinery spaces, plus it reduces the number of technical crew required. Same with sensors, weapons etc., in CIC. That's what the RNZN have done with their recent and ongoing ANZAC FFH upgrades. The Protector Class OPVs are 85m in length and they have a crew of around 35 + 10 if the aviation element is deployed, so a 90m OPV, with some thought to the use of technology, can operate with far less crew than 80 - 90.
The crew size will depend on how your run the ship and the level of automation. The calculation would need to consider the type of operation ........ i.e how many boats do you want to be able to deploy at once..... will a helicopter be embarked (noting the 80 is a Lilly pad).