Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
the road runner
Active Member
I think an issues arises who owns the IP of Collins.. It would have been great when we first chose Collins to ensure a contract was written that stated the Commonwealth of Australia owns the IP of the boat ! Pay a premium to Kockums and ensure Australian can chop and change the Collins as we see fit
The IP has been a major issue ,i recall when we sent the prop's off to the USA to get honed ,an issue arose and Kockums was not to happy...The ship carrying the prop's was held off the American coast while the issues was being resolved in the courts !
All in all it would have been great to have followed on with a Collins MK2 after boat 3 or 4
Hopefully one day we can say ...that a Sub was designed and built by Australians for Australians ! But i wont hold my breath on that one
Hi Volk just a thought
How about a modern version of the Hybrid helicopter Destroyer/Cruisers used by the Italians and Soviets in the 70's and 80's.Ships such as the Vitorio Veneto and the Moskva had a meaningful complement of Helicopters and still carried a good weapons fit out.
Would a future destroyer with the weapons and sensors planned for our ANZAC replacement integrated with a two spot flight deck, supported by a large hangar space for 6 / 8 helicopters .underneath have a future.
Such a ship is certainly not trying to be a flat top aircraft carrier, yet would provide the additional ASW, SAR, and Logistical helicopters needed of a task force while still maintaining its war fight capabilities.
Could any of the three contenders for our future destroyers program accommodate a hull extension to provide flight deck and accommodation space for additional helicopters, crew and services.
Regards S
Or, we should license EB or Lockheed Martin and develop a bland new design free of those European IP red tapes......
Seriously, the devil are in the small details. All those French BS doesn't seems convincing to me as we have seen how they "deliver" their promises on Tiger ARH.
the road runner
Active Member
I don't think we have time on our side to design a new sub from scratch.
I am sure EB could build us a new sub..but at what cost....
I can see us having similar issues, we had with Collins, in regards to it being a unique sub for Australian requirements ! I think that is where the "risk" comes into play. It will not be an OTS design ...
Just hope Boat 1 will be built and tested as a prototype, (even if it slows the program down) fix all flaws then start the build process for boats 2-12 once Boat 1 has proven itself to be fit for task
I would have much rather we developed a Collins 2 or gone with Japan !.
But ...the powers that be have gone for the Croissant option
I wonder about the Type 26. It has enough space to land a chinook and can hanger two merlins with additional flex space. That space could be reconfigured. In addition, it isn't the longest hull, so could possibly be stretched another 5 m or so.
Yes I worry about the French as well. But if you wanted to build the most capable conventional sub, the short fin Barracuda has a lot going for it. The sheer size and volume of the dam thing puts it in another class. No body is building conventional at this size. For Australia this means we can build a conventional submarine with the sort of capabilities we want and need.
Currently anyone who has been in a Collins knows how tight it is. We would need a significant change in Collins to deliver what we want in the future. Its not that much smaller than a Los Angles class.
I guess you could add the Jeanne d'Arc to that list as well. It seems to be a ship design that has gone out of vogue ... if in fact it ever was in vogue.
I notice that all three of these ships have below deck hangers so that option wouldn't work with the 3 ships being considered for the future frigate program. You could stretch the ships I guess ... but it looks like you would need to extend the length of the ships by about 30 meters to get a second landing spot and of course that would still only leave you with hanger space for two helos.
To be honest it isn't hard to see why this design seemed to fall out of favour.
t68
Well-Known Member
someone came up with the idea of building Collins MKII. with IP issues I don't think the Swedes would mind too much getting some extra coin for warming over the design
prefer a 13 boat build using the 1st as a test bed for life of program
my sentiments as well, I just get the feeling that the French are using us as cash cow for test and evaluation for there own needs first, least the with the Japanese it would have made more strategic sense
just an outsiders view
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Also most Escorts at the time did not have a hanger and flight pad fitted so was seen as a quick way to get lots of Choppers to sea. From the mid 70s onward nearly all Destroyers & Frigates have been fitted for Helicopter ops. Better to have 1 Helo on every ship instead of 4-6 on a handfull.
The Japanese built the Haruna & Shirane classes which could carry up to 3 Med size Helo's and they were replaced by the Hyuga's so the Japanese certainly thought the through deck was better.
That is why I would push for a Collins 2. We have already built 6 prototypes.
The Soryu's themselves are just an evolution of the previous class and would have to be substantially modified for Australian requirements.
It wouldn't surprise me in fact if the Son of Collin's required less modification work than the Soryu.
Thanks for the reply.
Realistically such a ship would be a start from scratch effort, but as we have three ships in contention for the ANZAC replacement I just thought work with what you have.
True these type of ships are out of vogue, or for that matter were never in; however to the layman like myself they on face value seem to have some attributes.
I guess all ships are a just cog on a wheel that collectively just lend there own skill set to the big picture.
Looks like hybrid Helicopter / destroyers don't have a cog!!!!
It appears that regarding aviation at sea large flat decks are still in favour.
Glad we have the Canberra class.
Regards S
Maybe our politician's are to young to remember the Mirage debacle, the Frogs might even stop us using our subs if they don't agree on the conflict!!
The Italian Andrea Doria class cruisers (would be called destroyers now 6500 tons) carried up to four helicopters & had a deck level hangar, as did Tiger & Blake (also 4 helicopters) - which were real cruiser-size, converted late WW2 cruisers, laid up incomplete at the end of the war.
I'm glad someone else remembers that disgusting betrayal by France.
Also other European countries did same, including our oldest and closest European ally.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Didn't the Germans have control over how & where we could deploy the Leapords as well?
t68
Well-Known Member
That has been brought up in the media, like most thing with defence it dosnt get much traction with the general populace
No Cookies | Herald Sun
Meh. Sweden got all shirty about Carl Gustav during Vietnam, yet it never really affected the Collins class.
Maybe what we have here is just another straw man to knock down and resuscitate every couple of weeks in this forum, especially by the "French are cowardly surrender monkeys" school of history
oldsig
Canberra class to finish repairs this week.
Navy's biggest ships to return to sea
I still see they are claiming the ships were not available during the cyclone.
Might still only be one participating in Talisman sabre, trials might hold up the other one.
Navy's biggest ships to return to sea
I still see they are claiming the ships were not available during the cyclone.
Might still only be one participating in Talisman sabre, trials might hold up the other one.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Mixed Selection of Videos both Spanith & Oz LHDs + CVF out & about....
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-PJVfGXcpQCuUgv9vjddLQ/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-PJVfGXcpQCuUgv9vjddLQ/videos
- Status