An idea: If (okay, IF) QE2 are frequent to our region, how about RAAF acquired a squadron of B and routinely deploy a section of them on board to beef-up her air wing?
And RAN do have 2 deck for training/deployment if needed.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
And RAN do have 2 deck for training/deployment if needed.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree, one also has to remember that the UK will eventually have 4Squadron of F35B made up of 9 aircraft each I suspect (36 plus 12 OCU attrition) I also suspect tere will be an additional order of 24 aircraft around 2023 to bring strenght upto 72 aircraft for 12 aircraft per Squadron
So a single Squadron will always deploy whichever carrier is the duty carrier at the time surging to 2Squadron pending the threat level, so CEPP will be at least 1Squadron (12aircraft)
That's also not to mention that even if the funds could be attained it is tying up a large investment entirely on the UK deploying one of the carrier's here on a regular basis. They may do so now, Maybe even within the next few years but I don't think it would be prudent to tie that sum of money up on a gamble that they will continue to do so 10, 20 or 30 years from now.
The ADF is playing the long game and in that game there is no certainty of such an event.
The ADF is playing the long game and in that game there is no certainty of such an event.
t68
Well-Known Member
Be patient ... if history is anything to go by then one of these carriers will be sold off next time there is cut back in the UK's defence spending.
That's how we got the Choules ... that is how we almost got the Invincible.
That's only because the had more than two platforms, they still had spare capacity to a fault
It could be imagined between the UK and the US there would be frequent chances of collaboration, if Australia wanted to participate. But our current amphibs are struggling to meet our amphibious needs now.
Real news is the fact that the UK stepping into the Asia Pacific again. Obviously that makes the Type 26 (and other UK products) attractive for a variety of nations.
I also wonder how practical the UK's current intentions are, and how strongly they are supported across UK politics and are technically possible. Colour me skeptical. One statement from Boris doesn't prove a commitment. Maybe they will start a bigger showing at FPDA events. I'm not even sure how other regional players will see a resurgent UK in Asia.
The FT had a piece on Australia's defence procurement and the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/87f4894c-7298-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c
There is certainly plenty going on.
UK has been experimenting in the best way to support long naval deployments. In that sense the UK has similar issues to Australia. Ships stay in regions and crews fly in and out. But then you need to have propulsion and systems that can support that kind of operation efficiently.
t68
Well-Known Member
Do you still have the article name, might be away around the subscription issue
It could easily be argued that that news is intended to make the T26 more attractive - since the UK can't actually deploy a sample to Australia as the Italians and Spanish have done. Smoke and mirrors - watch the right hand while the left furiously tries to conjure up a complete ship before a choice has to be made.
I like the T26 concept and it looks like potentiallya great class , but it's far enough behind the production curve that there's going to be a perceived risk which will take some overcoming
oldsig
True ... but they selected the Type 26 for the short list knowing that an example would not be available until the 2020s.
There is no short-fin barracuda in service either.
I think the final selection will be on merit and if the British can put together a strong enough case it is a real chance.
Pyne once again made a point of mentioning that ASW was the most important consideration for this new frigate.
There is no short-fin barracuda in service either.
I think the final selection will be on merit and if the British can put together a strong enough case it is a real chance.
Pyne once again made a point of mentioning that ASW was the most important consideration for this new frigate.
Bear in mind DoD also give Navantia quite a bit of money ..... before the CEP, to deal with design changes to the Hobart DDG to cover the future frigate.
On this basis you would guess the evolved F105 has the inside running to start with. However, who knows!
Sorry everyone, forgot that FT has a paywall for specific linked articles.
Google - Australia targets arms exports amid defence splurge
Australia needs low risk defence procurement with high level capability.
Given we are starting the Sea5000 build in 2020 and the first Type 26 won't enter service until the "early 2020's" It's not going to line up. It may be the first Sea5000 frigate is IOC before the first Type 26 (unlikely but possible). I think if Pyne could move construction to the start of 2018 he would.
Which leaves FREMM and the F-105. FREMM would need a fair amount of modification, and it would be a hard sell over the existing F-105 based capability and compatibility we already have.
There is also another issue. It would be commercially useful for the full sized CEA radar to be at sea on a ship ASAP on a low risk, proven platform. Given how much Pyne is talking up exports, it is an additional motivator. UK type 26 operating out of Australia would also seem to fit that concept.
Google Australian future frigates set sail for faster course.
Again, a 4th AWD (or a AWD bigger than 3) might have been more sensible. I imagine what ever hull we end up with at the end of the sea5000, we will just keep building them and then replace the AWD with a new destroyer based off that new hull. I would imagine the UK might look at replacing or supplementing the Type 45 around then as well.
If you had a time machine, we would have ordered the AWD around the 90's (would have be ideal for Timor), and built 4-6 of them. Paid off the FFG's. We could then afford to wait in replacing the ANZAC's.
But now?
Google - Australia targets arms exports amid defence splurge
True, but there was off the shelf of any sub in that contest (although I will admit the french were more risky than the Japanese. So capability counts).
Australia needs low risk defence procurement with high level capability.
Given we are starting the Sea5000 build in 2020 and the first Type 26 won't enter service until the "early 2020's" It's not going to line up. It may be the first Sea5000 frigate is IOC before the first Type 26 (unlikely but possible). I think if Pyne could move construction to the start of 2018 he would.
Which leaves FREMM and the F-105. FREMM would need a fair amount of modification, and it would be a hard sell over the existing F-105 based capability and compatibility we already have.
There is also another issue. It would be commercially useful for the full sized CEA radar to be at sea on a ship ASAP on a low risk, proven platform. Given how much Pyne is talking up exports, it is an additional motivator. UK type 26 operating out of Australia would also seem to fit that concept.
Google Australian future frigates set sail for faster course.
Again, a 4th AWD (or a AWD bigger than 3) might have been more sensible. I imagine what ever hull we end up with at the end of the sea5000, we will just keep building them and then replace the AWD with a new destroyer based off that new hull. I would imagine the UK might look at replacing or supplementing the Type 45 around then as well.
If you had a time machine, we would have ordered the AWD around the 90's (would have be ideal for Timor), and built 4-6 of them. Paid off the FFG's. We could then afford to wait in replacing the ANZAC's.
But now?
Joe Black
Active Member
I believe the current ANZAC frigates will be further upgraded with the SPS-49(V)8 Air search radar slated to be replaced by the larger L-band CEAFAR2. That would give CEA time to test and work out all the bugs in their newer long range Active Phased Array radar to complement their existing S-Band version before putting them on Sea5000 frigates.
Yes, but neither do they intend to start building the submarines in 2020
I have no dog in this fight - just want the RAN to get the best value for money ship with the least chance it'll all go to hell, and to me the T26 looks the riskiest.
oldsig
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree
To see the CEPP come to fruitation in my view has a requirement of a minimum of 96 aircraft 36x2(36per strike)carrier plus an OCU and attrition airframes. There has been rumbling on several different forums that RAF is trying to split the JSF buy in with a mix of B's and A's I see some merit in the idea but that would mean more JSF over the longer term to replace Tornado
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The only barely positive thing about Canada's cluster $uck military procurement of new fighters for the RCAF is the delay might actually allow for an analysis of how the F-35B works in a real world deployment situation by the USMC and eventually the RN/ RAF. Despite the higher cost and lower range, the flexibility of the STOVL capability of the F-35B has advantages for operation in the north and may be a welcome addition to the RN, USMC, and USN when allied help is needed. The more I see the "B" performing, the more I like it.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
What is so horrible about 'the Canadian North' compared to other 'northern countries which will operate the F-35A in their 'northern climes'? Even the Dutch will acquire drag chutes for their sometime 'northern operations'. Norway even offered the sad Canuckians a free ride (did not have to contribute money) to the development of the drag chute. Canuckians against the F-35 rage about many things including 'lack of range/single engine/ and on and on' so personally I would only care that these sad people STFU.
Latest info on drag chute testing here:Edwards Executes First Norwegian Drag Chute Deployment and Flight 15 Jun 2017 Jeff Babione
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa8...ckcdn.com/17698/f35_weekly_update_6_15_17.pdf (0.25Mb)
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The main issue is there is minimal effort to create and maintain decent landing strips in the Canadian Arctic along with other proper military infrastructure by all Canadian pollies. That in itself is probably not enough to go "B" over "A" but supporting allies with fast jets may be more practical from their amphibious ships or carriers than some ME $hithole.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
That is funny: Canadian pollies get to achieve anything in defence?
We live in hope. Why would any Canadian allies rely on Canada for anything? Pardon my bluntness - Canadian Politicians will seriously have to make DEFENCE a NON-ISSUE much the same as the Australians have done in most respects (always differences but usually bi-partisan support). I would have thought the French Speaking and English Speaking Canuckians would have taught all the politicians there how to get along for the mutual benefit of all. No such luck for Canada.- Status