t68
Well-Known Member
Getting there sea legs the hard way:bum
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Could provide cover for HMAS Canberra when she leaves Melbourne...
ahahah
:dance
But in all seriousness, when will the navy acquire SM-6?
This is what really gets up my nose about Navy scheduling. Why on earth sail her in such weather and risk damage? She's a new ship, things won't be secured properly internally and a new ships company will be without their sea legs etc etc.
If they cared to look at the MSLP from bom they could see a fast moving intense low through Bass Str. and all they needed to do was wait 12 or 24 hours before departing. This is relatively easy to make up with a high speed ship.
It happened time and again in my time just because the programme was "sacred" and ships have been badly damaged because of it. Pi$$ed off.
The only car more indestructible than a rental car is a company car. Hobart is a government car.
Also not sure how acceptable it would be to wait for fair weather. Like Melbourne loosing her radar in a storm during an exercise in the 60's.
I would say if it was 7 or 8 they might have delayed. SS6? Why, I think Sydney ferries still operate in that, heck Sydney to Hobart would still probably race in that..
All that glassy flat water up north has made you all soft and cuddly.
But is why I would hope the OPV's are built tough.
Small ships take a real hiding in rough seas and that's why everything is secured really well, they are used to it. Most damage occurs in larger ships from internal fittings, furniture being tossed about and striking important fixtures. I've done my time in Attack PBs which moved around like corks but nothing really came loose however in a Leander in a Bay of Biscayne storm I've witnessed incredible damage.
I did notice that about an hour ago, Hobart had slowed to about five knots and had altered due South away from her course around Wilsons Prom. Only hope all is good.
Looking at the surface anal. they would have had following seas all the way had they left this am
If you were captain you would almost find some sort of issue to wait it out rather than hard charging it.
Maybe they are out getting some footage.
Looks like they are motoring now.. moderate to rough seas.. Windy and cold though.
It was '79 on the way back from NZ.
Hobart was shown as "in excess of 28 knots" earlier today.
OPVs, the tougher the better! We need them to operate wherever needed, including being able to rescue yachtsmen at 45 S
Yep wind and swell up their clacker now, South Westerley.
I am not certain SM-6 has even yet been cleared for export.Could provide cover for HMAS Canberra when she leaves Melbourne...
ahahah
:dance
But in all seriousness, when will the navy acquire SM-6?
We are the first nation in the world to be given export clearance for AIM-120D I understand and that has been years since it has been in US service, in limited quantities though that may be.
I can wait a bit on SM-6. It's not as if the latest SM-2 variants we've acquired aren't a massive increase in capability over what we already had. Particularly in the numbers we will be able to actually deploy and fire, if necessary.
Last edited:
Was cleared January 2017.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/sm-6-cleared-export-13966/
Australia, Japan and South Korea are seen as the likely export markets.
Have a feeling this was fast tracked due to a certain rouge nation to the north.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Been off Albatross all morning, Helo qualifications?
Sound ranging more likely
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Hobart docked at FBE at aprox 9am this morning Sydney time, got a welcome from a Helo flying the RAN Ensign below it.
Also note what appears to be 4 CEC antenna panels 2m up the mast and a dome on top of CEFAR support structure which I hope is for Hawlink to properly integrate the Romeos - as I understand there is no Hawklink fitted to the AWDs yet as the baseline AWD did not specify the outcome of the yet to be decided AIR 9000 program to replace the SH-60B RAWS. I cannot see any Vampir IR head though latest IR search may end up being fixed staring arrays.
Last edited:
Very astute observations
you get a gold star !
Possibility of the engines for the Damen OPV being built in Australia.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/1095-opv-engines-could-be-built-in-australia
Also Navantia has submitted their bid for the future frigate. It has a name, F-5000.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/1096-future-frigates-project-forges-ahead
The F-5000 will incorporate 48 strike length missile cells, a Mk45 5-inch gun, an advanced above water sensor suite, and integration of the MH-60R combat helicopter and UAV.
I would suppose things to note the 48 strike length cells and reading into the MH-60R intergration I would assume simular level of CEC. It would seem to be the bid to beat.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/1095-opv-engines-could-be-built-in-australia
Also Navantia has submitted their bid for the future frigate. It has a name, F-5000.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/1096-future-frigates-project-forges-ahead
The F-5000 will incorporate 48 strike length missile cells, a Mk45 5-inch gun, an advanced above water sensor suite, and integration of the MH-60R combat helicopter and UAV.
I would suppose things to note the 48 strike length cells and reading into the MH-60R intergration I would assume simular level of CEC. It would seem to be the bid to beat.
The talk of intergrating the MH-60 and UAV suggests to me that this might not be a true two helicopter design.
The hanger might just be large enough to accommodate a single helicopter and an UAV. Probably not much larger than the hanger on the Hobart.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
We just don't know do we?
Whilst the statement from Navantia says: "The F-5000 will incorporate 48 strike length missile cells, a Mk45 5-inch gun, an advanced above water sensor suite, and integration of the MH-60R combat helicopter and UAV." it doesn't necessarily say only 'one' of each, it could easily be read as 'both capabilities' are being integrated.
Again without the details of the RFT in the public domain, it's still a guess one way or the other.
Navantia has released images in the past that show a twin hangar arrangement (which looked very similar to the arrangement on the FFG-7s), but still, who knows.
Even if the three contenders deliver designs with full twin hangars capable of operating two MH-60Rs, I suspect we will rarely, if ever, see them operate two Romeos, it would probably be more than likely they will operate for the majority of the time with one Romeo and a UAV of some kind, possibly up to an MQ-8 Fire Scout size UAV in the future, but again, I'm only speculating too.
What we do know is that the F-5000 is being proposed with 48 strike length VLS, what we still don't know is if that is the 'minimum' requirement or a desired or maximum requirement.
Lets just hope that when the winner is announced, we can see what each of the three designers proposed and what the details of the RFT actually were.
Further to my last - on the BAE Facebook image of the proposed RAN Type 26:
https://www.facebook.com/BAESystems...722210902317/1582996408408217/?type=3&theater
I can just see what might be a Vampir IR scanner behind the mast on top of the CEAFAR castle. In that position it would probably give 330 deg Field of View. Also the circular band at the base of the mast is probably the same IFF array used on the AWD and AB destroyers.
Can someone please explain the possible advantages and disadvantages that become present with the smaller size of the CEA radar faces when compared to the F-5000 design. Also wouldn't the Australian T26 make more sense if the design used the 25mm Typhoon mount instead of the UK T26 30mm gun.
That said both released designs look very good!
Hopefully BAE goes with 48 VLS cells.- Status