Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think Corman announce it because:
WA Mafia, Pyne is seen as too S.A
It a giant wad of cash. If Corman says
Corman i is often used to appease internal fighting. Pyne, Payne, probably would have both loved to announced it. I would have thought the whole crew would be there with the PM. I expect more clarification today by the PM. Possibly with other defence announcements.

Australian ships out of Australian steel. That sort of thing.

ASSAIL said:
I doubt if Goveror Bligh will get a mention
Click to expand...
I don't see why not. Bligh was an amazing sailor. The colony has also gotten out of control under King, thats why they sent someone who was familiar with mutiny down there to sort it out. Or at least buy time.
But I would go with HMAS Bounty, because I know the RN will never ever use that name. It would be more fitting for the descendants of that mutiny to have ship of that name than the English authority. Northfolk island and all that.

I also have a different suggestion for naming. The hunter region is known for its wine. HMAS Shiraz.

I Like the Type 26, its a big ship with a big hull and very modern. Devil is in the details, hopefully they come out.
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Milne Bay said:
You might see some of their names appear as rivers anyway - Hunter, Darling, Macquarie, King, Fitzroy, Brisbane, Napier
:)
MB
Click to expand...
And othe rriviers that give a nod to each of the states and point to the ASW nature of the vessel (perhaps) .... Swan, Torrens, Derwent, Yarra (currently not available) , Parramatta, Stuart ............... a rich history in RAN service.

However, while I am quite happily stunned by the revalation..... I am awaiting the formal announcement ......... and the detail. It is interesting that it hs been reproted the BAE will use ASC as a subsiduary. This should counter much of the angst about ASC and may have been ther factor that delayed the announcement.
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
If we stick with valleys, in Victoria we can offer the Latrobe and Goulburne, both also named after Governors, Poms of course. I suppose it will be likewise in the other states.
 
weegee

weegee

Active Member
I am happily surprised that the Type 26 got up. Seems a good choice! Hopefully they're as good at ASW as they were touted looks like good future growth margins too.
Also happy as I believe the the Type 26 is the first decent looking ship the British have designed in a loooong time in my own opinion. Lets hope for the Aussie spec they were able to beef up the number of VL tubes? to at least be on par with the Hobarts

In any case that's all nit picking. The RAN is and has shaped herself into a potent little navy, one that would give a decent black eye to anyone who looks our way.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
weegee said:
I am happily surprised that the Type 26 got up. Seems a good choice! Hopefully they're as good at ASW as they were touted looks like good future growth margins too.
Also happy as I believe the the Type 26 is the first decent looking ship the British have designed in a loooong time in my own opinion. Lets hope for the Aussie spec they were able to beef up the number of VL tubes? to at least be on par with the Hobarts

In any case that's all nit picking. The RAN is and has shaped herself into a potent little navy, one that would give a decent black eye to anyone who looks our way.
Click to expand...
I think we are building a very capable ADF full stop, especially ISR.
 
B

BPFP

Member
I wonder the extent to which the reportedly lower manning requirements of the T26 influenced the decision - 118 (ex helo crew) vs 133 (FREMM), 186 (Hobart class, presumably lower for F5K) and 145 for Anzac (all figures straight form Wikipedia). Navy has always been concerned about manning levels, now with LHDs and double the sub fleet in prospect etc., it may have been a consideration.

Obviously just one amongst a number of factors - longer declared range, bigger hull/growth margins, likely quieter - albeit probably more expensive.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Really now look forward to what is revealed of the full load out and capabilities I have read the first ship is to be launched in 2027 would also expect the unit cost to be more than the U.K base model
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Lots of happy Aussies, lots of sad Spaniards and I believe a relieved RAN.
Navantia "teaching" Australians to build ships has not been a happy experience and the CoA has not enjoyed having to deal with Navantia directly without a substantial engineering and commercial entity insulating them from the "quirkiness".

A very good sign is BAE are looking for significant numbers in the detail design space. This suggests a lot more local ownership and effective management of risk as opposed to relying on outside entities to do the right thing.

The delay in the announcement was apparently linked to WA Mafia attempts to get Austal involved. I really don't get the attraction to just one company as ASC, BAE and Civmec all have very large presences in WA and have actually have demonstrated capabilities and competence.
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
mrberry said:
I would think that one will be named something American as the Americans have announced a USS Canberra.

USS Canberra (LCS-30) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
It's not the first USS Canberra. After HMAS Canberra was sunk in the Battle of Savo Island a Baltimore Class cruiser was named USS Canberra in honor of the ship. This is the second and given it is an Austal hull I can see the contection.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just a thought, assuming the Hunters are all named for rivers or regions, I wonder what the three remaining capital city names will be used for?

Lots of famous river named RAN ships, WWI River class destroyers, WWII Sloops and Frigates, then post war DEs.

Could Melbourne, Perth and Darwin be the final three new frigates, perhaps built to an evolved batch II sub class, or perhaps for something completely different, a class of DDH, or CVGH? Maybe even a class of CVL? ;)
 
W

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
Can I just clarify:
To my thinking Australia is buying the design of the T26
-Hull form
-machinery design concepts
-basic superstructure architecture
However as the RAN uses differing sensors, weaponry etc, the RAN version will have is own Machinery specs (details TBC), sensor and weapon arrays.
So, other than a resemblance to the RN T26 lineage, the RAN variant will be substantially, practically, a ship with little connection to the initial RN variant.
I know details are tbc, but am I up to speed on this?
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Volkodav said:
Just a thought, assuming the Hunters are all named for rivers or regions, I wonder what the three remaining capital city names will be used for?

Lots of famous river named RAN ships, WWI River class destroyers, WWII Sloops and Frigates, then post war DEs.

Could Melbourne, Perth and Darwin be the final three new frigates, perhaps built to an evolved batch II sub class, or perhaps for something completely different, a class of DDH, or CVGH? Maybe even a class of CVL? ;)
Click to expand...
I think most likely the name of the 3 ships that will replace the Hobart's.
Maybe the first 4 will be called
HMAS Hunter
HMAS Killer
HMAS Of
HMAS Submarines
:D
Be surprised if Melbourne got used for the OPVs, Darwin & Newcastle maybe
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Redlands18 said:
I think most likely the name of the 3 ships that will replace the Hobart's.
Maybe the first 4 will be called
HMAS Hunter
HMAS Killer
HMAS Of
HMAS Submarines
:D
Be surprised if Melbourne got used for the OPVs, Darwin & Newcastle maybe
Click to expand...
Crikey,there not even in service yet and your already pensions them off
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Wombat000 said:
Can I just clarify:
To my thinking Australia is buying the design of the T26
-Hull form
-machinery design concepts
-basic superstructure architecture
However as the RAN uses differing sensors, weaponry etc, the RAN version will have is own Machinery specs (details TBC), sensor and weapon arrays.
So, other than a resemblance to the RN T26 lineage, the RAN variant will be substantially, practically, a ship with little connection to the initial RN variant.
I know details are tbc, but am I up to speed on this?
Click to expand...
Sensors are going to be very different with Australia fitting CEAFAR and AEGIS with a SAAB interface. Weapons, same Main Gun, the BAE MK 45 127mm, The same MK 41 VLS(numbers unknown at oresent) but different Missiles, Australia will go US(broadly similar to what the Hobarts will carry). Close in weapon systems don't know yet. SSMs maybe Harpoon to start? but changed to a VLS launched Missile down the track.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
t68 said:
Has there been any need if Austal is involved or just wishful thinking from WA?
Click to expand...
Not one single word, as is appropriate. BAE is prime, they'll have ASC Shipbuilding as a temporary subsidiary and be responsible as prime for choosing who else gets work. If they can work with Austal (and Lurssen couldn't!) they'll be responsible fr results good or bad.

oldsig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top