Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
A reminder that we have been asked by a Mod to cease this conversation. I only ask that you ask yourselves this question. Would a lack of this capability by Australia force the cancellation of any such future operation? a great capability for Australia yes but so would 18 Helicopters.
The last i will say on the subject.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
seaspear said:
re "removing the ramp would of cost money" , is there a case for removing it to increase space for another helicopter?
Click to expand...
Our doctrine requirements meet the current set up of Company lift via Taipan, I see no reason to expend money on removing that gives a freedom of flexibility in the future. I’m also lead to believe that the design of the ramp is also a structural component of the hull overall, as someone noted it’s not an afterthought.
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
If we are going to reintroduce fixed wing aviation to the RAN, we should do so properly. Not off a 27'000 ton ship designed for another purpose. We should get a small aircraft carrier designed for the purpose. I imagine it would be dearer than another LHD, but better value in the long run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
hairyman said:
If we are going to reintroduce fixed wing aviation to the RAN, we should do so properly. Not off a 27'000 ton ship designed for another purpose. We should get a small aircraft carrier designed for the purpose. I imagine it would be dearer than another LHD, but better value in the long run.
Click to expand...
Yep, maybe the penny might drop in the UK that they either have to pony up the £££ to fund their asperations or another fire sale is looming free up a carrier will help the bottom line of the UK and not just in £££

Frees up sailors, can cap the F35B at 48/60 with only 1 carrier to support and not just the escorts needed for a 2 carrier fleet.

Mmm how do you price a nearly run in second hand carrier?
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
If you are going to get a carrier you might as well get something the S/H can fly off and consider the f35c instead of the b this probably wont fit in the doctrine of the adf or more importantly treasury lol
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
ngatimozart said:
IF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RAN ACQUIRING CARRIERS CONTINUES HIS THREAD WILL BE LOCKED AND OFFENDERS CHASTISED. THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH REPEATEDLY, AD NAUSEUM.
Click to expand...
Ngati, agree completely, the carrier debate has been done to death.

Every time it raises it head (regularly), it reminds me of being a kid again, riding down the hill on a billycart or scooter and coming off at the bottom of the hill and loosing half a yard of skin and ending up with a big scab! And Mum tells you not to keep picking at it (it will heel itself!), but of course you don't listen and keep picking, sooner or later Mum (or in this case the Mods), catches you doing it again and again, and threatens to wack you over the back of the head (or 'wait until your Father gets home!'). Anyway .......

So whilst I'm certainly one of those (and I'm sure many of us are), wishes in my heart that the RAN had a Carrier again, my head tells me that it is clearly not going to happen, especially in the short or medium term and especially when it is NOT the Governments intention or policy.

At the moment, my personal opinion, the RAN (and ADF generally), is entering a Golden Age (and we are not a war), we've had a decent recent DWP, and what appears to be bipartisan support from both sides of politics when it comes to Defence Policy, Defence Spending and the Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan (does it get much better??).

We've had a solid commitment from the current Government (and hopefully it continues), for 12 x very large and capable submarines, 9 x large and capable Hunter class frigates, 12 x OPV's (significantly more capable than the PB's), two x new AORs (currently under construction), and the 3 x DDGs are entering service, (and some more decisions to come, eg, possible 3rd AOR or 2nd Choules type ship).

And of course the introduction of the 2 x LHD's and Choules, that has revitalised the RANs Amphibious assets, significantly more capable than ever in the past.

So yes, the RAN doesn't have a Carrier (or Cruisers, or SSNs or SSBNs, etc), so what?

What we do have, and are in the process of procuring, will add significantly to the defence of Oz and also add significant capabilities to future coalition operations.

Lots of other things to discuss other than a Carrier for the RAN.

Cheers,
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:
I believe that it is a significant change to the design and hence very costly.
Click to expand...
Design changes are not necessarily costly..... particularly where you remove weight and it is done before you cut steel. Certainly the structure in the bow would need to be reworked and internal weight distribution considered to ensure the vessel is not trimmed astern due to weight removal. You would gain a helo spot.

In this case bending forces and deck strength continuity may have been improved by the simpler structure and reduction in overall length. You may also gain additional growth margin.

So it would cost a bit for the design work but I suspect it was not a massive amount (noting savings in steel and reduction of complex structure costs)
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
The Mark 45 mod 4 5" guns of the Hobart class are able to fire the extended range ammunition is there any information as to what the range this actually is ?
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
seaspear said:
The Mark 45 mod 4 5" guns of the Hobart class are able to fire the extended range ammunition is there any information as to what the range this actually is ?
Click to expand...
It is munition-dependent. Two of the Italian 127 mm Vulcano GLR rounds have ranges of 80 km and 100 km, though these are for a 64 calibre OTO 127 mm gun, and might not be compatible with the BAE Mk 45 Mod 4. Looking at the BAE datasheets on the Mk 45 Mod 4, it mentions extended range and extended length projectiles, but nothing more specific in terms of range, model, or manufacturer.
 
M

mickm

New Member
Gents as a civilian navy enthusiast and mainly a lurker on this forum for many years, I am enthralled at the vast amount of knowledge and opinions that can be read here.
For a different subject, I am interested that in today's politically correct climate and in the push for gender equality, the RAN still refers to its junior female sailors as Seaman, Able Seaman and Leading Seaman. The Army and the RAAF do not have this issue as their ranks are gender neutral.
Is this an issue or a problem for female sailors and are there any proposals to change the rank designation for female sailors and if so what would they be called. Seawoman, Seaperson or Sailor? Or should the historical traditions be maintained and the ranks left as they are?
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
mickm said:
Gents as a civilian navy enthusiast and mainly a lurker on this forum for many years, I am enthralled at the vast amount of knowledge and opinions that can be read here.
For a different subject, I am interested that in today's politically correct climate and in the push for gender equality, the RAN still refers to its junior female sailors as Seaman, Able Seaman and Leading Seaman. The Army and the RAAF do not have this issue as their ranks are gender neutral.
Is this an issue or a problem for female sailors and are there any proposals to change the rank designation for female sailors and if so what would they be called. Seawoman, Seaperson or Sailor? Or should the historical traditions be maintained and the ranks left as they are?
Click to expand...
Not quite Gender nuetral with the RAAF but they have split the Junior ranks to Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman and Leading Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
NUSHIP Brisbane provisionally accepted from the AWD Alliance by the Commonwealth at 1000 (CST) this morning. Much media in attendance, so likely stories on tv news etc later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top