She's a tad empty at the moment. No crew, stores, vittles, fuel etc., and still has to be fitted out.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
In Spain. The British added weapons and comms gear in their own yards. Not sure whether we do that with the RAN ships, but Navantia in any case is well familiar with pretty much all of it through the AWD project. Not really relevant though. Most ships are launched far from their completed state and a lot of installation of stuff like cabling is done alongside a fitting out wharf. That needs to be completed and the lengthy process of commissioning all the systems done before she goes anywhere
oldsig
There will be a fit out in Australia of systems. From memory the vessel is due to head home toward the end of 2019 .... I think. Will need to check.
Agree that this is the ships current role and there's a chance its all it will do.
However the Canberra class will have many,many years of service, and as we know governments and defence needs change with circumstance.
Therefore it would be folly to at least not acknowledge what other nations are doing regarding this capability.
Will we get the F35B post the delivery of the last F35 A.
I'd say most likely.
Super Hornets look good in 2018 but an all 5th Gen fleet looks more appealing in 2028. Particularly when you can take it to sea.
You can bet the governments direction in a decades time will be a lot different to that of today.
It will need an Air Force that can match that expectation and a maritime Army that can get its feet wet.
Canbera class developement - Crawl,Walk, Run ,Fly.
Regards S
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree that the LHD wont see a permanent rotation of F35B with a red Skippy, at the end of the day we have 2 vessels we be getting good availability from them now but as the age maintenance issues will increase and very rarely will we see to operating at the same time , one will be on call for HADR support during the wet season, if we need a ASW carrier then buy one we are not in the position of the USMC, the UK will be in the same sort of position putting all their eggs in one basket
I also believe we will eventually get the B's, I just firmly believe, in my opinion, that it will not come at the expense of the Canberra's.
If we move down that route, it would, and should be a dedicated platform fully fit for purpose, possibly with the Canberra's as back up/gap fill during maintenance periods etc.
AIR 600 2C could be a possibility for 28, and IIRC, there is another option post 2C for potentially another 50 airframes I think ?
I guess what I am trying to say is this "discussion" has already been going on for a decade, and most likely will be another decade before we get any closer, what is happening around our region, Japan, South Korea, maybe Singapore etc looking and getting B's, eventually we will become part of the club
Cheers
Do the Hobart class risk suffering of the same design mistakes?
Investigation of marine accident, collision outside the Sture Oil Terminal in Hjeltefjorden, Norway | aibn
Link added by Ngatimozart
Last edited by a moderator:
@Meriv90 Can you provide a source for this please. Protects both you and the forum against allegations of plagiarism.
Do the Hobart class risk suffering of the same design mistakes?
Investigation of marine accident, collision outside the Sture Oil Terminal in Hjeltefjorden, Norway | aibn
EDIT: And a bit of help with english,is the correct answer "Obbliged"? What i want to say is that it is my responsability and I'm more than gladly to provide the source, is "Obbliged" correct?
EDIT: And a bit of help with english,is the correct answer "Obbliged"? What i want to say is that it is my responsability and I'm more than gladly to provide the source, is "Obbliged" correct?
Last edited:
Cool thanks, and obliged is the right word. I'll add the source to the original post.
The Hobart and Nansen class share the same lineage so I am sure that the RAN will be taking a great deal of interest in the final report. I was surprised to see that the ship was deliberately grounded only 10 minutes after the collision. Had they not been as close to shore as they were the ship would have likely sunk very quickly and could have quite possibly resulted in the loss of lives.
Do the Hobart class risk suffering of the same design mistakes?
Investigation of marine accident, collision outside the Sture Oil Terminal in Hjeltefjorden, Norway | aibn
Link added by Ngatimozart
Correct Spaz for the JC, But as has been mentioned before, specifically GF, there are significant changes internally for the Canberra's that take that out of the mix.
And one of the bigger reasons why when suggested by Abbott, was knocked on the head as not viable with too much work and money to be spent to bring them up the the levels required, a cost IIRC that would come close to getting something like Cavour for instance.
Again it comes down for force structure, Orbat and Conops, not a simple swish of the pen to change, let alone the money, manning, and the obvious election coming up and instability with Aus politics. I think we are still a decade away from having a serious conversation, sadly
Cheers
Not sure if this is the correct thread, but regarding the similarities and /or differences between the Juan Carlos 1 and the Canberra class I'm perplexed.
I have read at one end they are exactly the same ship to the other end ; having such extensive structural differences to the point they are actually a different class of ship.
Confusing to be sure and not privy to concrete answers I can only speculate.
With my layman's Admiral hat, I suggest from my own research that they are all but identical, but for the internal Island structure having Individual Navy specific requirements in design and layout. Maybe some other minor differences but no deal breakers.
Again externally they appear the same across the Class.
I'm open to the fact I may be wrong and maybe this is getting in to the Hush hush security territory.
Either way I'm sure you could land a Harrier on the deck tomorrow and a F35B with some deck heat treating.
Simplistic answer for sure, as a true F35B capability will need some significant coin.
The question is actually how much coin in real terms.
To be honest, some of the figures to enable F35B flight operations look so ridiculously large as to suggest they are nothing more than fiscal scare tactics to avoid going down this path. We are not building a Nimitz, just adding some modest Fixed wing capacity.
That said, spending any money on any defence capability has to be justified in the big scheme of thing and at this stage the F35B is not the priority.
Maybe one for down the track
Regards S.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
First upgraded ANZAC with the new radar fitted is undocked.
Largely hollow aluminium structure, and you have to remember that the heavy weight to the old rotating radar is removed.
On the other hand, maybe they never thought of that issue. Perhaps you should drop them a line?
oldsig
Probably less than the previous structure with the SPS 49 atop CEAFAR 1.
Sorry oldsig, simultaneous post but my sentiments entirely.
A lot of modern warships are a lot bulkier looking than they actually are.
I know that in the case of the Zumwalt class for example that a lot of its deck housing is a combination of Balsawood and carbon fibre.
- Status