The alternative would be to have all the amphibious capability together at FBE?
Regards,
Massive
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Regards,
Massive
That is an option, Choules is at FBE and if its replaced with two JSS then perhaps both of those are at FBE.
That may change if we start operating more with India and doing more adventurous things in the Indian ocean. Both with India and other nations.
There isn't a whole lot of call for the amphibious capability on the West coast. East coast we have Fiji, Samoa, PNG, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, the amphibious training grounds, townsville, Sabre and Rimpac.
Event the AOR capability is going to be fairly light on in comparison IMO.
And…..we also have the only large dry dock until the Henderson dry berth is built.
I think you would want the amphibious lift in proximity to the Army.
I'd guess the west would not be a priority in that respect.
When the future HMAS Stalwart goes into refit I could envisage a JSS allocated for the short term to cover fleet replenishment for the western coast fleet units.
First of all lets see what happens with the JSS concept.
Its one of those long term projects that could evolve many ways.
Regards S
An Interesting article here from the war zone on the USN USV firing of a SM6 from a container carried on deck. I see a lot of potential for a concept like this for the RAN, with low numbers of missile equipped frigates or destroyers available to put to sea at any one time, this could provide a boost in strike power.
You could theoretically base these further north to reduce transit times and have them join with other larger ships giving an increase in magazine dept. They could also be dispersed at a range from the targeting ship and even put forward in range. Its some way off clearly but the concept is moving to reality for the USN.
The cost of the vessel itself without System appears to be sub $10m.
www.thedrive.com
You could theoretically base these further north to reduce transit times and have them join with other larger ships giving an increase in magazine dept. They could also be dispersed at a range from the targeting ship and even put forward in range. Its some way off clearly but the concept is moving to reality for the USN.
The cost of the vessel itself without System appears to be sub $10m.
This "Ghost Fleet" Ship Firing An SM-6 Missile From A Modular Launcher Is A Glimpse Of The Future
Adding modular weapons launchers to the Navy's experimental unmanned vessels will allow the service to explore new distributed warfare concepts.
www.thedrive.com
Last edited:
Previously posted in post #30012 and #30351 about 8 days ago. Not much response then, but maybe this timeAn Interesting article here from the war zone on the USN USV firing of a SM6 from a container carried on deck. I see a lot of potential for a concept like this for the RAN, with low numbers of missile equipped frigates or destroyers available to put to sea at any one time, this could provide a boost in strike power.
You could theoretically base these further north to reduce transit times and have them join with other larger ships giving an increase in magazine dept. They could also be dispersed at a range from the targeting ship and even put forward in range. Its some way off clearly but the concept is moving to reality for the USN.
The cost of the vessel itself without System appears to be sub $10m.
This "Ghost Fleet" Ship Firing An SM-6 Missile From A Modular Launcher Is A Glimpse Of The Future
Adding modular weapons launchers to the Navy's experimental unmanned vessels will allow the service to explore new distributed warfare concepts.
oldsig
I can see some use for such systems ..... But!!!
Again it comes down to how they are used and their proximity to the controlling vessels or station. If the USV is designed to support other vessels it is going to have to be within range of the unit(s) to provide effective cover. This means the vessel will require the same range and speed as that unit or group and be able to undertake at sea replenishment if needed. The other issue here is redundancy .... what you save in crew facilities may be chewed up by ensuring the vessel has sufficient redundant systems to keep itself going. It would be a problem if one of these things blacked out and they could not get it going again (trust me this happens on some very sophisticated vessels).
The ghost vessels depicted would struggle to deploy for long periods of time in order to provide anti air cover using SM-6. Where small units may excel is where ae low signature vessels is deployed into a combat area undetected with a specific task or target in mind. Mind you if the group has organic air then this could be achieved with air missiles as well.
It will be interesting to see what operational context is intended for such vessels. Certainly deployable 'drones' with towed array have been suggested.
Sorry there...I did a quick scan and didn't see anything so apologies.
I see your point. My question is how do you stop someone pulling along side and boarding it? I cant see this being plausible in an area where a Chinese fishing boat could pull alongside or a helicopter could drop men on board.
Assuming those issues are resolved I would see it more useful in an Australian context as remaining with its range of the AU mainland and carrying something like a Long Range ASM and keeping the cells in the main vessel topped up as much as possible for Anti Air.
If in a strike role and armed with long range missiles it would not really need to keep up...It could be deployed in advance and be located within a few hundred miles ahead, behind or beside, and use targeting info relayed from another ship, P8, Triton etc. I dont see something like this heading into the SCS along side a frigate for example however this articles suggest very large UMV are in planning and that would probably mean longer range, higher speed and more load is what the americans envisage.
Anyway will be watching this program with more interest going forward.
thatsamguy
Member
Looks like suggestions of a major defence announcement tomorrow. If this article is even close to the truth, I may just have to get the popcorn out and sit back, 'cause it's likely to get us all a bit batty. Please stay sane folks and wait for the actual details.
www.afr.com
Going nuclear: PM to announce $90b French submarine deal is dead
The government is poised to make a major announcement about the submarine program, which could involve acquiring nuclear-powered boats in partnership with the US and UK.
The announcement is 7 hours and 6 minutes away. Let's wait and see what it is rather than trying to figure out what it might be.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Not sure anyone is trying to figure out what it might be? The discussion here really is just to relay what the media - and credible media at that - are reporting.
The media aren't that credible. They used to be many long years ago but not now. Let's just wait and see oķ. It's not long.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I appreciate you have a rather negative view of the media, and particularly its coverage of defence related issues. We've discussed that all before.
The reality, however, is this development is coming from too many in the media to be discounted. Rather, it very much has a ring of truth to it when rival journalists are quickly on the heels of others with similar or subtly different takes.
These are credible journalists and there is too much detail here for there not to be substance to what has been reported.
I don't see why we can't talk about what has been reported.
I know it may be old news to some. It is still fun to speculate, about what is under the xmas tree. They are also suggesting that the US will run their subs out of Perth. With Biden is set to make a major announcement.
EDIT The original story has just been updated, the meeting must have finished and the unofficial media briefings have started.
www.news.com.au
EDIT The original story has just been updated, the meeting must have finished and the unofficial media briefings have started.
Australia confirms ‘historic’ nuclear deal with the US and UK
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a landmark deal with the US and UK for Australia’s submarine program to “go nuclear” under a defence pact that has been described as “China’s worst nightmare”.
www.news.com.au
Last edited:
New subs will now be nuclear
If this report is true, and I think it has credibility, the Attack class will be nuclear. I've been wondering all day what this security announcement was going to be. This will have huge implications for defense, industry and the country.
If this report is true, and I think it has credibility, the Attack class will be nuclear. I've been wondering all day what this security announcement was going to be. This will have huge implications for defense, industry and the country.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Here's the ABC's take:
Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, scrap $90b plan to build French-designed subs
I love the thought that Probyn et al had to jump on this late tonight after AFR broke it and do what they could to get in front of it. Media don't like following each other, but there are some stories you have to. Probyn is a very good journalist.
Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, scrap $90b plan to build French-designed subs
I love the thought that Probyn et al had to jump on this late tonight after AFR broke it and do what they could to get in front of it. Media don't like following each other, but there are some stories you have to. Probyn is a very good journalist.
I note that reports suggest that Morrison has arranged a call to Macron shortly. It's interesting that 2 reports I've read talk about using US and British nuclear technology, so does this mean finding a way to increase production on the Virginia Class line and buy them? And what would a change to a nuclear powered vessel do to the prospective numbers of subs? Does Electric Boat or HII even have the capacity to build extra subs? Could they realistically be at least partially built in Adelaide? Will be fascinating to watch developments.
Last edited:
Gryphinator
Active Member
If true-Not convinced it's a good idea from a manning perspective but capability? Absolutely! (VLS a must) Now SA can concentrate on getting the Frigates in the water quicker...maybe...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Politically, I think a partial build in Australia would be essential. I think it would also necessary from a capacity POV as well. Columbia and Dreadnaught will be stretching US and UK resources.
- Status