Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

Short tons are US tons, usually only used by the USA - but not, generally, for ship displacements, where the USN prefers long tons.

European countries use metric tons, never short tons. Old British usage was long tons (but we just called them tons), but nowadays is generally metric.

1 short ton = 2000lb = 907kg
1 long ton = 2240lb = 1016 kg
1 metric ton = 2205 lb = 1000 kg

Canberra will probably be in metric tons. Juan Carlos is 27100, & IIRC Canberra is slightly heavier.
USS Wasp is ca 40500 long tons (ca 41 200 metric tons) full load. The smaller figure will be for less than full load displacement.

 

[PeterM]

I dont think the combat system is that important, as strictly say combat system, not the system that you manage with the combat system, sensor for ex and processors for the sensors, you can see that home made combat systems are made everywhere, usa has at least 2 companies for making them, the french will have their own, the spanish have the scomba for surface ships and the s80 (connected with the parts from usa companies), the dutch had their own, the norwegians also their own for the frigates, and italians, uk...Combat system are many things, but strictly i wouldnt include sensors or other equipment as part of it, i would say its the net (hard and soft) managing and presenting all the informatiion, including the received from the sensors.

Or are we going to say that the combat system, strictly, its more iimportant than the quieteness of the engine and transmission to propeller, of more importante that the amount of time that you can be fully submerged on the lungs of the sub, or the quietness of the torpedo launcher, or the quality and amount of the aip, the weapons (against helos or fixed wing, or land), the magnetic firm stealther, all this "mechanical" issues are going to be more important than the combat system.

The combat system is extremely important, although I am no expert (please correct me if I am wrong) it uses information from sensors, does the identification, tracking, engaging of targets and also enemy targeting, countermeasures etc. Basically how well the sub performs in action is dependant on the combat system.

It also isn't an "or" issue. you can have a sub that is stealthy, with range and have a quality combat system. That is what the RAN wants, has with the Collins and will have with the Collins replacement.

Clearly the S80 is unsuitable for what the RAN wants an will have, as has been pointed out by people who are in a position to know. So can we please drop all talk on the S80 or nuclear powered subs in this thread, neither is relevant to the RAN; it can be discussed elsewhere.

 

[aussienscale]

Short tons are US tons, usually only used by the USA - but not, generally, for ship displacements, where the USN prefers long tons.

European countries use metric tons, never short tons. Old British usage was long tons (but we just called them tons), but nowadays is generally metric.

1 short ton = 2000lb = 907kg
1 long ton = 2240lb = 1016 kg
1 metric ton = 2205 lb = 1000 kg

Canberra will probably be in metric tons. Juan Carlos is 27100, & IIRC Canberra is slightly heavier.
USS Wasp is ca 40500 long tons (ca 41 200 metric tons) full load. The smaller figure will be for less than full load displacement.

Sorry explained that the wrong way around, but you got what I was trying to say. TY for the info, can be confusing when different sites quote different volumes and weights. Found one site that looks like they have it the wrong way around as well, being who they are you would think they would get it right !! Here is the link
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lhd1Wasp.html

 

[hairyman]

I have just posted on the Army Thread that I expect the Canberra Class to carry a number of the Naval type helicopters we are to get, as part of their armament so to speak, to perform anti-submarine and anti maritime work. How many would we expect each Canberra type ship to have?

 

[Sea Toby]

I have just posted on the Army Thread that I expect the Canberra Class to carry a number of the Naval type helicopters we are to get, as part of their armament so to speak, to perform anti-submarine and anti maritime work. How many would we expect each Canberra type ship to have?

I am not even sure whether Australia has decided yet, as numbers from different web sites are different. I would assume at least 8 NH-90s, 4 Tigers, and 2 Seahawks. But there is room for more depending upon the mission tasked including Chinooks... There isn't an exact number...

 

[AegisFC]

I'd like to remind everyone to remain on topic and not go discussing anything that has nothing to do with the RAN or any near future equipment it may acquire.

 

[PeterM]

Thanks for getting us back on topic


Back to the discussion...

I am wondering, has anyone had information or thoughts on the LCH replacement (JP2048 phase5)?

the 2009 white paper listed
"six new heavy heavy landing craft with improved ocean-going capabilities, able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores, and people in intra-theatre lift tasks to augment the larger amphibious vessels"

according to the 2009 DCP, It is scheduled for first pass approval between FY2012-13 and FY2014-15 and the budgeted aquisition cost is between $500m and $1500m.

It seems to me that given the timeframe, it is likely either to be a design already in service elsewhere or a design undergoing development at the moment.

what are the likely to be viable options?

 

[swerve]

Sorry explained that the wrong way around, but you got what I was trying to say. TY for the info, can be confusing when different sites quote different volumes and weights. Found one site that looks like they have it the wrong way around as well, being who they are you would think they would get it right !! Here is the link
Federation of American Scientists :: LHD-1 Wasp class

Indeed.

With ships, there's not only the confusion between different tons, but between different weights. Sometimes deadweight tonnage is given, sometimes full load, sometimes 'standard' load. Japan, for example, routinely gives standard load, much less than full load.

I believe the RAN uses full load in published ship tonnages, as do most other navies. The tonnage you quoted for Canberra is definitely full load.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Thanks for getting us back on topic


Back to the discussion...

I am wondering, has anyone had information or thoughts on the LCH replacement (JP2048 phase5)?

the 2009 white paper listed
"six new heavy heavy landing craft with improved ocean-going capabilities, able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores, and people in intra-theatre lift tasks to augment the larger amphibious vessels"

according to the 2009 DCP, It is scheduled for first pass approval between FY2012-13 and FY2014-15 and the budgeted aquisition cost is between $500m and $1500m.

It seems to me that given the timeframe, it is likely either to be a design already in service elsewhere or a design undergoing development at the moment.

what are the likely to be viable options?

Is LCAC on the table?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is LCAC on the table?

there's a bit of an issue with the landing craft at present.

unable to comment further in public.

 

[pelion]

Hi, maybe you can help me, the gas turbines of the Canberra´s or the AWD´s, do they use the diesel or the jp5 from the tanks of jp5 for the aviation? Thank you.

 

[Marc 1]

Australia has Special forces yes, marines no...

Nah, our pusser's would be better off throwing their weapons at any enemy - more chance of a hit (just stirring the pot...).

One of our infantry battalions usually has a bit more experience in Amphibious ops - and is the 'repository' of experience and info about operating ship to shore (used to be 6RAR, now its 2RAR). Also some specialised logistic units. But no Marines.

 

[harryriedl]

Nah, our pusser's would be better off throwing their weapons at any enemy - more chance of a hit (just stirring the pot...).

One of our infantry battalions usually has a bit more experience in Amphibious ops - and is the 'repository' of experience and info about operating ship to shore (used to be 6RAR, now its 2RAR). Also some specialised logistic units. But no Marines.

Is the system a bit like the old British army method of rotating various devisions into different roles every 3 years or so. So in the case of AUS and their big amphibious vessel each battalion will have a bit familiarity with the vessel but one will have more.

 

[StevoJH]

Is the system a bit like the old British army method of rotating various devisions into different roles every 3 years or so. So in the case of AUS and their big amphibious vessel each battalion will have a bit familiarity with the vessel but one will have more.

No, Australia doesnt have a roulment system. Every battalion has a fixed role.

 

[icelord]

Nah, our pusser's would be better off throwing their weapons at any enemy - more chance of a hit (just stirring the pot...).

One of our infantry battalions usually has a bit more experience in Amphibious ops - and is the 'repository' of experience and info about operating ship to shore (used to be 6RAR, now its 2RAR). Also some specialised logistic units. But no Marines.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2010/May/20100514c/20100513adf8261939_04_lo.jpg

Hmm...that "appears" to be a pusser being carried at the Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting...either he was up against himself or he did well for the RAN.
I shoot like im going to hit a supertanker at 5m away, and miss, but some of the boys are good.:gun

 

[rossfrb_1]

Defence sustains friendly fire over torpedo

".........
In polite terms, the Auditor-General says as much in a report on the program to install the MU90 anti-submarine torpedo on naval vessels and aircraft.
Approved more than 12 years ago, the program "is yet to deliver an operational capability".
From the start, this new tool for shooting enemy subs was far more explosive for those trying to buy it than the foreign navies it was supposed to frighten.
Defence and the Howard government thought they were buying a proven torpedo. They "believed the MU90 to be an off the shelf acquisition . . . already in service with the other navies. This was not the case" says the Auditor-General.
How do you get that wrong? Who knows, but the Auditor-General notes "it took several years . . . to identify this".
"Planning and management was inadequate," the report says. There was "an underestimation of . . . risk".
Risk became an even more critical issue in August 2005 when Defence asked the government to approve the project's third phase.
Consider the equation that confronted John Howard's cabinet. The cost of stage three alone: $264 million. The progress to date: ". . . no torpedoes had been delivered under Phase two, and the integration of the torpedo onto the (frigates and naval aircraft) had made limited or no progress."
So what did they do? They doubled up.
According to the Auditor-General, when the government committed $264 million to the project's third phase in August 2005, Defence already felt it was "in a such a weak negotiating position (with those selling the technology) . . . it was necessary to use (the) commitment to Phase three work as leverage to improve Defence's poor overall contractual position".
Andrew Davies, the director of operations and capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has another name for it — "the sunk cost fallacy".
"I don't think anyone wants to be the person who stands up and says, 'Look we've spent this amount of money and this many years, but we should stop this now,' " Davies says.
"They tend to limp on and limp on and limp on and nobody wants to cut their losses."
It's not a bad description of a small-time gambler, ratcheting up their bets and ignoring the risks.
Twelve years on, the Auditor finds almost $400 million of taxpayers' money has been sunk into the anti-submarine missile program.
Even when the $665 million budgeted cost is finally spent our Navy will not have "the capability originally sought by the ADF, with uncertainty surrounding what will be delivered"......"


OK this is one person's version.
I remember reading about some test firings
(Defence News 2008 - Department of Defence)
Anyone know if it is truly as bad as the article makes out?

Not a good week for the ADF, what with the MRH groundings (4 weeks ago) too.
Someone had earlier alluded to the fact that the spit had hit the fan.

rb

 

[Marc 1]

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2010/May/20100514c/20100513adf8261939_04_lo.jpg

Hmm...that "appears" to be a pusser being carried at the Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting...either he was up against himself or he did well for the RAN.
I shoot like im going to hit a supertanker at 5m away, and miss, but some of the boys are good.:gun

Shucks link doesn't work (slinks away...). Marksmanship is a funny thing - I qualified on the Marksmanship shoot on two different weapons (SLR and Austeyr) but would be hard pressed to hit the broad side of a barn from 5 feet away with the 9mm Browning.

 

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2010/May/20100514c/20100513adf8261939_04_lo.jpg

Hmm...that "appears" to be a pusser being carried at the Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting...either he was up against himself or he did well for the RAN.
I shoot like im going to hit a supertanker at 5m away, and miss, but some of the boys are good.:gun

To be fair, he was "only" 'Champion shot of the Navy'. NOT Champion shot of AASAM...

That went to an Army fellow...

 

[old faithful]

No, Australia doesnt have a roulment system. Every battalion has a fixed role.

yes,they are infantry battalians,however, all units are crossed trained to a point.
3RAR Para, but we still trained with3/4 Cav, all the Bn,s are famil'd in air mombile ops with choppers at some stage,even the mech boys. 1,2,6 and 8/9 have all embarked on tobruk at some stage. all units go through Tully and canungra for "jungle" training. etc etc

 

[agc33e]

The combat system is extremely important, although I am no expert (please correct me if I am wrong) it uses information from sensors, does the identification, tracking, engaging of targets and also enemy targeting, countermeasures etc. Basically how well the sub performs in action is dependant on the combat system.

I cant really correct you, what i know that in surface ships the combat system is more cllearly apart from the sensors, while maybe in subs or navies they can say the coombat system are the sensor´s gears, workstations, etc. But for example for the awd, the combat system is the saab something, the software, the hardware for the combat system is other thing (for ex general workstations, processors and nodes, wiring).
EDITED LATER: for ex the aegis is the combat system of the radar spy, it makes the target engagement and tracking, but i dont include that in the combat system of the ship, this gives pass to the aegis when it comes to radar spy tasks.

It also isn't an "or" issue. you can have a sub that is stealthy, with range and have a quality combat system. That is what the RAN wants, has with the Collins and will have with the Collins replacement.

The thing is the combat system, strictly not sensors, of the collins it is not the most importante, for ex i would give more importance to the system associated to the digitized hull (probably the active sonnar?), but active sonnar in a sub is less importante than the set of passive sonnars.

Clearly the S80 is unsuitable for what the RAN wants an will have, as has been pointed out by people who are in a position to know. So can we please drop all talk on the S80 or nuclear powered subs in this thread, neither is relevant to the RAN; it can be discussed elsewhere.

I wasnt talking about the s80, the guy i replied yes, but i was talking about subs in general.

Admin. text deleted. OFF TOPIC. Note the thread title.