Would that be a stretched variant?
Seems that the stipulated vanilla F-100 version has fallen by the wayside then. So I'm guessing improved engines etc are all possible.
Great news though.
rb
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Seems that the stipulated vanilla F-100 version has fallen by the wayside then. So I'm guessing improved engines etc are all possible.
Great news though.
rb
This is a fantastic outcome if it holds true.
4 x F-100 varients but with 2 helo's each = a very capable force.
Not only that we can now have two seperate fleets. Perth based and one Sydney based?. Help improve recruitment?
Australia can operate independant of any allies against any reasonable threat in the region. With F-35b's that capability is maginfied again. US assistance would only be required in some sort of superpower struggle, not in regular regional conflicts. Our troops, equipment and personel will be better protected, more capable and more effective.
Two ships also provide a better ABM platform, and more room for more types of missiles (48x2 = 96 which is more than the burkes would got us). Twice the illuminators, redundancy, accuracy, faster interception, able to work in higher threat enviroments, greater coverage with two ships physically seperated.
Also the construction of a 4th helps secure jobs, and helps maintains a viable ship building industry. ASC will then be kept busy until just before the Collins replacement starts to get under way (2025?). Also ASC will have enough ships to keep them busy between new builds. Sustainability!!!
What a massive win for Australia!!
4 x F-100 varients but with 2 helo's each = a very capable force.
Not only that we can now have two seperate fleets. Perth based and one Sydney based?. Help improve recruitment?
Australia can operate independant of any allies against any reasonable threat in the region. With F-35b's that capability is maginfied again. US assistance would only be required in some sort of superpower struggle, not in regular regional conflicts. Our troops, equipment and personel will be better protected, more capable and more effective.
Two ships also provide a better ABM platform, and more room for more types of missiles (48x2 = 96 which is more than the burkes would got us). Twice the illuminators, redundancy, accuracy, faster interception, able to work in higher threat enviroments, greater coverage with two ships physically seperated.
Also the construction of a 4th helps secure jobs, and helps maintains a viable ship building industry. ASC will then be kept busy until just before the Collins replacement starts to get under way (2025?). Also ASC will have enough ships to keep them busy between new builds. Sustainability!!!
What a massive win for Australia!!
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
GREAT news for the RAN. the F100 purchase didnt make any sence to me, but i'm starting to warm up to it. 4 ships with 2 helo's each! Maybe it'lle be a bit bigger too?? A bit more room for growth??
Thanks AD this has made my day!:dance3
Great news indeed. Hopefully the navy will solve its personnel problems so that it can operate 12 surface combatants in full commission, the 4 Hobarts and the 8 Anzacs. If necessary though, the fourth ship can be commissioned at the expense of an Anzac. The second helo is good news although it is difficult to see how the hangar can be enlarged without a major redesign.
Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
2nd HELO is great news as long as its feasible. It will allow an AEW helo either manned or unmanned to enable SM6 capability, and still have a conventional helo aka NH90 or seahawk off chasing submarines or surface threats. 12 is a nice round number. A nice 2 to 1 force mix. I have to say the RAN is shaping up to be pretty much on par with the premier european navies and a major force to be reckoned with in regional terms.
Fantastic News and Congratulations to the RAN on the proposed 4th Destroyer. I think many of us including myself on this forum believed that a
4th destroyer was more viable than settling for 3. Its a major bonus to see that a 2nd Helo will be incorporated in the design for the Destroyer and this indeed will strengthen the Destroyers response and Naval air capacity than simply having the one.
4th destroyer was more viable than settling for 3. Its a major bonus to see that a 2nd Helo will be incorporated in the design for the Destroyer and this indeed will strengthen the Destroyers response and Naval air capacity than simply having the one.
I was very disappointed when it was announced that the F100 was selected (after all the baby bourke was just so sexy looking!!!
). But seriously the single hangar and vastley reduced missile loadout worryied me.
However a forth F100 is an excellent result especially if it is going to have a second hangar. I solves everything I was worried about except maybe future growth issues and it increases availability by having a extra hull.
Now I know why Shalders shut up so quickly and suddenly seemed so happy about the "other horse" getting up.
). But seriously the single hangar and vastley reduced missile loadout worryied me.However a forth F100 is an excellent result especially if it is going to have a second hangar. I solves everything I was worried about except maybe future growth issues and it increases availability by having a extra hull.
Now I know why Shalders shut up so quickly and suddenly seemed so happy about the "other horse" getting up.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No problems.
Presumably as we get closer to the Election, more news about this decision will be released. Hopefully they 've decided that the "enhanced" F-100 design can carry 64x vertical launch cells too...
Jezza
Member
Thanks AD.
Any release of ship name???
Its a real shame it wont be called HMAS PERTH as it should of been
called.
Its an insult to have a ANZAC Frigate called HMAS PERTH when its
always been a capital ship.
1.Light cruiser 2.Guided Missile Destroyer then down to 3. Frigate
1. 6,830 tons 2. 4900 tonnes 3. 3600 tonnes
SHAME SHAME SHAME
Any release of ship name???
Its a real shame it wont be called HMAS PERTH as it should of been
called.
Its an insult to have a ANZAC Frigate called HMAS PERTH when its
always been a capital ship.
1.Light cruiser 2.Guided Missile Destroyer then down to 3. Frigate
1. 6,830 tons 2. 4900 tonnes 3. 3600 tonnes
SHAME SHAME SHAME
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Well by then HMAS John Howard could be suitable
Jezza
Member
Well by then HMAS John Howard could be suitable
You know your probably right
nfloorl: nfloorl: nfloorl: nfloorl: nfloorl: "John Howards" voice Your naming that boat after me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I've seen a bit of scuttlebug around the place about an upgrade to the ESSM system with an active seeker (possibly the AMRAAM seeker) in coming years too. Such an idea would be a nice upgrade...
A 3D Air Warfare system, multiple channels of fire and a mix of short/medium and long range "active" SAM's would seem to be a MASSIVE handful for an attacking force. Particularly when said system will be part of a networked force...
HMAS Melbourne has not been allocated to any new ship at this time so perhaps that will be it.
Scuttlebug? Here's a picture of it. It’s an ESSM missile with the AIM-120 active homing seeker. Raytheon have developed it for the SL-AMRAAM-ER offering for rail launching. But it can of course still launch from a VLS quad pack and even off a fighter aircraft... >300km intercept range anyone?
I wouldn't get too excited about the AF100 being fitted with two helicopter hangars. This is a bit of Ian McPhedran failure of communication or artistic license. There’s not much room at the back and this is not within the boundaries of acceptable change to the design. Especially as it would involved repositioning the torpedo and helicopter weapon magazines which is a major task. The AF100 can have a large hangar that would accomdate an MRH-90 size helicopter and a VTUAV… Maybe this is where Ian McPhedran has gotten confused…
But these ships are very, very good. Operating in US Navy CVBGs they performed as good as any Arleigh Burke in air defence... Deep missile magazines are not everything and there are more ways to skin a cat than just shoot lots of SM-2s at it. The Spanish relay a lot more on ESSM than do the Americans and Aegis with 32 SM-2s and 64 ESSMs is a fearsome beast.
Yes but by the AWD 04 comes out you can bet FFG05 will be due to be paid off.
Well Canberra went from 10,000 tonnes to 4,000 tonnes and now to 27,000 tonnes... Get over it... At least it has a ship named for it. I don't think anyone is going to be packing their bags and leaving Perth because of ship inadequacy namesake syndrome.
HMAS Melbourne will pay off around 2015-16 to free crew for AWD3 so its name will be free. Also up for grabs will be Darwin. I’d prefer to keep Melbourne for the third LHD… Considering it’s the 6th biggest city in Australia what about a HMAS Gold Coast!
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
2 questions.
3rd LHD????? I heard a RoRo but annother canberra???
ESSM (active seeker) with a surface launched intercept range of 300km??? Or is that air launched???
The 'third' will be an support vessel rather than an LHD if current plans come to furition so I supsect HMAS Melbourne will be it for the AWD. Given the first Melbourne was a town class cruiser this fits.
The names I miss are the agressive ones with a great history such as Vampire, Vendetta, Voyager (and even Vengence) but ..... we all know cities vote.
abramsteve
New Member
Good news about the AWD's! I admitt that when the F-100 was selected I thought it was a awfully short sighted decision, I written off the idea that they would be modified and honestly thought there wasnt a hope in hell of a fourth.
With the inclusion of a larger hangar, will we see an overall lengthening of the ship? I think I saw on here a while back an image of a lengthened F-100 with a larger hangar. Personaly I doubt it as one of the reasons the classes selection was that it wasnt going to cost lots of $$$ to design/redisign.
With regards to names, clearly Adelaide should be given an AWD! I partialy agree with Alexsa, I do like the agressive names, but not for our navy. Cities are the way. The poms should stick to those names, especially with their RN history, instead of following the city name trend.
With the inclusion of a larger hangar, will we see an overall lengthening of the ship? I think I saw on here a while back an image of a lengthened F-100 with a larger hangar. Personaly I doubt it as one of the reasons the classes selection was that it wasnt going to cost lots of $$$ to design/redisign.
With regards to names, clearly Adelaide should be given an AWD!
I partialy agree with Alexsa, I do like the agressive names, but not for our navy. Cities are the way. The poms should stick to those names, especially with their RN history, instead of following the city name trend.- Status