ADM: Babcock assembling AWD torpedo launchers
That is peculiar. I had assumed that the AWD would just re-use some of the triple barrel Mk 32 launchers already in RAN service, after they had been removed from some of the FFG's and perhaps receive some updating.
The F100 is designed for the fixed launcher you can't just pull it out and replace it with a the Mk 32 launcher. The launcher is fixed in a magazine with thick steel walls and there is no exterior deck space nearby for an external Mk 32.
I think you misunderstand my question. I know that the twin-tube Mk 32 launcher planned for the Hobart-class is in a fixed location, and I admit when I first looked over the drawings, I could not figure out where the tubes were, since they are mounted to fire broadside.
I understood what you were asking and thought I responded to it. The F100's torpedo bays are also magazines so have very thick steel walls to contain fires and explosions. So you can't just go make a bigger cutout to fit in a different type of launcher without redesigning the whole rear of the ship. This is a much bigger job than just buying some two tube launchers that fit the bay design.
Okay, this was what I was after and still was not sure of from the prior answer. The new tubes are designed to fit within the bay, as opposed to designing the bay around the tubes.
I have seen a photo taken inside a F100 mag and the tubes where mounted vertically.
The F-100s have a passage way connecting the two torpedo magazines but I believe this has been deleted on the Hobarts to increase hanger volume as both the NFH90 and SH60R are longer than the SH60B the F-100 hanger was designed around.
Interesting! Are they taking a run at in-service support for LHD/AWD? Maybe they'll buy the Williamstown yard.
AFAIK BAE Australia owns the Williamstown yard. If Navantia is interested in it, BAE would need to be willing to sell it. And honestly, if BAE were willing to sell it, I suspect the reasoning would be that BAE could get more money from doing so, than they could by upgrading the yards sufficiently to allow it to compete for future RAN warship programmes.
I wonder what they are thinking as it seems like a rather small capital investment to really make a splash in the australian ship building industry as US$5.24 million is not going to buy them williamstown docks, would barely buy them a building for a small office let alone all the other start up expenses. I wonder if its a more symbolic move to place themselves seemingly closer to the action here.
I will make this first part VERY CLEAR !!I wonder what they are thinking as it seems like a rather small capital investment to really make a splash in the australian ship building industry as US$5.24 million is not going to buy them williamstown docks, would barely buy them a building for a small office let alone all the other start up expenses. I wonder if its a more symbolic move to place themselves seemingly closer to the action here.
In relation to the OCV, and I guess the Spaniards in a way (not recent events e.g Navantia), does anyone think the Spanish Meteoro class would be a good idea?
I knew you would see the funny side of it, some previous members would not though and take it as an oportunity to flare up.
A degree of symbolism as they need to have a presence to deal with extant projects, and they'll be hoping like crazy that the media get to make the future sub decision so that the S80 derivative has a chance.
