Would the endurance of a Walrus come near to what RAN was after? Or was there a larger version proposed for RAN? The Collins may have a beam of 7.8m, but it's about 10m longer than a Walrus.
cheers
rb
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
cheers
rb
I think its called Free Speech and Democracy
I think you can say the same for the JSF for what you just mentioned.
Im only refering to an incident in an O-boat in the 70's. During exercises with the americans, a USCG vessel that they believed wasn't participating (typical US) fired an ASROC. The were at periscope depth, they then tried every trick in the book, but eventually they were hit in the prop. The prop then started leaking, captain requested a report, report came back after several more attempts "Shes leaking a F**K load!" boat started to list, captain made the decision to emergency surface. Captain was repremanded and lost his command. This story has been verified by 2 sources so I find it believeable (they tell the story much better than I, this is just the basic story). There was also going to be a book written about this particular incident but I am unaware of its current status, I believe this is still a silent event.
If I have stuffed up any of the terminology its my fault not theirs.
Red octobering in the open ocean where your specifically training to perform this is okay. Doing this in a harbour while major US vessels are above is proberly something quiet different. If a USCG ship got an Oberon up its clacker it proberly wouldn't look good for the RAN.
Its not an overcompensation, and it is a real Rommel quote. . I have a 1952-3 copy of Liddell Harts biography on Rommel (very much pre-internet) where he interviewed his son Manfred. The comment was amongst the records that Manfred had on his fathers writings. Its from a letter that he also wrote home to his wife and son.
(Granted BL-H was prone to self aggrandisement and suffered from what we commonly call FIGJAM syndrome, but I doubt that he would have praised Australians if he could have avoided it, later interviews with Manfred also reinforce his fathers high regard for australian soldiers as he makes reference to the fact that they were able to scavenge and make use of anything and convert it into a weapon)
So, the praiseworthy comment re 9Div has never been one triggered by Australians but by ER and then subsequently reinforced by Manfred.
Given that they've done it for the older SPY-1D on the Burkes, I can't see why it can't be done for the. newer generation of ships if there is an imperative to do so in the future. The costs to add the capability seem quite modest going by the DDG-51 example.
Its not a simple comparision to make as internal volume can be consumed by different ship classes in different ways. But that volume is needed to carry all the fuel, batteries, and stuff needed to provide long endurance. Obviously the Walrus would have been sized to meet the RAN's requirement for the NSM project (New Submarine: what it was called before the name Collins was given). For a Walrus class (3rd gen Barbel) being fatter means it would actually have a better hydrodynamic shape to achieve similar volume as a Collins class. Also the cans being wider would mean its easier to fit everything in there than a thinner, longer hull.
I don’t see how any of this can generate an argument that blowing emergency air equates to a loss of command activity for a submarine CO. Being torpedoed by the USCG would probably be the cause of relief of command, not subsequently saving the boat.
Clearly you don’t understand the significant differences between the older versions of Aegis and the newer ones. While technically anything is possible an Aegis BMD capability for the later COTS blocks of Aegis has to be developed before it can be rolled out to ships like the RAN’s AWDs. It is not backwards compatible for the older Aegis system that uses completely different computers, software, etc.
Compensation for what? You go sit and the bottom of a cliff with your enemy at the top and see how that works out for you... Everyone involved in Gallipoli from the Lancashires to the Anzacs to the Turks (except probably the Royal and French Navies) recognise it as an honourable defeat/victory that happens to have very strong additional national emotion for Australia, New Zealand and modern Turkey. Not something you should make fun of lightly.
I’m a few minutes away from digging out a copy of The Rommel Papers so direct quotes will follow. As I recall it there was something in there from before Tobruk about how he had witnessed Australian infantry in attack and was very impressed.
Here are the relevant quotes from the book:
I have just searched through a .pdf of The Rommel Papers and interesting at almost every time Rommel mentions the Australian units in the too and fro of the desert campaign he gives them a positive adjective. Like “superb”, “fierce” or “leading”. But as to direct quotes there are only really two. The first is by his son talking about his father’s photo collection and the other Rommel’s direct observations.
“He was particularly proud of his colour photographs, some of which had been taken with a certain amount of danger to himself. One, I remember, which was most impressive, showed Australian infantry attacking with bayonets.” Manfred Rommel
“Shortly afterwards a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners was marched off close beside us immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle. ” GFM Erwin Rommel
There doesn’t seem to be any direct explanation of defeat at Tobruk being attributed to the Australian defence but he does mention in relation to the defence of El Alamein explains the British advantages in positional vs mobile warfare, thusly:
“Although the tactical consequences of motorisation and armour had been pre-eminently demonstrated by British military critics, the responsible British leaders had not taken the risk either of using this hitherto untried system as a foundation for peace time training, or of applying it in war. But this failure, which had told so heavily against the British in the past, would not affect the issue of the approaching battle of position and break-through, because the extensive minefields would rob the armour of its freedom of movement and operation, and would force it into the role of the infantry tank. In this form of action the full value of the excellent Australian and New Zealand infantry would be realised and the British artillery would have its effect.” GFM Erwin Rommel
Last edited:
An emergency ascent isn't really controlled, more so if you can't apply any power to it. Not sure of the details after the incident. Hence the book would have been a very interesting read, it was going to have a lot of input from very high ranking people who have retired (some fairly recently).
The crew definately thought the captain did the right thing, land lubbers sitting in offices may not see it the same way. More so if there is a political axe to grind. This happend early 70's late 60's height of the cold war, while vietnam was going on. Having an o-boat seriously damaged during this time may have been operationally important. Would have been an interesting read.
I was referring specifically to the AWD's.
:No they can't without getting a new computer and display suite.
Right now there are two Aegis BMD systems out in the fleet, both on Pre-COTS Tico's, Burkes and Kongo's. There is BMD 5.0 being developed but that will only be for Aegis DDG Modernization (ripping out all the old pre-cots computers and displays), DDG new construction and Aegis ashore.
Australia is getting baseline 7.1R, that is not scheduled to get any version of BMD.
Aussie Aegis Ashore?
I'm a tragic fan of Rommel and Monash so have a collection of books on both
I don't get home till christmas but am now compelled to research the quotes as the comment about 9Div and Australians in general appears on one of the biographies I have.
There was an SBS (??) doco some years ago where a US mil historian was interviewing Manfred (an anti-hitler doco IIRC) where it came into the conversation.
Rommel was consistemtly impressed with Australians and New Zealander infantry and was not shy of acknowledging it - in fact IIRC he was one of the first German/Axis generals in WW2 to refer to ANZACS as equiv to what he considered to be shock troops
Although in a RAN thread this is now hopelessly OT.
Yep, I've updated my last posts with some of the relevant quotes from The Rommel Papers.
I doubt it. Lockheed were spruiking adding terminal phase PAC III (SBMSE) to the AWD. Systems wise this would be very different to the mid course phase Aegis BMD. Land base alternatives are all rapidly deployable terminal systems like Patriot, THAAD and Arrow. Systems you can send ashore in an amphibious assault and set up a defensive bubble. Of course having the system operational on a ship alleviates the pre deployment coverage issue and counters anti ship ballistic missiles.
They are expensive because of the technology involved. It is not something that can be bought off the shelf. I can't answer the cost question and that is something that possibly may not be publicly stated or maybe someone of greater abilities than my very limited knowledge on this particular subject can answer.
The Aegis system itself costs around $550 million per ship and then you have to build a ship big enough to carry it. Which probably adds several hundred or so million to the unit cost. But other combat systems don’t exactly come cheap. A lower level combat management system with radars is still going to cost a few hundred million.
A reasonable cost comparison is that between a FREMM frigate and a Spanish build F100. The former costs around $675m while the later $954m. Both built in European yards with established production of class. The F105 is of course far more capable.
weegee
Active Member
Thanks guys, it just seems strange/ weird to me (obviously someone not in the industry) that some computers and screens and radar etc etc and yes I realise there is a hell of a lot more that goes into such a complex system like Aegis system. but even so how it can cost so much more than something tangible like a ship that is nearly 150m long and weighing 7K T. I suppose it just goes to show how much money and time goes into developing such systems .
Media Buff
New Member
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
High end computer systems are quite costly. A server I used to play with (a Sparc Ultra 4000) had a chassis which cost US$50,000. That was 15 years ago.
A high end system now, particularly one as complex as the Aegis, is going to be whole orders of magnitude past that, since there is so much more information which has to be kept track of. Also, it is a military system, which pretty much automatically increases the cost and capability requirements. By capability requirements I do not mean things like processor speed, etc. Rather, the system needs to remain functioning in a useful fashion across a broader range of situations and environments that a civilian system normally needs to. Plus, systems crashes and other similar errors need to happening very minimally, or not at all. In most cases a business system if it encounters a fatal error can just be shut down, restarted and perhaps re-imaged or re-compiled. A combat data system aboard a warship that suffers a fatal error could result in the vessel and/or crew suffering an actual fatal event. That sort of system ruggedness and redundancy does not come cheaply.
-Cheers
- Status