No no no he would never advocate the B2, its not fast enough and above all it is not an F-111.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Darwin prices have never been cheap, you have added costs that do not apply down south, think cyclone coding, freighting materials, lack of competition in trades, I could go on. Basically though some of the people you are arguing with do/have lived there and/or have friends/family still living there, they have first hand knowledge. If you don't believe us look on a realestate sight and compare what you can get for half a million in Darwin verses the southern states.
Look at figures for a few years ago. Darwin might've not been cheap, but other capitals were worse. Prices are silly now, but nothing is certain in the current market and it would be crazy to base very big long term decisions on short term data.
Washington was the Elephant in the room and post war debt followed by the Great Depression didn't help. Jellicoe did recomend that the RN transfer the required ships to the RAN so HMS(s) "Repair" and "Refit" come to mind, or even Tiger. This would have had the effect of reducing the RNs battleship numbers to 13 which ironically is what happened when the RAN bought two County Class Heavy Cruisers, they were subtracted from the RNs totals. On Ark I was working on the knowledge that a carrier was seen as unaffordable in the 20's and was speculating that it would have been a suitable design once the pre WWII panic set in.
You forgot to add close family relation was Defence Housing manager...
I don't think the DoD tracks closely the fluctuations of the Darwin housing market when it costs defence basing. But the cost of building, of maintenance, of transport, of relocations, of logistics supply, of climate related wear and tear… etc.
If the planned 'G3' battlecruisers had joined the fleet instead of being cancelled as a result of the Washington treaty I believe it would have been appropriate for the RN to transfer Renown and Repulse to the RAN as a counter to the Japanese Kongos. In the early stages of WW2 it was even suggested in Admiralty circles that it would be 'highly appropriate' for the RAN to take over Vanguard (the last battleship to be built for the RN) as a counter to the same ships. As a one off design (to make use of surplus 15" guns) Vanguard would have been the odd ship out in a RN fleet built around the Lion, KGV and Nelson classes and Australia was considering acquiring a fast battleship at the time. Alas the Lion class was cancelled and Vanguard was not completed until after the war. By that time, with only 4 other battleships retained in its post war fleet I imagine the RN would have been very reluctant to transfer its most prestigious unit to the RAN.
Re the Ark Royal I agree that with a few modifications it would have been an excellent design for service in the Pacific. As the first new carrier built for the RN for many years It did have some deficiencies but it was far more spacious than the armoured carriers of the Illustrious class which followed it into service. These were built to survive bombing attacks by land based aircraft in areas like the Med but they proved to be most uncomfortable when serving with the British Pacific Fleet late in the war. However, I can find no record that the RAN contemplated getting a carrier in the years immediately prior to WW2, even though it was seriously considering a battleship.
Tas
I believe Vanguard was originally intended for service in the far East.
My comment on the RAN buying or building (probably impossible unless we maintained and built up or ship building skills between the wars instead of running them down) an Ark Royal was not based on anything I have read or heard, rather it just seemed to make more sense to me than the plan to buy a battleship.
The trick to get around the Washington treaty would have been for the RAN to lobby the UK to use the RAN as their far east fleet and for them to augment the RAN with a pair of battlecruisers and a carrier. They provide the ships we provide most of the crews and wear most of the cost.
donuteater
New Member
The Australian Navy needs a modernisation. Our main gun's don't fire quick enough to stop an incoming missile if it has gotten through the other defenses and they dont fire quick enough for NGS. Our submarines are much inferior to those of other navies. They do not have VLS which can prove fatal. The navy says that they dont want VLS with tomahawk missiles because it will cause an arms race in our area, but we could use UGM-84 Harpoon and Exocet missiles. Our LHD's arn't well enough defended, with 4 30mm cannons, that isnt enough, 4 phalanx CIWS,1 sea sparrow missile launcher and 4 harpoon boxes is sufficiant I think. Our patrol boats cant really defend themselves in an air attack and I would like to see a VLS fitted but it is probably not needed. Our Balikpapan class needs more than two 7.62mm GPMG's in an amphibious operation. Anyway I couldn't have a go at our AWD's because they have a great armament. I think the RAN needs a bigger defence budget which we can all agree on.
What are you on about your ANZAC's proved that there 127mm main gun was more than a match providing NGS in Iraqi than the RN 113mm.
I have read this thread with interest and have come to realize that your Collins class are again more than a match for anything in our two countries area of responsibilities and i'll take the word of those that have a far better insight than yours.
You want VLS on patrol boats what role do you think patrol boats do? whats next 76mm on the 11metre RHIBs, the rest no comment.
donuteater
New Member
For people who say that creating a fixed wing FAA will take to long and be too expensive, if you didnt notice ALL aircraft in the RAAF have arester hooks and the RAAF is currently under a FREE exchange program which lets RAAF pilots get carrier qualifications and USN pilots join the RAAF for 6 months to a year. If we got a carrier, we could use air force planes. If they cant withstand a catapult launch which I highly dought , a STOBAR carrier would be great.
The LHDs will be escorted by AWDs, FFGs, upgraded ANZACs and in the future the SEA 5000 Next Generation Combatant (that may very well end up being more capable than the AWD) they will not be defenceless by any definition.
Patrol boats are, well, patrol boats, not corvettes/frigates/destroyers/Imperial Deathstars, they are just EEZ patrol vessels. The current ACPBs are aluminium and as such have a limited structural life, there is simply no point going to all the time and effort required to turn them in to "uber" missilecraft. Besides they are due to be replaced under SEA 1180 with a much larger more capable platform.
On the subs, the Collins Class are regarded as one of the most capable conventional subs in the world, many of the designs the uninformed masses are suggesting as suitable replacements are in actual fact less capable than the Collins. Oh by the way our subs have used Harpoon since the preceding Oberon Class, and why on earth would a sub ship both Harpoon and Exocet?
A bit of friendly advice, try googling your ideas before posting them here as the information is easily available and it will stop you looking like a clueless kid.
It depends if the priority is in dealing with incoming ASMs or providing NGS. Calibres like 114mm and 127mm may not be useful for the anti-air role as 57 or 76mm guns but as Caredave pointed out, are more than adequate for NGS.
Though the main concern now is China, rather than Australia's SEA neighbours, it would be interesting to see if the procurement of any Brahmos missiles or ballistic missiles like the Iskander [which in any case can't reach Australia] will speed up efforts to get Tomahawk.
donuteater
New Member
More than a match! we still have "teething troubles" and these sub's have been in service since 1996 and we still havn't got a solution. We also don't have VLS. Another thing, it is not nuclear powered.
Are you a brainless kid, a troll, or just making use of illegal substances?
You are making statements about things you obviously not only have no knowledge of but are either too ignorant or too lazy to do even the smallest amount of research.
Another thought just crossed my mind, you could actually be a "defence" journalist working for News Limited or possibly in PM&C because they are the only other groups that have people of your calibre in their ranks.
You are still pushing that barro after you have been repeatedly told that the subject is well and truly been done to death. You as in Australia cannot not afford a carrier be it catobar or stobar. Mate you are flogging a really dead horse and I note that one of the mods has commented upon your continuation of dragging this subject on. build a bridge and get over it. Let it go.
As has been mentioned, repeatedly, future RAN carrier ops is a topic which has been done to death. Before posting about it, or other topics again, do some research and get facts to support ideas or claims first.
It is all well and good to say that the RAAF legacy and Super Hornets were designed originally for CATOBAR ops and therefore the RAAF/RAN can operate a carrier air group. What this notion manages to completely ignore is the added stresses CATOBAR ops placed on aircraft and airframes, the extra training required to qualify a pilot for CATOBAR ops, the ongoing training and ops required for pilots to maintain qualifications and a host of other factors. This notion also completely ignores the fact that the current RAAF aircraft taskings are to meet land-based aircraft operations requirements. If the RAAF was also required to provide a fixed wing FAA for the RAN, the number of fighters in RAAF inventory would have to be increased, otherwise the RAAF would suffer a degradation in its ability to meet currently existing operational requirements.
While the costs required for the RAN to purchase a carrier and the requisite air group are indeed significant, likely AUD$8 bil. or more, that figure is insignificant when compared to total cost to raise, train and sustain RAN carrier operations. Until the funding and conops are in place to support RAN carrier ops, discussing it further is pointless.
As for other ideas, people are clearly running out of patience with obviously unworkable ideas being present, especially when basic research would show that 'facts' were in error. A good example of this is the following quote:
Unless a naval vessel's main gun is a small or medium caliber rapid fire gun, then the gun is going to be of little use in an AAA role vs. inbound missiles, but a medium/large caliber main gun is intended to provide an ASuW and NGS capability, not an AAA capability for most warships. Also the RAN has provided NGS using the Mk 45 5"/127mm large caliber gun in Iraq within the last decade. For NGS, while a high ROF can be an aid, range, accuracy and weight of the shell are most important.
Again, doing a little research on the types of guns used for warships, and the roles the different types of guns serve, would have revealed the above. Therefore, do some research prior to posting again.
-Preceptor
Already addressed.
How?
Our Navy has said the complete opposite to this, which is why we ARE buying long range land attack missiles (like Tomahawk) for our AWD's, future submarines and future frigates.
We already use Harpoon, but have never used Exocet and I cannot ever see us using it.
LHD"s don't have even 1x "30mm" cannon. What they will have are 25mm cannons and this is just their basic peace-time armament. In any combat operation they will be up-gunned just as Manoora was in the Gulf in 2003.
Our Army also has surface to air missiles which can and have been used to improve the defensive capabilities of Australian warships.
You think? What the hell would you know? Where is the air search radar system? Where are the fire control directors needed to guide ESSM? If you don't have these you can't even guide the missiles. Have a look at the attachment. THAT's what RAN considers necessary for ESSM nowadays. Please show us where the money is coming from to integrate all that onto the LHD's...
Where is the advanced Harpoon control system needed to launch Harpoon? Where are the mounting points for 4x CIWS?
And so on. Stop throwing rubbish ideas off the top of your head without thinking about them first.
Consider in this vein and I'll consider it trolling and deal with it accordingly.
First and last warning.
I was going to reply to donuteater but others including 2 mods have beaten me to it.
I would just add that in the present economic climate I am sure the RAN is delighted that it is still getting its two LHDs, albeit with very basic self defence fit outs. Doing anything to push up the costs before the ships have been delivered would put strain on the defence budget and navy will not want to do anything to jeopardize its existing programs. The capacity would be there on such large ships to upgrade self defence systems in an emergency when money can be freed up. I suspect the RAN will already be working on contingency plans to upgrade the LHD's self defence just as they have with vessels like Success which was fitted and trialed with CIWS after which it was removed and placed back in the Phalanx 'pool'. Also as AD said it has become accepted practice for large amphibious and support vessels to deploy with army SAM detachments aboard.
Tas
I would just add that in the present economic climate I am sure the RAN is delighted that it is still getting its two LHDs, albeit with very basic self defence fit outs. Doing anything to push up the costs before the ships have been delivered would put strain on the defence budget and navy will not want to do anything to jeopardize its existing programs. The capacity would be there on such large ships to upgrade self defence systems in an emergency when money can be freed up. I suspect the RAN will already be working on contingency plans to upgrade the LHD's self defence just as they have with vessels like Success which was fitted and trialed with CIWS after which it was removed and placed back in the Phalanx 'pool'. Also as AD said it has become accepted practice for large amphibious and support vessels to deploy with army SAM detachments aboard.
Tas
donuteater
New Member
Could someone please tell me how many helicopters will be on the LHD's at any one time, some websites say 14 others said 32 maximum. Also the RAN is getting 24 Romeo's and somewhere it said that 8 can be on a ship at any time. We have 12 ship's that can carry them which was 14 and will be lowered to 11, and it said the romeo's will replace the S-70B-2's onboard the ANZAC class.
Doe's that mean that our AWD's will not have a helicopter for a few years and also will our LHD's have romeo's for ASW operations, lowering the number to around 6 helicopters available. Having 8 at sea means that there are about 16 chopers at Nowra, I never see sea hawks there. Anyway, why can there only be 8 romeo's at sea? I thought before I read anything that there would be 8 not at sea.
Doe's that mean that our AWD's will not have a helicopter for a few years and also will our LHD's have romeo's for ASW operations, lowering the number to around 6 helicopters available. Having 8 at sea means that there are about 16 chopers at Nowra, I never see sea hawks there. Anyway, why can there only be 8 romeo's at sea? I thought before I read anything that there would be 8 not at sea.
- Status