now you can see why I said Conroy makes Andrews look like Scipio Africanus
and that's being kind.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
now you can see why I said Conroy makes Andrews look like Scipio Africanus
and that's being kind.
From a historical perspective, I would like to point out that the Poms thrashed the Spanish and French in every movie I ever saw, think of the Spanish Armada. I dont recall anyone beating the Vikings though.
Also, Denmark now has an interest in our area, namely Tasmania, the birth place of their future Queen (and Errol Flynn)
So, that;s it. We order either the Danish ships or the Poms.:dance
Also, Denmark now has an interest in our area, namely Tasmania, the birth place of their future Queen (and Errol Flynn)
So, that;s it. We order either the Danish ships or the Poms.:dance
Joe Black
Active Member
Conroy doesn't understand simple concepts being promoted. Australia will have 3 different naval ships continuous build process:
1. One for the 12 new submarine, boats are expected to evolve continuously, I take it somewhat similar to the Japanese model except with a slower drumbeat of 2 to 3 years per boat rather than yearly.
2. One for major combatants including the Future Frigates and post AWD with a 2 to 2.5 years drumbeat per ship.
3. One for minor combatants with a drumbeat of 1 to 2 years per boat.
1. One for the 12 new submarine, boats are expected to evolve continuously, I take it somewhat similar to the Japanese model except with a slower drumbeat of 2 to 3 years per boat rather than yearly.
2. One for major combatants including the Future Frigates and post AWD with a 2 to 2.5 years drumbeat per ship.
3. One for minor combatants with a drumbeat of 1 to 2 years per boat.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Can't remember if it was the DWP or the DIIP (still can't get used to not call it the DCP!), anyway, what was said was that steel will start being cut in 2018 and all 12 OPV's will be completed by 2030.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
One of the things mentioned in the senate hearing this week was the fact that a continuous OPV build would put Australian ship building in a far better position to build other govt vessels. That would keep the work comming, replacements for vessels like OP and OS could theoretically join the program.
Just a question as to when we will get back to 12 major warships.
With the retirement of Sydney, will the surface fleet stay at 11 ships for some time or will we get 3 AWD and future frigate No1 with 8 ANZAC's in service and then retire the ANZAC's one for one with the introduction of each new future frigate.Or is the plan to start to retire the ANZAC's early to allow for training on the new ships with an acceptance of lower fleet numbers
I understand the ANZAC's are in good shape and with the latest upgrades still have some life and relevance.
Will be interesting to see how the transition is managed and what will be the fleets numbers in the 2020's.
Any help would be appreciated.
Regards S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Melbourne and Newcastle are only 24 and 23 years old so they still have a bit of life in them. I wonder if it will be the first future Frigate or the second that will replace the Anzac.
No idea go ask the French, but they have made its pretty clear over the past several decades that they are here to stay and have a vested interest in the Pacific.
Yep, they're here to stay alright.
They use Darwin as a transit stop when they deploy or go home.
That single Floreal light frigate occasionally and that single Batral LST rarely, that's an impressive presence
Does anyone have a link to the transcript for the hearing? I've tried to find it on Hansard with no luck.
Cheers
Yep, they're here to stay alright.
They use Darwin as a transit stop when they deploy or go home.
That single Floreal light frigate occasionally and that single Batral LST rarely, that's an impressive presence
Can anyone provide a picture or reference of a French sub operating in the SCS?
I wonder if we were to ask the Americans who we should deal with, what they would say. Ultimately the US is the power in the pacific (by any metric, by far, political, missiles, tonnage, capability, personnel, destroyers, carriers, subs), and we seek commonality with US systems and weapons and a partner familiar with integrating those. The french have french stuff, or European stuff, its rare for them to use OTS american gear, its just not what they do. The French CONOPs is quite different as well.
One of the reasons (IMO) Spains been quite successful flogging stuff to the RAN is they offer US systems and solutions, but mid sized for a middle sized power.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
In post 18089, page 1206 under chis73 there is a link on the 2nd last line.
And that thick head Conroy couldn't begin to understand how that translates into a continuous build and repeatedly quoted the DWP on the subject. Faced by one of the Admirals - Griggs IIRC - explaining slowly, using small words, that continuous build doesn't actually mean building the exact same ships until eternity, but that the Mine Hunters and Hydro ships would probably follow as also signalled in the DWP he flapped around and said "but that's not what it says". The other senior RAN officer (not sure who he is) started to answer, then very obviously bit his tongue rather than tell a potential minister to wake the hell up and listen.
A very long video, but the section around the OPV was extremely entertaining if you like to see politicians proving just how slow on the uptake they can be.
Also, Conroy spent a considerable time beating around about whether the OPVs will definitely, absolutely, hand on heart and hope to die, be made of steel and not aluminium until the whole panel of respondents, Naval, political and bureaucratic, looked fed up and someone made a joke of the whole business.
Politicians eh? Some good, some ordinary, some dire, and then the oxygen thieves like Conroy.
oldsig
Ask Blas de Lezo about that. His web name comes from a Spanish admiral who won the battle of Cartagena in 1741 - which one of my ancestors didn't come back from. The Spanish garrison thrashed a much bigger British force. Losses were about 10:1 in the Spanish favour.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
John the other RAN officer was Tim Barrett the current Chief of Navy. Griggs is the Deputy Chief of the ADF.
Blas de Lezo
Member
Much admiration for the RN on this parts , but the history of the RN and the Armada is full of tremendous times, of times of battles and times of being allies. We have being at it for hundreds of years, we all have in Europe. There have been as many victories on one side and the other, but that is conversation for a different forum. About French subs, The actual existence o the S80 project comes from the determination of the Armada to have a sub built in Spain with an American combat system. That is what broke up the alliance between DCNS and Navantia. We are paying the price now, but I have no doubts the Armada will get their way, after all they have to fight with them........... And they know the French gear inside out.
They have more or less indicated that by the levels of enthusiasm generated whenever the japanese solution comes up.
Without wishing to be seen as flogging a dead horse, one only needs to look at the systems integration problems that have arisen out of some of the projects.... as opposed to integrating US gear where we stay within update and upgrade lockstep.
If we stay out of lockstep then we invite problems, and thats hardly the US's fault.
The US have made it abundantly clear that they see no problems helping the integration of their combat systems into a Japanese sub.
re Conroy its pretty apparent that he's not even getting decent advice - or if he's getting it that he can't comprehend context when drafting up his zinger questions for the Senate hearings.
He's no Faulkner or Combet by a long shot. He's obviously never sought input from Beazley either otherwise he wouldn't be asking such numpty questions.
He's reason enough to dissolve the Senate so that we can avoid getting half wits treading the halls of Parlt
Some of the options are around 2000 tonnes. This is significantly larger .... And more complex than than the Armadale so (if you are not trying for to complete vessels simultaneously) then 18 months is pretty realistic.
If they are build at ASC they will be sharing space with the work there. If built at BAE they will be sharing resources with block construction for the AWD and follow on frigate.
The Iver Huitfeldt Class hulls meet DNV ice class C standards. Follow this link to get more information on the vessel concept: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp...11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf
The Iver Huitfeldt hulls are based on the Absalon Class and they have two hangars. If the Danes say they can supply a version with two hangars, then I am inclined to believe them.
I dont think we can look at the Iver Huitfeldts as an option in isolation. They are based around the Stanflex system and as far as I can ascertain they have an open computer architecture. This in itself is totally different to the latest Navy acquisitions.
To fully utilize any Stanflex module investment the OPV's would have to use this system as well. Any existing design would have to be heavily modified, so any decisions would not be made lightly.
- Status