RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Does the Boatswain's Mate position exist in the RAN?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Warramunga in Brisbane
Hi all,
I have been lurking for a while, but now I finally have something to contribute. I was fortunate enough to visit the HMAS Warramunga in Brisbane on Friday, and I was able to get a few photographs. They're not as good as the ones you can find on Tasman's Blog, but I thought a few of you might still be interested.
Hi all,
I have been lurking for a while, but now I finally have something to contribute. I was fortunate enough to visit the HMAS Warramunga in Brisbane on Friday, and I was able to get a few photographs. They're not as good as the ones you can find on Tasman's Blog, but I thought a few of you might still be interested.
Nice shot of the gun mounting housing showing the more modern, low RCS version that was fitted to Warramunga in place of the the older, more rounded mount that was fitted to Anzac and Arunta, and later to Perth. Your photos also suggest in response to Trackmaster's question that CEA-FAR/CEA-MOUNT has not yet been fitted.
Tas
Retention Incentive
Do serving members think that the new “The Navy Capability Allowance" is likely to succeed in retaining trained and experienced serving sailors.
The Allowance provides a financial incentive of $24,000 to general service sailors and $60,000 to submariners of Able Seaman through to Chief Petty Officer rank who agree to complete a further 18 months service.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Snowdontpl.cfm?CurrentId=7590
The incentive to submariners looks reasonably attractive to me, considering it will be paid for just 18 months of additional service.
Tas
Do serving members think that the new “The Navy Capability Allowance" is likely to succeed in retaining trained and experienced serving sailors.
The Allowance provides a financial incentive of $24,000 to general service sailors and $60,000 to submariners of Able Seaman through to Chief Petty Officer rank who agree to complete a further 18 months service.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Snowdontpl.cfm?CurrentId=7590
The incentive to submariners looks reasonably attractive to me, considering it will be paid for just 18 months of additional service.
Tas
supermachiner
New Member
are the australian versions of the jaun carlos 1 coming with the ski jump or not?
t68
Well-Known Member
yes
Apparently the cat has been let out of the bag and put amongst the pigeons; the RAN wants another to put f35b on it
There was a big write up about it the other week in the paper say the navy was out of control, if it was up to me I would put one on each coast
.Regards,
Tom
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Now if I was to join general entry to the Navy that would be the job I would want.
Cheers Machina, I had read about in the USN and was unsure.
The biggest cost to swing the Canberras into light aircraft carriers, they will never be truly carriers, will of course be the aircraft. To swing them into carriers, ammo lifts and storage will have to be improved, along with aviation fuel arrangements, but this should be doable. An air wing will probably costs the LHD its upper vehicle deck to a hangar, and consume much of her troop accommodations.
Sure does make it sound exciting. I hope you dont mind everyone in the Puss pulling the piss out of you.
nfloorl:Australian Frigates
Since you guys seem to know alot about the Australian Navy i was wondering if any of you had seen or know what the large box looking shape that is placed above deck, inbetween the missile launcher and the bow of the ship is on the old oliver hazard perry class. I've noticed it on a few of them as i go pass them quiet alot.
I was thinking they may have installed like a 8 cell VLS to carry ESSM's to make way for more missiles in the normal magazine launcher.
Any idea's?
Since you guys seem to know alot about the Australian Navy i was wondering if any of you had seen or know what the large box looking shape that is placed above deck, inbetween the missile launcher and the bow of the ship is on the old oliver hazard perry class. I've noticed it on a few of them as i go pass them quiet alot.
I was thinking they may have installed like a 8 cell VLS to carry ESSM's to make way for more missiles in the normal magazine launcher.
Any idea's?
Yes, there is a 8 cell Mk 41 VLS there, quad packed with 32 evolved sea sparrow missiles. Its located at the former replenishment ship hatch. I think the Aussies have ran into so many problems you wonder why the USA didn't do the same. From an American point of view, the Aussies would have been better off buying two more Anzacs, and discarded the FFG-7s. The upgrade is going to cost as much as the ships were built.
Not so much more missiles, but SM-2s half missiles, losing I believe their first stage. While the SM-2 upgrade made sense, I am sure the US Navy would rather keep their replenishment hatch.
Not so much more missiles, but SM-2s half missiles, losing I believe their first stage. While the SM-2 upgrade made sense, I am sure the US Navy would rather keep their replenishment hatch.
Last edited:
battlensign
New Member
I am not sure exactly what the problem was with the FFG-UP but I was under the impression that it wasn't simply the addition of one 8 cell MK41 that was the issue. The concept is fairly sound too - an upgraded FFG would then have 32 ESSM and 32-40 SM-2s (albeit with the use of a MK 13 [single arm] launcher). This would have provided an extremely effective point defence platform until the AWDs arrived.
I am not sure that another 2 (damnit, make it 4 = 12 FFH/Gs all up) would have helped as there would then have been no SM-2 armed ships in the fleet. This becomes even more of an issue with the topweight problems of the ANZAC class that, as I understand it, prevents the addition of a 2nd 8 cell MK 41 VLS (for a total of 16 cells carrying 64 ESSM per ship). Tas may know more, but this also seemed to be the reason for no 21-Box RAM launcher etc for Closer IWSs.
Personally I want to find out if there is anyway of randomly attaching 2 extra 8 cell MK 'whatever' VLSs amidships (somewhere - anywhere!) for the AWDs to give them 64 ESSM independent of the forward cluster of 48 VLS cells (which might then be able to house some Tactom or SM-3s). Perhaps 21 missile Box RAM somewhere as well......
(Even if it is only a dream, unrealistic as it is).Brett
ESSM has been successfully test fired from Sydney and my understanding is that the main FFGUP problem is the integration of new weapons, chaff, etc, with the fire control system. Integrating SM-2 also seems to be behind schedule.
It does seem that topweight issues mean that any additions to the Anzacs need to be carefully managed. Although the original design allowed space and weight for a second 8 cell VLS, CIWS and Harpoon, only the latter has actually been fitted. However, the addition of quad packed ESSM means that up to 24 additional missiles (total 32) can be carried whereas the original concept was that a max of 16 Sea Sparrow SAMs would be carried when the second VLS was fitted. The 4 x quad Nulka launchers not only take up weight but the 2x4 launcher above the hangar along with Mini Typhoon and other additions, means that it would be now be difficult to find space for a CIWS. It would be nice if the extra VLS and/or CIWS (Phalanx, RAM or even Mistral) could be fitted but I am not holding my breath.
battlensign
New Member
Tas...
Hey, when we discuss topweight, what exactly do we mean? Are we talking about the overall balance of the ship and any associated aspects of sea-handling that might be affected - or are we talking about the structual ability of the load bearing elements of the ship to bear increasingly heavy loads? (or a combination of both?)
Brett.
Hey, when we discuss topweight, what exactly do we mean? Are we talking about the overall balance of the ship and any associated aspects of sea-handling that might be affected - or are we talking about the structual ability of the load bearing elements of the ship to bear increasingly heavy loads? (or a combination of both?)
Brett.
Well, I can't (unlike some here) claim any expertise in this matter, but I think (though I stand ready to be corrected) that in frigates, destroyers & the like, the former (balance, sea-handling) is likely to be a problem long before structural overload.
That is also my belief.
I am talking about stability and seakeeping. That is my understanding of the problem in relation to the Anzacs. I am unaware of any major problems with structural overload but some of our currently serving members might be able to confirm this.
BTW, the Anzacs are not unique in requiring careful management of topweight issues. It is a common problem with warships (especially of of frigate/destroyer size or smaller). Navies like the RN and RAN have long regarded stability as a priority as their ships often have to serve a long way from their home ports and survive severe weather conditions. This is one reason why their ships sometimes appear to be 'undergunned' when compared with those of some other countries where ships spend most of their time in or near their home ports.
Tas
This is very true.
As for the cost of upgrade versus new ships, discarding the FFG fleet would have been a mistake given the mix of capability having both types has.
The FFG's and FFH's both have some decent armament, but together they complement each other in a way that makes asymmetric threat management a lot easier.
Interesting to note the scheduled replacement date for both classes of ships. Depending on how we go with the new Air Warfare warships, this leaves a slightly different niche to fill than what the ships are filling right now.
The RAN has historically looked more towards small, compact warships that pack a punch, rather than going for large cruisers armed with everything (a la Ticonderoga-class), so it is going to be interesting to see what exactly the next choice will be.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,200
There was a reason for my warning, and i can't exactly disagree, there are a few dumb guys in the faculty, but like any job i can point out more then a few across the base in other blocks and training facultys.
Because the bosun job is not a trade or "skill" everyone thinks they can do it,but i've seen enough people try and shoot a gun at Recruit School to know that it must be a little more complicated then it seems.since BMs do mostly "manual" sort of work,the Puss feels its the dumbarse job, like Infantry in Army. you'd be surprised if you met a few rather then just narrow minded
Like i said, choose away, theres a big demand for everything at the moment, if you want to mentally challenge yourself, CIS or ATV is best bet, if you want to grease yourself up, MT. If you prefer sleeping all day, ET and Steward, and manual work goes to BM, and yes its call BM cause we can't spell BUM:coffee
Hey i'm only here for 2yrs then skipping off to Creswell, just going to enjoy my time inbetween
- Status