Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
John Fedup said:
Hardly a surprise, junior just deferred $8.5 billion of defence spending out to 2035! He's such a POS.
Click to expand...

2035? - thats 5 years after everything was predicted to get nasty - and even thats been bought forward by 5 years.

it will either all be over bar the shouting or at the messy end of it all ... :)
 
gf0012-aust said:
5I's-1 No mention of the canadians playing in this.... being run out of NZ Bland Bay

Multinational Task For Australian Mine Warfare Team
Click to expand...

Northland coast cleared of 'mines' in navy exercise - National - NZ Herald News

This exercise was previously mentioned on the RNZN thread. Mr Conservative rightly pointed out that Bland Bay is known for its crayfish and other underwater delicacies - there may well have been a fair few unopened ration packs at the end of the exercise!

The NZ media have emphasise the US contribution, and barely mentioned the presence of Australia and the UK. Somewhere on the net there is a short video (USN?), but I can't find the link right now.

John
Canada has a small(ish) navy, and the exercise is a long long way from home. Irrespective of who is in government, the service will have to prioritise which exercises it can participate in.
 
gf0012-aust said:
2035? - thats 5 years after everything was predicted to get nasty - and even thats been bought forward by 5 years.

it will either all be over bar the shouting or at the messy end of it all ... :)
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like either way Canada will be there.

Oh well time for the ADF to continue raiding the CDF navy/army/airforce for personnel.
 
StingrayOZ said:
Doesn't look like either way Canada will be there.

Oh well time for the ADF to continue raiding the CDF navy/army/airforce for personnel.
Click to expand...

I think the ADF will soon have many opportunities from CDF, especially from the RCN and RCAF. Any promising young officer must by now realize that the future in Canada is a dead end.
 
40 deg south said:
Northland coast cleared of 'mines' in navy exercise - National - NZ Herald News

This exercise was previously mentioned on the RNZN thread. Mr Conservative rightly pointed out that Bland Bay is known for its crayfish and other underwater delicacies - there may well have been a fair few unopened ration packs at the end of the exercise!
Click to expand...

kind of funny about the crayfish reference. the tech used to recover the mines is australian - and was originally based on a development by an australian fisherman to stop seals raiding cray and abalone pots

we've sold it to a number of allies....
 
Hazdog said:
That proposal looks great, I wonder where the VLS is stationed on the ship.

Overall that would provide a great capability and a great future for the RAN! :(:cool:
Click to expand...

Space and weight and electrical provisions on the hangar roof for a Mk 56 VLS or a RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher, plus an ASuW warfare package including 4x SSM capability and short-range cannon / 12.7mm weapons and according to the specs....

All as growth options I am sure... :D
 
ADMk2 said:
Space and weight and electrical provisions on the hangar roof for a Mk 56 VLS or a RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher, plus an ASuW warfare package including 4x SSM capability and short-range cannon / 12.7mm weapons and according to the specs....

All as growth options I am sure... :D
Click to expand...

Hopefully taken up asap, would be nice to have something about to defend it;s self from multiple threats.

But the RHIB deployment is one of the great attributes of this ship!
 
Hazdog said:
Hopefully taken up asap, would be nice to have something about to defend it;s self from multiple threats.

But the RHIB deployment is one of the great attributes of this ship!
Click to expand...

This is all based on the assumption we get the 90m version. The 80m versions does not offer the same level of fruit and has no hanger. The 85m version has a hanger but lacks the extra bits of the 90m version.

Mind you the OPV90 is 'just' over the nominal 2000 tonne specification at 2100 tonnes

For me SeaRAM is the better choice as it offers a system that is easily fitted ...... and moved between vessels...... however the fact they point to Mk56 may indicative that top weight may be an issue as SeaRAM would be set quite high (note I said "may' and 'indicative' here ..... not 'there is a problem').

Loaded SeaRAM (11 missiles) above deck weigh is 7040kg (Block 1 missile, a bit more for block 2) while below deck weight is 714kg.

Loaded Mk 46 system (with 21 block 2 missiles) above deck weight is 5400kg while under weight is 938kg

This suggests that the Mk46 and onboard sensors (noting the ships are supposed be fitted with a combat system now) is the best from a weight perspective.

I am still not holding my breath on this and suggest that unless there is an increase in threat we will see what ever we get armed for policing duties... at least in the first instance.
 
alexsa said:
This is all based on the assumption we get the 90m version. The 80m versions does not offer the same level of fruit and has no hanger. The 85m version has a hanger but lacks the extra bits of the 90m version.

Mind you the OPV90 is 'just' over the nominal 2000 tonne specification at 2100 tonnes



I am still not holding my breath on this and suggest that unless there is an increase in threat we will see what ever we get armed for policing duties... at least in the first instance.
Click to expand...

A telling difference is in the crew numbers; 87 for the 90 v 40 for the 80.
Steel is cheap and air free, but crew aren't and I assume this would have a big impact on any choice.

I realise this is probably a question without answer, but if the 90 was kept dumbed down (fitted for, not with) might the crew numbers be brought closer to the 80?
 
One of the reasons why SA does walk over the other states with respect to getting shipbuilding is because they are aggressive in front footing with support capability. They really have this side of it down to an artform - be it DTC, be it Techport, bet it this future force planning (because they do bother to talk to defence rather than just get an ex senior star as a talking head) I suspect that the investment made with employing ex VADM's and CDF's has resulted in this

Maritime school to boost Australia's shipbuilding skills | The Lead
 
Boatteacher said:
A telling difference is in the crew numbers; 87 for the 90 v 40 for the 80.
Steel is cheap and air free, but crew aren't and I assume this would have a big impact on any choice.

I realise this is probably a question without answer, but if the 90 was kept dumbed down (fitted for, not with) might the crew numbers be brought closer to the 80?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Not knowing how smart the ships are, I would suggest that if they aren't that smart then numbers can be reduced by being smart about how technology is utilised about the ships. For example, machinery spaces can be personnel free, monitored and run from one place, as well as throttle controls being on the bridge, meaning freed up stokers undertaking onboard maintenance whilst underway rather than standing underway watches in machinery spaces, plus it reduces the number of technical crew required. Same with sensors, weapons etc., in CIC. That's what the RNZN have done with their recent and ongoing ANZAC FFH upgrades. The Protector Class OPVs are 85m in length and they have a crew of around 35 + 10 if the aviation element is deployed, so a 90m OPV, with some thought to the use of technology, can operate with far less crew than 80 - 90.
 
I'd imagine some of the crewing differences come down to the outfit, The 80 is basically a bare OPV while the 90 is just below a corvette.

I'd say the 87 would be the max crew with all those weapons systems (and others) fitted.
 
Boatteacher said:
A telling difference is in the crew numbers; 87 for the 90 v 40 for the 80.
Steel is cheap and air free, but crew aren't and I assume this would have a big impact on any choice.

I realise this is probably a question without answer, but if the 90 was kept dumbed down (fitted for, not with) might the crew numbers be brought closer to the 80?
Click to expand...

The crew size will depend on how your run the ship and the level of automation. The calculation would need to consider the type of operation ........ i.e how many boats do you want to be able to deploy at once..... will a helicopter be embarked (noting the 80 is a Lilly pad).

The crew to run these ships (but not fight them) should be about the same as the machinery is not much different.

If you are going to load up with weapons systems and carry aircraft the number will rise. You cannot make a simplistic calculation off a spec sheet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top