That would require the USN declaring that there were no nukes on the ship, something they simply won't do...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
What makes you think there are nuclear weapons on board a frigate or a destroyer? Obviously, the US prefers not to reveal secret information, one way or the other? Of course, all of our submarines and carriers have nuclear propulsion, but none of our frigates or destroyers have nuclear propulsion.
Even if they did have nuclear weapons onboard, why should the US pin point which ships at a certain time have nuclear weapons on board to be targeted by terrorists and/or protesters? I can think of no reason why the US would ever report whether they did or don't. Secrets are secrets. How do we know whether the Kiwis ships have nuclear weapons aboard?
Its the same as if asking a ballistic missile submariner where they patrolled during their last cruise. Its a secret, and against the law to inform anyone that isn't cleared. Informing anyone not cleared will end up with you in prison.
How would New Zealand politicans answer where there fall out shelter is? If they have one it surely is secret.
Seems like a dog chasing its own tail to me? Why ask?
Even if they did have nuclear weapons onboard, why should the US pin point which ships at a certain time have nuclear weapons on board to be targeted by terrorists and/or protesters? I can think of no reason why the US would ever report whether they did or don't. Secrets are secrets. How do we know whether the Kiwis ships have nuclear weapons aboard?
Its the same as if asking a ballistic missile submariner where they patrolled during their last cruise. Its a secret, and against the law to inform anyone that isn't cleared. Informing anyone not cleared will end up with you in prison.
How would New Zealand politicans answer where there fall out shelter is? If they have one it surely is secret.
Seems like a dog chasing its own tail to me? Why ask?
Last edited:
On-spot mate!
"We will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on this vessel"
- boilerplate response to the magic question
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Because unless you can confirm that there are no nukes onboard, your not going to get an invite from the Kiwi's. They're a tad nuke paraniod if you know what i mean? They want absoloutly nothing to do with them.
I understand the anti-war and anti-nuke peaceniks have taken over their government, but how could they dismiss a mutual defense treaty so easily? I am sure any intelligent being would understand America's boiler plate policy. No American I know of would ever respond to that question in fear of being imprisoned.
The French have a reputation of running up the white flag, it appears New Zealand has already ran up the white flag. General Douglas MacArthur would have considered the order illegal.
If they are worried about nuclear radiation, I suggest staying out of the sun and not having chemo done.
The French have a reputation of running up the white flag, it appears New Zealand has already ran up the white flag. General Douglas MacArthur would have considered the order illegal.
If they are worried about nuclear radiation, I suggest staying out of the sun and not having chemo done.
Not just the government, population too. The anti-nuke campaign in NZ had been going strong for 30 years already by then, and the position has been upheld as a bipartisan position for over 20 years now. And it's not like ANZUS was in all that great a state around the time either.
New Chief of Navy
Rear Admiral Russell Crane, presently the Deputy Chief of Navy, will be promoted to the rank of Vice Admiral and appointed as the new Chief of Navy.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Fitzgibbontpl.cfm?CurrentId=7522
I think just about everyone agrees that the RAN has major issues with retention of experienced and skilled personnel.
Progress has also been slow with upgrades to the Anzac class frigates, as demonstrated by the slow pace in which new weapon systems like Harpoon and Mini Typhoon have been fitted, slow pace with CEA-FAR , etc. I think there have also been some misguided procurement decisions made in the last decade with Seasprite being the most obvious. The RAN missed a golden opportunity to retain its air warfare capability when it turned down offer of the four ex USN Kidds and embarked on the FFGUP instead. Pushing for the Evolved Burke instead of 'off the shelf' Arleigh Burkes for the Air Warfare requirement as the 'top end' proposal for the AWD selection resulted in the choice by politicians of an (IMO) inferior frigate which nobody in the navy expected would be selected. This too me showed a poor understanding by the top brass of the way politicians think. As a result of poor decisions the navy has ended up having years without a satisfactory air warfare capability, a reduced number of surface combatants and an inability to man half its submarines. It is a sad story.
Fortunately there are some positive things happening. Although the Hobart class AWDs will not be as capable as originally hoped they will still provide a huge advance in capability and the LHDs will take the navy's ability to project power to levels it has never had before, arguably, even in wartime.
The new Chief of Navy has a massive job ahead of him and I wish him well.
Tas
__________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.
Rear Admiral Russell Crane, presently the Deputy Chief of Navy, will be promoted to the rank of Vice Admiral and appointed as the new Chief of Navy.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Fitzgibbontpl.cfm?CurrentId=7522
I think just about everyone agrees that the RAN has major issues with retention of experienced and skilled personnel.
Progress has also been slow with upgrades to the Anzac class frigates, as demonstrated by the slow pace in which new weapon systems like Harpoon and Mini Typhoon have been fitted, slow pace with CEA-FAR , etc. I think there have also been some misguided procurement decisions made in the last decade with Seasprite being the most obvious. The RAN missed a golden opportunity to retain its air warfare capability when it turned down offer of the four ex USN Kidds and embarked on the FFGUP instead. Pushing for the Evolved Burke instead of 'off the shelf' Arleigh Burkes for the Air Warfare requirement as the 'top end' proposal for the AWD selection resulted in the choice by politicians of an (IMO) inferior frigate which nobody in the navy expected would be selected. This too me showed a poor understanding by the top brass of the way politicians think. As a result of poor decisions the navy has ended up having years without a satisfactory air warfare capability, a reduced number of surface combatants and an inability to man half its submarines. It is a sad story.
Fortunately there are some positive things happening. Although the Hobart class AWDs will not be as capable as originally hoped they will still provide a huge advance in capability and the LHDs will take the navy's ability to project power to levels it has never had before, arguably, even in wartime.
The new Chief of Navy has a massive job ahead of him and I wish him well.
Tas
__________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.
It appears Australia attempted to Australianize several weapon control operating systems on the go with several armament decisions and failed to write the software. Much like buying and building proven armaments, Australia should treat software code the same. The list is getting pretty long with Collins class submarines, Adelaide class frigates, and Sea Sprite helicopters.
My company has done the same with its basic software, attempting to modify code for their purposes. Everyone thinks they can write code, but beware the bugs. With the new buyers, this practice has ended. The new owners prefer testing new code before using them. Nothing is changed until its been tested and all of the bugs solved.
My company has done the same with its basic software, attempting to modify code for their purposes. Everyone thinks they can write code, but beware the bugs. With the new buyers, this practice has ended. The new owners prefer testing new code before using them. Nothing is changed until its been tested and all of the bugs solved.
Agreed.
Problems with getting different weapons and electonic warfare systems working together properly has bedevilled both upgrade and new procurement projects in recent years. More and more I expect that the present government will follow on from the more recent decisions made by the previous government and buy equipment that is as close to being 'off the shelf' as possible. This was the case with the C-17 (a very successful purchase) and FA-18F buys. For the same reason I expect there will be nervousness about any changes proposed with the 'Australianisation' of the Hobart class.
Tas
Not that simple re Collins. Apart from the swedish design stuff ups (no tank testing etc....) Kockums had negotiated a fixed price contract on the project. they basically provided a combat system solution that was on its end legs and was using processor technology that was with no upgrade path except without massive rework. When the govt indicated that a sub-standard combat system with limited future was unacceptable and that they needed to build in greater operating capability, concurrency etc... they resisted as they knew that they were exposed to fixed price limitations. ie 286cpu migration to early pentium baseline processing capability.
Basically, they submitted a bid based on WW2 procurement models and got caught flatfooted as the platform had hit the new CPU development curve. Its also why the relationship with Atlas was poisoned as they were subbing to Kockums and were caught in the same fixed price capital spend cycle.
... and I haven't even started on the technology stuff ups that they did... mind you, austgov and RAN don't come out of this scott free either....
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Could be mistaken, but I had thought part of the problem/delay on the FFG-UP was that the proposed ESM (C-PEARL?) was not functioning as advertised, and not so much a problem with the ADAC. If that is the case, then I am uncertain as to what code or software integration problem could have been circumvented by using a OTS unless a different ESM system was chosen. If anyone could shed any more light on the actual delays that would be interesting reading.
As for writing code, that is easy, a chimp could do it. Writing working code though...
-Cheers
HMAS Warramunga in Hobart following Fleet Concentration
HMAS Warramunga arrived in Hobart yesterday. For some reason I missed it coming in and only learned about it from the local newspaper. I must be losing it! :shudder
As seems to be the usual practice with Anzac class ships that are not deploying, readying for deployment or have recently returned from deployment, she had unshipped her Harpoon canisters and was not carrying Mini Typhoon. I am yet to see an RAN vessel carrying Mini Typhoon when visiting Hobart. Obviously we don't pose a threat!
Tas
HMAS Warramunga arrived in Hobart yesterday. For some reason I missed it coming in and only learned about it from the local newspaper. I must be losing it! :shudder
As seems to be the usual practice with Anzac class ships that are not deploying, readying for deployment or have recently returned from deployment, she had unshipped her Harpoon canisters and was not carrying Mini Typhoon. I am yet to see an RAN vessel carrying Mini Typhoon when visiting Hobart. Obviously we don't pose a threat!
Tas
Great picture, were the FFH's built with the 5 inch 64 cal or was it an upgrade?HMAS Warramunga arrived in Hobart yesterday. For some reason I missed it coming in and only learned about it from the local newspaper. I must be losing it! :shudder
As seems to be the usual practice with Anzac class ships that are not deploying, readying for deployment or have recently returned from deployment, she had unshipped her Harpoon canisters and was not carrying Mini Typhoon. I am yet to see an RAN vessel carrying Mini Typhoon when visiting Hobart. Obviously we don't pose a threat!
Tas
I'm pretty sure the gun on Warramunga is a 5" (127mm)/54cal Mk45 Mod 2. If it appears longer in the photo I suspect it is just an optical illusion.
Cheers
Tas
They've been advertising internally for the next intake of SAS and Commandos - nothing has been indicated on the internal stuff about a variation to the CDT's...
The first three Anzacs built had the old rounded exterior shell to the guns. Starting with HMNZS Te Mana, the rest of the Anzacs have the new boxy outside exterior shell. I understand the new exterior shell has less of a radar signature. In fact, Te Mana was the first warship in the world to get it. Nothing special really, it was only a matter of building order.
Is this what has confused you?
Last edited:
The last Anzac class frigate, HMAS Perth, FFH157, reverted to the earlier more rounded gunhouse. My understanding is that it shipped an older mounting that had been used for training.
Tas
That sure looks like a Mod 4 gun housing, I see the Mod 2 and Mod 4's just about every day when I go to work and they are very different from each other.
It was my understanding (from a contractor that worked on both Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns) that the gun mount housing was not interchangeable due to equipment differences between the Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns.
- Status