That makes sense, where abouts are they located?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
http://www.revistanaval.com/album/1-2008-06-05-f105-awd-hobart/3
That link was posted earlier, if you run your mouse over the picture it explains what the different parts are, the tube door is behind the RHIB's and is a slightly darker gray square. They are probably still Mk-32 tubes, just mounted on the inside of the ship like on the old (and gone) Spruance class.
The RHIB is far more important than the SVTT. MOBEX, boat transfers, etc.
Ship launched torpedoes are a waste of time very easy to evade you would have to one very unlucky Sub CO to be taken out by one.
nfloorl:
Considering the same weapon commonly used on other assests, such as helicopters, martime patrol aircraft and even long range ship deployable systems (Say ASROC) it would appear that Submarines have nothing to worry about.Ship launched torpedoes are a waste of time very easy to evade you would have to one very unlucky Sub CO to be taken out by one.
Or is your point that surface ships cannot hunt submarines?
Care to explain your comment.
Like alexsa I would be interested in clarification about this comment. A helicopter increases the range that the weapon can be deployed but the basic torpedo is the same as one launched from a ship. In any case the point has already been made that RAN surface warships will continue to deploy AS torpedoes. They are carried by the Anzacs and will also be carried by the Hobarts.Ship launched torpedoes are a waste of time very easy to evade you would have to one very unlucky Sub CO to be taken out by one.
Tas
While submarines have an advantage, surface ships and their helicopters, along with ASW patrol planes can still sting a submarine with depth charges and torpedoes underwater. On the surface a submarine is just as vulnerable to guns and missiles as surface ships. Only submariners discount this vulnerability.
there are a couple of members who are submariners on this forum, and a similar number of those who have been involved in ASW "above water", you might want to reconsider your wording a bit....
Is that so. So you have not been using a tail then. Again I would be really intereted to know how many TASO's have told you this.
Submariners are quite sure of themselves and in many situations are justified in being so, however, to treat surface ships with such distain is foolish. New all electric combatants (i.e. electric propulsion) have the potential to be very quiet and the advantage to being able to deploy their own air assests. This combined with towed array, modern sonar and air deployed search capability mean they will be a very real threat to a submarine.
Anzac class frigates are a very quiet platform with low detection ranges when they are traveling below CIS.
Aircraft launched torpedoes are pretty effective and very hard to evade if they are dropped right on top of you.
Most Warries like charging around loud and fast and turning and burning with their radars.
Which gives huge interception ranges surface sailors have no idea about noise hygiene (like such things as noise shorts and normal banging and clanging that goes on).
I dont believe a Australian submarines would ever have a warship sneak up on it.
Aircraft launched torpedoes are pretty effective and very hard to evade if they are dropped right on top of you.
Most Warries like charging around loud and fast and turning and burning with their radars.
Which gives huge interception ranges surface sailors have no idea about noise hygiene (like such things as noise shorts and normal banging and clanging that goes on).
I dont believe a Australian submarines would ever have a warship sneak up on it.
Those in a modern western SSK(or SSG) would be lucky to have a SSN sneak up on them.
A submarines key advantage is stealth. Particularly conventional subs who must stay very quiet because there is no way they can outrun anybody.
There is a reason why submariners call surface ships "targets". Most surface ships aren't operated the same level as a submarine, because they can't. On the surface it helps to be fast, active, observant, etc. Which usually results in loud and clear noises.
There have been plenty of cases where submarines have snuck through active ASW screens and taken pictures of props in unbeliveable conditions. These submarines in war time wouldn't have to get that close to a target to take it out. In some cases they could be OHT and still take out certain targets. Thats a massive volume of water you have to screen. Even with an entire taskforce..
A submarines key advantage is stealth. Particularly conventional subs who must stay very quiet because there is no way they can outrun anybody.
There is a reason why submariners call surface ships "targets". Most surface ships aren't operated the same level as a submarine, because they can't. On the surface it helps to be fast, active, observant, etc. Which usually results in loud and clear noises.
There have been plenty of cases where submarines have snuck through active ASW screens and taken pictures of props in unbeliveable conditions. These submarines in war time wouldn't have to get that close to a target to take it out. In some cases they could be OHT and still take out certain targets. Thats a massive volume of water you have to screen. Even with an entire taskforce..
Oht???
I have always felt the key advantage a submarine has over a surface ship is they work almost exclusively in an acoustic environment where submarines find themselves the consummate experts.
I am curious about the Canberra LHDs
There has been speculation that the 2nd should be fitted out as a light carrier using the F-35B or that an additional vessel could be aquired for this purpose. Whilst this will ultimately be a political decision for others, I have a few questions.
Reportedly the Juan Carlos can 30 Harrier IIs in the aircraft carrier mode, using the light vehicles bay as storage zone; I suspect at minimum the Canberras could do like wise.
Just for speculation:
How difficult would it be to develop a dedicated Carrier version based of the Canberra? I assume the amphibious capability could be removed allowing decidated aircraft facilities including the additional munitions storage that would be required in a genuine light carrier?
Would that improve the operation of air assets?
There has been speculation that the 2nd should be fitted out as a light carrier using the F-35B or that an additional vessel could be aquired for this purpose. Whilst this will ultimately be a political decision for others, I have a few questions.
Reportedly the Juan Carlos can 30 Harrier IIs in the aircraft carrier mode, using the light vehicles bay as storage zone; I suspect at minimum the Canberras could do like wise.
Just for speculation:
How difficult would it be to develop a dedicated Carrier version based of the Canberra? I assume the amphibious capability could be removed allowing decidated aircraft facilities including the additional munitions storage that would be required in a genuine light carrier?
Would that improve the operation of air assets?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
"Over the horizon" with a typo?
- Status