I thought the Super Hornets were brought to fill the gap incase the delivary of the F-35 was late.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I thought the Super Hornets were brought to fill the gap incase the delivary of the F-35 was late.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The F111's are being retired before F35 is delivered and these will fill the gap in the strike role, yes. However, the government is not going to spend $6 billion only to keep the things for 6 or 8 years. I believe someone has said something here about them possibly being converted to the Electronic Warefare variant later.I thought the Super Hornets were brought to fill the gap incase the delivary of the F-35 was late.
However, neither the F35 or F18 E/F models have the range or weapons carrying capacity of the F111.
I think the only true answer is us to form a group called Carrier power Australia.. Headed by someone with questionable qualifications and spouting hair brained ideas.
Curious, is there a lobby group we can join and support a more effective ADF.
I don't think the SH purchase will be a terrible one. The USN would be interested in buying them back if we really don't want them. They add capability we really need to gap right now, they offer a useful platform if able to be converted either fully or part of an electronic version (may not be that easy).
Even if the F-35 is on time, we won't get delivery all at once, the CBR on the F-18 seems to have been canned so we will be running out of Airframe hours soon anyway.
Even if we end up with a mere 80 F-35's and 24 SH, the RAAF has little to winge about. Particularly if the navy gets a watered down 3 AWD, collins II and only 2 LHD's.
Curious, is there a lobby group we can join and support a more effective ADF.
I don't think the SH purchase will be a terrible one. The USN would be interested in buying them back if we really don't want them. They add capability we really need to gap right now, they offer a useful platform if able to be converted either fully or part of an electronic version (may not be that easy).
Even if the F-35 is on time, we won't get delivery all at once, the CBR on the F-18 seems to have been canned so we will be running out of Airframe hours soon anyway.
Even if we end up with a mere 80 F-35's and 24 SH, the RAAF has little to winge about. Particularly if the navy gets a watered down 3 AWD, collins II and only 2 LHD's.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Based on prior discussions, the forthcoming F-18F Superhornets cannot (realistically) be converted to the EA-18G Growler. To do so would require that the whole aircraft be re-wired essentially, with the existing wiring looms augemented or upgraded as needed.
The framework is already in place internally since they will be Block II -F SH, but to gain the needed access, the aircraft would need to be partially dismantled to expose the needed areas.
Given timeframe, I would expect that the SH would not be available for such an arduous project until the F-35 had entered service in considerable numbers, if not having completed replacement of the HUG Bugs. By which time, an EA variant of the F-35 might be available, with expanded capabilities not available on Growlers.
Enough on the SH deal, it is OT since this is the RAN, not RAAF thread.
I do not suppose you could PM an explanation of the above? It sounds rather ominous.
Given that much seems to be "on hold" pending the release of the new White Paper, is there some way for the public to contribute to it? I recall that there was a way for the public to make submissions, I just did not find it until too late.
-Cheers
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
So, do you think the sea lift ships will be something along the lines of a Bay class or something along the lines of the Point Class?
The final two Adelaide Class ships are relatively Young, what are the chances they will be held onto until the ANZAC's are replaced and replaced as part of that? It would make sense seeing as how they are only three years or so older then ANZAC herself.
I agree that there seems to be considerable merit in hanging on to the two youngest FFGs, especially as it now seems that the upgrade program is getting back on track. This would leave the RAN within one ship of its desired 14 ship surface combat fleet. Manning them, however, would be problematic unless the navy can bring about a dramatic improvement in its recruitment and retention rates.
Re the third sealift ship I will be pleased just to see it remain in the program, regardless of type. Like a lot of other projects the deafening silence about it is a bit of a worry. I do think that the cheaper the option the greater the chance of it going ahead.
Tas
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
About the crews, they would need one extra crew, for an AWD. Would it be possible to go the route of the RN and use crews of ships in refit to make up the numbers of the other crews? or is this already carried out? They'd have the numbers if they ditched the 1.5 crews per ship idea, or reduced the number of crews per armidale class patrol boat (dont they have three crews per boat?), but then they would probably have even more trouble retaining crews.
I think your last comment is spot on. Sailors need time away from their ships to spend with families and friends. They also need time to get away from being on call and under the spotlight 24 hours per day. In wartime it could be and has been done but it would be an undesirable practice for normal peacetime operations. The RAN is struggling to adequately man the ships it has in service now. Finding a skilled crew for even one new vessel will require a substantial improvement in retention.
Tas
We don't want to go down that track. Time in refit/IMAV gives the crew time to go on course, take leave etc. I know I enjoy it when the ship is alongside for 4-6 months straight, I sure as hell wouldn't like to be posted to another ship just for that time to make up numbers.
Cheers
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Just asking the question.
Out of curiosity, Would i be correct in assuming there are three crews spread between two armidale class patrol boats? are those up to strength? And how long are the patrols? they don't seem to be all that big.
Edit:i just looked up the British River class, they are 23metres longer and 4 metres wider with about 10 times the displacement, how come the Armidales are so light?
No public Greenpaper was established
Could it be they are made of aluminium. I would figure steel ships are heavier than aluminium ships.Just asking the question.
Out of curiosity, Would i be correct in assuming there are three crews spread between two armidale class patrol boats? are those up to strength? And how long are the patrols? they don't seem to be all that big.
Edit:i just looked up the British River class, they are 23metres longer and 4 metres wider with about 10 times the displacement, how come the Armidales are so light?
There is a public discussion paper and the public can make submissions:
http://defence.gov.au/whitepaper/makesubmission.htm
The discussion paper is linked there, but here is the direct link:
http://defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/Public_Discussion_Paper.pdf
the deadline for submissions is the first of October 2008
It is not that simple. Aluminium has a lower tensile strength compare to a broad range of steels (even mild steel) and you oftern need heavier strucrure to compensate.
It is harder to work and is often more complex to design with stress elimiation in mind as well as avoid isuse of disimilar metals and assocaited corroiosn problems. A lot of alloys are less resistant to flesing without fatigure cracks and thso that have higher resistance have a much higher cost. HT steel on the other hand is quite stong isn this regard and is generally much cheaper (it also has brittle fracture properties that need to be considered in design) the same goes for mild steel (which is less susptable to brittle fracture). Ships cna be built entirely of aluminium but at a much higher cost compared to mild steel and the vessel will be more costly to repair over its life.
Finally there is the issue of fire resistance. Aluminium will lose structrual integrity at about 500 degress centigrade. You really have to fit advanced fire supression systems and plan for them to knock a fire down quickly and accept the fact that a fire will cause significant damage to the ships structure or the lose of the vesel if you cannot put it out in a hurry. Not a great feature in a warship.
Not sure if that was rhetorical or not
But they are described as being aluminium vessels.
http://www.austal.com/files/delivery/DS_ArmidaleClassPB.pdf
http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=696021DA-A0CC-3C8C-D939D60FAC0C3C2E
Interestingly the Fremantle replacement proposal put forward by Tenix (or was that ADI?) would have had a hull of fibre glass composite construction, similar to the Huon minehunters.
Now that would have been interesting.
I'd like to know how that material compares with aluminium and steel, WRT flexibility and stress fracturing in 50+m vessels.
rb
Last edited:
Brilliantly for a vessel of that size. The hulls tend to be mold constucted in a single piece giving great continuity. The still have to be well designed and there is a large amound of skill (and cost) in large composite structures.Not sure if that was rhetorical or not
But they are described as being aluminium vessels.
http://www.austal.com/files/delivery/DS_ArmidaleClassPB.pdf
http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=696021DA-A0CC-3C8C-D939D60FAC0C3C2E
Interestingly the Fremantle replacement proposal put forward by Tenix would have had a hull of fibre glass composite construction, similar to the Huon minehunters.
Now that would have been interesting.
I'd like to know how that material compares with aluminium and steel, WRT flexibility and stress fracturing in 50+m vessels.
rb
Is there a size limit where glass/composite starts lose its appeal?
I'm trying to imagine a molded frigate size hull
:I guess at that point cost would be a deciding factor apart from strength etc issues.
Now I'm really warming up to the subject - composite type AFVs are now starting to appear - I believe the British had something in the works - not sure what came of it. The Koreans have their Next Infantry Fighting Vehicle also. So composite seems towork as an armoured material As that would also be an issue with larger military vessels.
So are marine hull composites and 'armour' composites similar (enough)?
idle minds want to know...
rb
It's been canned
- Status