Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

err you cannot have it both ways. You were derisive of the benifit of having IP on a 30 YO design (by the way the decision to buit this was taken in the mid 90's but design work did not complete untill 1998 or 1998 so 30 years is a bit of a stretch) yet somehow this does not apply the AB which is an older design and concept of operations. As you note the AB has evolved and the F100 is similarly evolving over its production run. If we were to sue the hull form and parts of the gneral lay out it doesnot make this less effective that other options and needs can be worked into the design (as you point out the USN will keep getting AB until 2025)

If we had built the G&C evolved burke I suggest we wouel ahve been required to pay plenty if we decied to use the hull for the next class of warships. In this sense the IP rights are of considerable benifit IF we decide to go down this track,

The AB's and Tico's can trace their hull design back to the Spruances and Kidds IIRC

 

[splat]

Dear Splat,

On the surface your intuitions may seem accurate but in the real world of people who actually do stuff they aren't.

For example nuclear weapons. No country in the world needs Australia's uranium in order to make nuclear bombs. Uranium can be found in enough quantities from just about anywhere in the world to make bombs. Even tiny little North Korea has enough domestic, extractable uranium for as many bombs as they can produce. Australia's large scale uranium supply is needed for economical, competitive nuclear power, which burns up far more uranium than making bombs. It only takes 5 tonnes of Uranium Oxide to make a bomb but 200 tonnes to run a 1,000 MW reactor for a year.

As for VLS cells on AWDs the USN has a very different doctrine of shooting missiles as do the Spanish and Australians. Because they are doing different things, such as the difference between defending an aircraft carrier and an amphibious landing group. The details of these tactical differences are best left outside open source discussions like this.

Also the USN carries many more of different types of missiles in their VLS cells than does Australia. The F-100 in Spanish service carries 32 SM-2 and 64 ESSM missiles or 8 TLAM, 24 SM-2 and 64 ESSM. A typical early DDG-51 in a strike destroyer configuration might carry 32 TLAM, 16 VL ASROC and 42 SM-2. You’d be surprised at just how many TLAMs are onboard USN destroyers...

So really you have no idea about what you are talking about. Which isn’t so bad if only you could be polite about it. Since you won’t this will be the last answer you will ever get from me.

A- im not interested in if the world needs australian uranium for nuke weapons or not.

B-yes the us navy is doing different things allright,their government allows them to take defence and war seriously.one might say the americans understand the idea that their ships and sailors could one day be in the firing line...gee,go figure.

C-so my opinion isnt on par with yours hey.well so what.so i want ran ships to have more firepower and u dont deem that neccesarry,so that in your eyes means i have no idea what im talking about.and polite...hmm...well i have been polite to you so u must be referring to my posts in response to some other people.well in that case i think they are capable of letting me know what thay think as some already have.
and this is the last answer i get from you.are you sure my opinion about navy and responses to some posts is at the heart of your new found dislike of my manners or is it mabey ideological based?guess im never gonna find out since your not answering me anymore.

D-meh

 

[splat]

What will Australia load all those extra cells with, what real need does it have for 90 or more cells? The USN loads its Burkes out with 2 or 3 VLA and the rest with SM-2's of various flavors and Tomahawks. Australia can't afford nor does it need to fill all those cells, especially if they don't install Tomahawk on the AWD's.
One of the main complaints wasn't that it only had 48 cells, it was that it had them all in one launcher, 2 smaller launchers forward and aft would of been better from a damage control and maintenance prospective but everything in ship design is a compromise and the Spanish went with one larger launcher for whatever reason.



You should think about learning how to correctly type and learn when to capitalize, do so and your posts will be a LOT easier to follow. Also learn how to spell, do so or your posts will start to be deleted. We assume the posters on this forum are adults and expect them to have the spelling and grammar of one.

Flight II Arliegh Burkes have 2 hangars for no loss of VLS cells.



What in the heck are you going on about? 6VLS, 8VLS?

The F-100 has a single 48 cell launcher. The Flight I and II Burkes have a 29 cell launcher up forward and a 61 cell back aft for a grand total 90 cells, a newer Flight IIA has 96, I don't know what you are getting at but a F-100 has just slightly more than half the number of a Burke.[/QUOTE


what will australia load all those extra cells with?missiles.as far as the mix is concerned i wouldnt know.
when it comes to australia cant afford that just means she wont afford

yes sometimes my spelling contain errors but thats just sometimes.
my grammer is up the creek but i do believe my posts are understandable.
and the flight II burkes i overlooked.my mistake.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If we had built the G&C evolved burke I suggest we would have been required to pay plenty if we decided to use the hull for the next class of warships. In this sense the IP rights are of considerable benefit IF we decide to go down this track,

The Gibbs & Cox offer included full IP ownership by the CoA. In fact the USN had already gifted all Arleigh Burke IP to CoA for use in the Evolved AWD design. The Spanish offer of the F-100 IP was very much a counter to the Evolved AWD/Arleigh Burke offer.

The AB's and Tico's can trace their hull design back to the Spruances and Kidds IIRC

Actually the Arleigh Burke design has very little to do with the Spruance (DD-963) design. But the Kidd and Ticonderoga are derivatives of it. The Spruance was designed by Litton Ingalls (now part of Northrop Grumman) as part of the Total Package Procurement concept and the Arleigh Burkes by Gibbs & Gox. The Spruance was the only USN destroyer design since the 1930s not to be designed by Gibbs & Cox. While very advanced in their way they had/have structural issues with the forward section not being very well attached to the rest of the hull. One of the reasons the Kidds were rejected by the RAN and the Spruances decommissioned early for disposal by sinking and scrapping.

The F-100 incorporates a lot of Arleigh Burke IP as it was designed with the assistance of Gibbs & Cox. The AWD decision was really between the ‘baby-burke’ and the ‘mini-burke’...

 

[splat]

Of course operators would like more missles to fire if they have the option but there are practical and monetary realities. Operators don't always get all the background information, they give input which is hopefully fully valued, but they are not the sole source for purcument and capability descions. If you don't know how the criteria is determined and evaluated, don't speak garbage.

Since when was a USN AB in the running! Previous to my last response the discussion was on the mini burke offered to OZ, since then I have noticed it has evolved into a USN AB discussion. Hence refering your response about the Burke having twice the firepower is not correct, when considering what was actually evaluated.

As for Nukes, they are a deterance weapon that I hope never actually have to be used. I am saying that our associations are a deterance factor in its self. Hence militarily, polictically and most of all financially I do not see them being worth the investment.

AG well put, you said it all.

AG the second hanger comment was in response to splat's comment on a 2nd helicopter. I got carried away and should have said helicopter rather than hanger (as the space is also usefull for more than just deployable weapon systems). I was trying to imply that for the AWD's there are alternatives to a second helicopter on board, so its not the be all and end all when considering its primary role.

FC yes it does, my terminology mistake. I was thinking in Sylver terminology where each VLS is in 8 cell modules. The evaluated Burke only had 64 cells.

yes...if given the option the operators would like more missiles with which to go into battle.

i never mentioned the amount of input the operators have in regards to procurement and capability let alone as their imput being the deciding
factor.
i also never said the us arleigh burke was in the running,i just stated my desire for that design or capability to equip the ran.

as far as us navy arleigh burkes not having twice the firepower of the gibbs and cox evolved arleigh burke,well i never said it did,i was referring to the f100 hobart awd.

as far as nukes not being worth the finaciall expense...well it beats the expense of the untested reliabilty of allies coming to the party if the proverbial hits the fan in the biggest way.

Admin. Text deleted. You need to start learning some manners if you want to stay on here. We expect people to behave reasonably, not behave like prats - especially when there are any number of people who have relevant experience in the isues that get discussed. This is an open forum, anyone can join in, anyone can participate - so it's irrelevant who invokes who in the spirit of debate. What we do expect is for people to stay within the spirit of good behaviour and engage calmly. Agree to disagree, but typing responses like the one deleted are not useful for your own credibility.

 

[alexsa]

The Gibbs & Cox offer included full IP ownership by the CoA. In fact the USN had already gifted all Arleigh Burke IP to CoA for use in the Evolved AWD design. The Spanish offer of the F-100 IP was very much a counter to the Evolved AWD/Arleigh Burke offer..

Noted, I was not aware we had full access to the IP on G&C design but it was certainly reported the IP rights were considered important.

You never know what the future will hold but at this point there appears to be a lot to recommend use of the F100 hull and arrangement (or some of the arrangement) in so far as the ANZAC replacement is concerned.

 

[battlensign]

err you cannot have it both ways. You were derisive of the benifit of having IP on a 30 YO design (by the way the decision to buit this was taken in the mid 90's but design work did not complete untill 1998 or 1998 so 30 years is a bit of a stretch) yet somehow this does not apply the AB which is an older design and concept of operations. As you note the AB has evolved and the F100 is similarly evolving over its production run. If we were to sue the hull form and parts of the gneral lay out it doesnot make this less effective that other options and needs can be worked into the design (as you point out the USN will keep getting AB until 2025)

If we had built the G&C evolved burke I suggest we wouel ahve been required to pay plenty if we decied to use the hull for the next class of warships. In this sense the IP rights are of considerable benifit IF we decide to go down this track,

Hmm......does seem a little like hypocrisy doesn't it? I prefer the term "selective appreciation"......

- One day I will have to tell you about my "F100+" proposal that has 32 SM2, 16 Tomahawk (or 8 Tom & 8 SM3), 64 ESSM & 42 RAM + the 8 Harpoons.

Brett.

 

[alexsa]

Hmm......does seem a little like hypocrisy doesn't it? I prefer the term "selective appreciation"......

- One day I will have to tell you about my "F100+" proposal that has 32 SM2, 16 Tomahawk (or 8 Tom & 8 SM3), 64 ESSM & 42 RAM + the 8 Harpoons.

Brett.

No problems

Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

yes sometimes my spelling contain errors but thats just sometimes.my grammer is up the creek but i do believe my posts are understandable.and the flight II burkes i overlooked.my mistake.

The general assumption is that everyone who posts here is an adult and can type like one. Your complete lack of capitalization more than anything makes your posts hard to follow, it isn't a hard thing to hit the shift key before when starting the first letter of a new sentence.
Final warning, keep this up and the other mods and I will start deleting posts.

 

[splat]

The general assumption is that everyone who posts here is an adult and can type like one. Your complete lack of capitalization more than anything makes your posts hard to follow, it isn't a hard thing to hit the shift key before when starting the first letter of a new sentence.
Final warning, keep this up and the other mods and I will start deleting posts.

Ok i will start my sentences with capital letters.

but what does mean?

And keep what up?

If giving my opinion?Then no i will continue to give it.

 

[AegisFC]

Ok i will start my sentences with capital letters.

but what does mean?

And keep what up?

If giving my opinion?Then no i will continue to give it.

Thank you. You can select different colors to use up next to the font size on the reply screen, the Mods like to use red when we are in "Mod mode".

You are more than welcome to give your opinion, I was just referring to typing like a 12 year old.

 

[AegisFC]

The AB's and Tico's can trace their hull design back to the Spruances and Kidds IIRC

The AB's use the same GT's and MRG's but a lot of the axillary equipment and the hull form is different.

 

[Marc 1]

as far as nukes not being worth the finaciall expense...well it beats the expense of the untested reliabilty of allies coming to the party if the proverbial hits the fan in the biggest way.

You haven't addressed the biggest concern, that this will spark a regional nuclear arms race. The more governments that have their fingers on a nuclear trigger, and the more governments that have got to keep these weapons secure the more chance there is all of us getting to see a nucler dawn for real.

You don't think that an Indonesian government would sit idly by and watch Australia arm itself with nukes do you? There's a good chance that some nationalist fundamentalist would take seize power and then we'd have a Sukarno type govenment back just to our north. I daresay East Timor wouldn't be pleased either that a new nasty nationalistic neighbour had appeared just across the border. Of course If the Indo's have the bomb, then the Malays will feel they need one too etc, etc.

Splat, your patriotism is commendable, but when it comes to defence and the purchase of defence items, we have a limited budget. Yes it would be nice to have the latest MBT's, armoured divisions, F22's B1 and F35's, Arleigh Burkes (and probably a CV or 3 too) but our budget will not allow that. This is not North Korea, the Australian people would (rightly) vote out any government that wanted to spend even double what we do now without an easily visible threat*. However, we do live in a democracy, if you think this is a minimum, then go ahead and get yourself elected in, then you can make the changes you wish for. Until then the people in our procurement agencies do their best with the constraints they are given, believe me, I'm sure guys like GF would love to spend up big on flash new toys for the ADF without the limitations of budget.

* Of course by the time the public does actually realise there is a threat and screams out to be defended it's usually too late to put in place the long lead time aquisitions to fill the shortcomings in our defenses, but that is unfortunately human nature (short on memory, long on the belief that in peacetime the ADF is a WOFTAM)

 

[gf0012-aust]

And keep what up?

If giving my opinion?Then no i will continue to give it.

Admin: You've been warned a number of times, and you have had a number of senior members try to make approp suggestions as to how you engage in here.

Giving backchat to a Mod is not the way to go about staying in here.

1st Warning issued.

btw Bold Red is normally the colour if a Mod or SuperMod is making a clear direction or warning. Blue Bold via a Mod is generally a friendly warning or notice to all about a Forum expectation. Irrespective of the colour of the message, any direction from a Mod (Red title), SuperMod (Brown title) or the Webmaster should be heeded.

 

[splat]

You haven't addressed the biggest concern, that this will spark a regional nuclear arms race. The more governments that have their fingers on a nuclear trigger, and the more governments that have got to keep these weapons secure the more chance there is all of us getting to see a nucler dawn for real.

You don't think that an Indonesian government would sit idly by and watch Australia arm itself with nukes do you? There's a good chance that some nationalist fundamentalist would take seize power and then we'd have a Sukarno type govenment back just to our north. I daresay East Timor wouldn't be pleased either that a new nasty nationalistic neighbour had appeared just across the border. Of course If the Indo's have the bomb, then the Malays will feel they need one too etc, etc.

Splat, your patriotism is commendable, but when it comes to defence and the purchase of defence items, we have a limited budget. Yes it would be nice to have the latest MBT's, armoured divisions, F22's B1 and F35's, Arleigh Burkes (and probably a CV or 3 too) but our budget will not allow that. This is not North Korea, the Australian people would (rightly) vote out any government that wanted to spend even double what we do now without an easily visible threat*. However, we do live in a democracy, if you think this is a minimum, then go ahead and get yourself elected in, then you can make the changes you wish for. Until then the people in our procurement agencies do their best with the constraints they are given, believe me, I'm sure guys like GF would love to spend up big on flash new toys for the ADF without the limitations of budget.

* Of course by the time the public does actually realise there is a threat and screams out to be defended it's usually too late to put in place the long lead time aquisitions to fill the shortcomings in our defenses, but that is unfortunately human nature (short on memory, long on the belief that in peacetime the ADF is a WOFTAM)

Yeah a response to an australian nuclear aquisition would more than likely result in an equivalent push by nations in the region (and the resulting chain reaction with their neibhours...and so on and so on...) to aquire thier own nukes,or short of that put forward a strong argument of hypocrisy to the world as to why australia (if their wasnt a push by the united states and european allies to pressure aus into abandoning such a programme) is allowed them when others are deemed as to unstable,extremist or just plain arent going to be allowed them.

And yes as a nation we do have a limited budget so i think the cost of aquiring,manning and operating a nuclear detterent is going to be cheaper than than the alternate,which is the multiple billions upon billions a conventional full time military force would require to aquire,man and operate.
Im wanting a capability of detterence for my nation of 21 odd million people,a deterence that wont stress the economy to the levels a full time conventional force would,a conventional full time force that was and was seen to be a credible conventional force by both australia and any would be aggresors.So in my opinion to finance such a conventional force would be completely unattainable for australia in the shadow of the 2 soon to be (in the not to distant future) mega powers,one to the north and the other to the north west.Now yes we have allies,allies that as i have said have not been tested (as theres been no precedent) in the entering into of a nuclear showdown with a rival nuclear power in the defence of an ally.
Also allies dont last forever so in the event of a split we would be like a calf split from the herd and thats my greatest fear.Thats a position no australian government worthy of being in government should allow to eventuate,so any regional or global responses to an australian nuclear push is the lesser fear.

And the sarcasm at the end...meh

 

[splat]

Admin: You've been warned a number of times, and you have had a number of senior members try to make approp suggestions as to how you engage in here.

Giving backchat to a Mod is not the way to go about staying in here.

1st Warning issued.

btw Bold Red is normally the colour if a Mod or SuperMod is making a clear direction or warning. Blue Bold via a Mod is generally a friendly warning or notice to all about a Forum expectation. Irrespective of the colour of the message, any direction from a Mod (Red title), SuperMod (Brown title) or the Webmaster should be heeded.

I said- Nothing makes me sicker in the stomach than poloticians who use the term we cant afford as opposed to we wont afford.

You replied with-
If your going to slagg off at the people who make the assessment on capability for their fellow australians(and the assessment process includes people who use the damn things)-then i sure as hell hope you have a good employment history to sit on the internet and slag off at people who do this for a living and are often ex warfighters/users.

I suggest you calm down in your unbridled enthusiasm because your sure as hell are starting to piss off the proffesionals who do drive bys in here and who have functional experience.

So your response had no bearing or relevance in regards to what i posted,all it achieved (both in my eyes and in the eyes of this forum) was that you are a nasty piece of work who is just waiting in the wings for some fodder to come forward for you to vent your nasty spleen.
Well it back fired in this case and now your trying to save face by singling out my behaviour to others on this forum.

As for the others,well they just did a tag team to show their loyalty and didnt hesitate to initiate the insults and send them my way,so you see my insults were retalitory.
But i know that dont matter to you because you got your foot in your mouth so you are hell bent at having the last say or ejecting me from this forum.
If you do then it will just show you for what you are...a below the belt i can give it out but i cant take it back and i must save face and since cant extract foot from mouth then i will banish the source of my discomfort.

 

[alexsa]

.......

Im wanting a capability of detterence for my nation of 21 odd million people,a deterence that wont stress the economy to the levels a full time conventional force would,a conventional full time force that was and was seen to be a credible conventional force by both australia and any would be aggresors.So in my opinion to finance such a conventional force would be completely unattainable for australia in the shadow of the 2 soon to be (in the not to distant future) mega powers,one to the north and the other to the north west.Now yes we have allies,allies that as i have said have not been tested (as theres been no precedent) in the entering into of a nuclear showdown with a rival nuclear power in the defence of an ally.
Also allies dont last forever so in the event of a split we would be like a calf split from the herd and thats my greatest fear.Thats a position no australian government worthy of being in government should allow to eventuate,so any regional or global responses to an australian nuclear push is the lesser fear.

And the sarcasm at the end...meh

Nuclear, including delivery systems, are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination so you will not be saving much. As you will still need a conventional capability so it will end up costing more.

If you main focus of your defence is deterant than your only fall back position is to use it. I susgest if we are in the situation where nukes are being considered then a lot of allies and potential eneries will take and interst and I doubt any of them would be suggesting we press the button to address a regional issue. IMV this is not a desirable way to defend our 21 million.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But i know that dont matter to you because you got your foot in your mouth so you are hell bent at having the last say or ejecting me from this forum.
If you do then it will just show you for what you are...a below the belt i can give it out but i cant take it back and i must save face and since cant extract foot from mouth then i will banish the source of my discomfort.

No, you were warned by other Mods and you had complaints from other members about your posting style. You're being banned now because you persist in being a prat. The Mods have better things to do than play nursemaid to someone who is persistently intemperate.

The offensive parts of your comments were deleted. You seem to have an appalling recall if you think that it was just about slagging off at Politicians

Spend some time working out how to participate like an adult if you ever decide to come back.

 

[Marc 1]

And the sarcasm at the end...meh

Note, the sarcasm was not directed at you, more at the Australian populace. Not so much sarcasm as fact.

 

[icelord]

Thanks Alexsa.

Talking about smaller crews, are the rumors true that the LHD could possible be crewed by a much smaller crew (<30) if used as a basic sealift ship?

Is it possible to crew other ships in this manner outside of war time? Could be useful to reduce seatime to help retention while giving junior crew a chance to stepup and have a go.


Would many of the commerical shipping accidents happen if they had larger crews? While the automation does cut down on manning, watching the lights isn't the same as someone actually watching whats going on. Given that most commerical sealift vessels stick to safe well travelled sealanes. How many bulk cargo vessels travel through reefs? What about travelling through ice? In these more demanding conditions don't they take extra crew.

the current "official" release states a crew of 242, a spec of the bridge i noticed the other day has a small print stating 300+ crew for it, the specs are more recent release internally. even if it was a sealift, your still looking at 200. Techos, greenies, dibbys,cooks, officers etc, plus comms all add up in the end. hell when you need 70 bosun's you know its going to be a big arse crew,to bare min. it would be way to dangerous, sealift still needs protection, and maintanence, you have a better chance of getting 30 on tobruk then LHD