The Japanese have been having far more engagement with the ADF in recent years.
I suspect that this would still take a while to evolve into a mil-tech sharing event.
The modern japanese subs are US hull designs anywayy...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I suspect that this would still take a while to evolve into a mil-tech sharing event.
The modern japanese subs are US hull designs anywayy...
Cheers, that is a great picture, and addresses several questions I have, including prop/pod design and size of the dock. Massive ship.
I just wish the F-100 class had a simular pod setup.
I would imagine depending on how Collins II goes the Japanese might want to licence the design or some technologies. However, the japanese are big fans of developing things extensively themselves and not sharing miltech with others (outside of the US anyway).
They're not as efficient for the type of performance required out of a fast skimmer
have a look at the prop design - they're not efficient blades by a long shot
they already do some work for SM3. You'd be surprised at how much they share with those they trust.
I like this point. I like the points made earlier (by others) about the need to maintain 'force' balance, however I like the point that goes to deterrence significantly more.One of the things that subs excel at is keeping the red team locked up and/or nervous. A disproportionate amount of effort is needed to keep track of subs, a disproportionate amount of effort is needed to protect the principle capital assets (or any valuable assets) - and merchant shipping is a whole lot more nervous and vulnerable about subs than skimmers...... bang for buck, fright for fight, subs outpunch above their weight.
I like the idea of serving in a force that predicates a comprehensive ability to defend our regional territory with absolute, uncompromising and undisclosed deadly force.
That we be defined internationally for our dogged ability to defend this region with uncompromising resolve than to be seen as a force that can 'project' itself into other theatres of war in a dangerous manner.
I think it is a sound strategy to invest in strategic assets that have the capacity to force military opponents to the negotiating table. That is value for money. With value being the preservation of human life via conflict avoidance.
Everything else is fairy floss. We just need to be able to credibly make the implied statement: 'If you come to our region with intent on illegally acquiring our resources or to usurp our sovereignty then you will eat endless pain.'
I fear I have no doubt oversimplified things here but I do think the white paper is a sound document and great for debate.
Also thanks once again for this thread its a great source of learning for a new recruit!
Blas de Lezo
Member
I would imagine that props size, shape and pitch are specifically designed to fit and be efficient with the unique characteristics of every ship class they are fitted to.
In most boats the props are the last thing to be chosen,
I am a believer in forward facing props and pod maneuverability, I have been sailing on a 12 m pleasure craft fitted with Volvo IPS propulsion system for three years now, and I can tell you that compared with traditional shafts, you get 15% better fuel economy , better speed , and unseen close quarters maneuverability.
I know that Cunard had some problems with the reliability of the R&R pods fitted to QM2, that is what happens with new technology, but as for prop designs, they look like a blown up version of my 34Kts pleasure craft , QE2 was designed to achieve sustained speeds of 29.5Kts .
The shape and mass of the blades impacts on efficiency and issues such as bleed and cavitation.
comparing those blades (which are obviously not designed to mitigate against acoustic transmission/cavitation) vis a vis the QM2 and a fast combat vessel is not relevant.
cavitation and energy bleed is important even for military skimmers, the demands are very different.
I don't have a problem with pods, (and I've seen submarine designs that looked at dismounted engines such as conformal pods) - but I'm not convinced of their utility in a combat vessel role.
fat-ships, - yes. auxillaries - yes, minewarfare - yes. merchies - yes, USV/ROV's - yes
GM cruisers, GM destroyers, submarines etc.... not yet.
Blas de Lezo
Member
The only point I disagree with you is that prop design is a limiting factor in the use of pods. Pods can be fitted with almost whatever prop fits your requirement , including issues like cavitation etc. Right now you have pods using two forward facing counter rotating props, two backwards facing counter rotating, single arrangements , mixed arrangements and almost anything else you can imagine.
I agree with you that the props fitted on JCI are probably not the best for a DDG, they have after all been designed for an LHD but …. , that on its own does not impede the use of different props on a DDG, props designed for the unique characteristics of a DDG.
Regards
Blas de Lezo
Member
By the way, good article and pictures about QE2 and the difference with QM2, pods vs shafts, liners vs cruise ships. Good pics of QM2 and its pod, prop arrangements, and prop differences.
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/issues/issue26/payne.pdf
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/issues/issue26/payne.pdf
Interesting article.
I find this a very interesting topic from a physics perspective, although I haven't done much work personally on hydrodynamics, perhaps thats why I am so fansinated by them.
I think eventually pods will feature in DDG class ships. Perhaps in the next generation of ships. Like any new technology it needs time to become more widely adapted.
I would think the DDG however could make use of the electrical output for direct energy weapons and other electricals etc. If the RAN's Anzac replacement is based off the F-100 hull then that may be an issue building something ~2020.
I find this a very interesting topic from a physics perspective, although I haven't done much work personally on hydrodynamics, perhaps thats why I am so fansinated by them.
I think eventually pods will feature in DDG class ships. Perhaps in the next generation of ships. Like any new technology it needs time to become more widely adapted.
I would think the DDG however could make use of the electrical output for direct energy weapons and other electricals etc. If the RAN's Anzac replacement is based off the F-100 hull then that may be an issue building something ~2020.
I don't dispute the future, I do however question their suitability for combat vessels in their current design stages.
I've had to look at dismounted engines for both manned and unmanned vessels for work a few years ago, so I am aware of the actual limitations.
that design, on that ship is far from suitable for a combat vessel. ditto for the QM example.
that ship is using pods as contra rotators for port and starboard, so it automatically has a vulnerability if one side of the vessel is compromised.
the blade design is for propulsion, not performance and it will hit cavitation and bleed problems at a specific speed earlier than what a properly designed scythe blade would generate
I would add, that the US has succcessfully developed a completely dismounted propellor on an electro magnetic drive - and that nakes pod technology look very very old in comparison.
Pods are ideal when turreted, and when used as thrusters etc... but they do have limitations.
I would hope that by 2020-2030, the US has its electro magnetics beynd the USV stage and ready for large manned applications (and already envisioned for subs)
Gf I will go and do some digging to find what your talking about..
I have done some calculations and I now feel the Canberra class/JC1 would not be suitable for mildly intense F-35 B operation. It would appear to be severly limited by its aviation fuel load (which I believe is ~700t forum reference). Given that a F-35B has a fuel load of around 7t, your not going to get much more than 100 sorties. Say you have 6 x f-35B and each is refuelled 4 times a day (24 sorties a day). You won't last more than 4 days before needing to be resupplied. If you are only operating 3 aircraft you would still be lucky to see out a week with any helo missions etc. I would imagine any carrier would want atleast 14 days before requiring resupply. 24 sorties a day also sounds pretty low and flying 4 missions per day per aircraft sounds high (but we can carry more aircraft 12 would be possible).
To operate 24 sorties a day and last at least 2 weeks we need ~2150 t of fuel. Thats seems like a massive increase and certainly not one that could be done by small temporary changes.
I think we should seriously concider increasing the Canberra class fuel load to atleast 1000t. I would imagine there may be enough room to allow that sort of increase (an additional ~375m3 gulp maybe not), benifiting rotary ops.
I have done some calculations and I now feel the Canberra class/JC1 would not be suitable for mildly intense F-35 B operation. It would appear to be severly limited by its aviation fuel load (which I believe is ~700t forum reference). Given that a F-35B has a fuel load of around 7t, your not going to get much more than 100 sorties. Say you have 6 x f-35B and each is refuelled 4 times a day (24 sorties a day). You won't last more than 4 days before needing to be resupplied. If you are only operating 3 aircraft you would still be lucky to see out a week with any helo missions etc. I would imagine any carrier would want atleast 14 days before requiring resupply. 24 sorties a day also sounds pretty low and flying 4 missions per day per aircraft sounds high (but we can carry more aircraft 12 would be possible).
To operate 24 sorties a day and last at least 2 weeks we need ~2150 t of fuel. Thats seems like a massive increase and certainly not one that could be done by small temporary changes.
I think we should seriously concider increasing the Canberra class fuel load to atleast 1000t. I would imagine there may be enough room to allow that sort of increase (an additional ~375m3 gulp maybe not), benifiting rotary ops.
In my research into life on a collins class I stumbled across this mildly humorous 'simulation' of submariner life....
1. Invite as many people as you can to your house. Then lock the doors and cover all the windows so one one can see out. Be sure some of your guests (crew) are not ones who bath on a regular basis.
2. Assign everyone a task, that must be done and logged. Example: Cousin Minny must watch the dial on the stove.
3. Now be sure you have three people for every job.
4. Set your alarm clock to go off every six hours so Cousin Minny can be relieved by Uncle Bob.
5. Take the spray nozzle from the sink and spray it all over the kitchen,while you yell FLOODING!
6. Take a shower by turning on the water, get wet, turn the water off, soap up, tur the water back on and rinse off.
7. Prepare the meals to include powdered milk, powdered eggs. Bake rolls at 3am. Serve four times a day.
8. Yell FIRE! and cover everyone's face with black panties to simulate smoke. Time Grandpa Fred to see if he gets to the fire within three minutes.
9.Take the TV apart and put it back together.
10. While you try to sleep, arrange for the loudest members of your crew to play cards inches from your head.
11.Yell REACTOR SCRAM! and turn off all the power to the house. Time Aunt Jean to see how long it takes her to find the breaker.
12. On Friday morning at 0-dark-30 wake everyone up, and make them clean the entire house.
13. Have your niece be able to draw a one line diagram of the houses plumbing system.
14. Pick a movie everyone hates and show it at the same time every night.
15. One week into this, run out of coffee.
Is this accurate (obviously no reactor)? Anyone care to contribute a point not covered?
1. Invite as many people as you can to your house. Then lock the doors and cover all the windows so one one can see out. Be sure some of your guests (crew) are not ones who bath on a regular basis.
2. Assign everyone a task, that must be done and logged. Example: Cousin Minny must watch the dial on the stove.
3. Now be sure you have three people for every job.
4. Set your alarm clock to go off every six hours so Cousin Minny can be relieved by Uncle Bob.
5. Take the spray nozzle from the sink and spray it all over the kitchen,while you yell FLOODING!
6. Take a shower by turning on the water, get wet, turn the water off, soap up, tur the water back on and rinse off.
7. Prepare the meals to include powdered milk, powdered eggs. Bake rolls at 3am. Serve four times a day.
8. Yell FIRE! and cover everyone's face with black panties to simulate smoke. Time Grandpa Fred to see if he gets to the fire within three minutes.
9.Take the TV apart and put it back together.
10. While you try to sleep, arrange for the loudest members of your crew to play cards inches from your head.
11.Yell REACTOR SCRAM! and turn off all the power to the house. Time Aunt Jean to see how long it takes her to find the breaker.
12. On Friday morning at 0-dark-30 wake everyone up, and make them clean the entire house.
13. Have your niece be able to draw a one line diagram of the houses plumbing system.
14. Pick a movie everyone hates and show it at the same time every night.
15. One week into this, run out of coffee.
Is this accurate (obviously no reactor)? Anyone care to contribute a point not covered?
I think that for carrier ops, the Armada would install additional fuel tanks in the dock/heavy vehicle deck. Presumably JC1 has the plumbing, & fixing points for them, & the Armada will have tanks ready to wheel in & fix in place. From what I've read, changing over from LHD to carrier configuration needs a short time in a dockyard, & this would be one of the things that's necessary for.
This is not about Collins, it's been lifted from somewhere else - and refers to life on a nuke.In my research into life on a collins class I stumbled across this mildly humorous 'simulation' of submariner life....
--------------------------
Is this accurate (obviously no reactor)? Anyone care to contribute a point not covered?
I've seen a very similar list on how to simulate life in the USN.This is not about Collins, it's been lifted from somewhere else - and refers to life on a nuke.
My dad served on the O boats, they used to wish for the luxuries of a nuke. A more accurate simulation would start with invite 50 people into your bathroom.Is this accurate (obviously no reactor)? Anyone care to contribute a point not covered?
Back to the JC1
I would be interested in what it would take to convert the JC1 into a carrier.
I bet he has some cracking stories!
My grandfather would never say much about his own experience (in war) but had some interesting accounts of my great grandfather's experience!
He has billions of them. Im suprised the Oberon is still afloat at the AMM in Sydney after he was on it. Im sure there are still beer cans of his somewhere in that hull.
My old man was 6'2 and those hotswap bunks are 5''11 ish..
And the yanks complain about nuke boats! Don't they have candy shops and coke machines on board?...
Then again WWI and WWII era subs would have been even tougher, even with out the war to worry about.
My old man was 6'2 and those hotswap bunks are 5''11 ish..
And the yanks complain about nuke boats! Don't they have candy shops and coke machines on board?...
Then again WWI and WWII era subs would have been even tougher, even with out the war to worry about.
Having been on a russian whiskey class, I can tell you that the Oberon in comparison is the Hilton Hotel....
LOL. That post is gold!
I'm 6'3'' when I rocked up to DFR and told them where I was headed they started laughing at me (in a friendly way).
Especially the officers from RAA and RAAF!
Cheeky buggers!
- Status