Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
OT You know the poms should be looking at this option of selling the QE to India seriously... They could sell it for a couple of billion pounds, claim delays and refits need another 5-6 billion pounds and then finally hold out on the delivery of the ship until they receive a final installment of a couple of billion pounds.
:Brilliant Idea, would solve the shortfall in funding - with this windfall the RN could purchase another 2 QE's. Don't say it can't be done, the ruski's just got away with it...
OT Ends...
In todays "The Age", there is an article reporting that HMAS Rankin has been inoperable for two years, and will be so for another 3 years. HMAS Sheahan has been out of action for two years, and will be for another 2 years. HMAS Farncomb has been recalled after suffering generator problems. HMAS Collins is restricted due to engine problems, HMAS Dechaineux is undergoing maintenance, and HMAS Waller is actually operational. This does not look good for our submarine fleet, but is the Journo exagerating things?
Last edited:
Nfh90/mrh90
You raise some interesting and very important points. First , my comment is directed to the NFH90 (or NFH) as one of the contenders for the ADF Project Air 9000 Phase 8 (Future Naval Aviation Combat System) and not the MRH90. Until quite recently the MRH90 and NFH90 were represented as being "identical platforms". That is no longer the case. And the Netherlands for example has baselined its intended fleet on the NFH configuration rather than have a mix of TTH (MRH90) and NFH as was first planned. This change is reported to be due to the significant differences between the two configurations. The MRH90 was originally seen as a "one fleet fits all " solution by our Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). Perhaps that is no longer the case. The NFH and MRH are now represented as being about 80% the same.
The choice of ship restraint and traversing system should the NFH90 be procured has not been widely discussed. But last wekk I heard a representative of Eurocopter's Australian agent state that if procured by the ADF the NFH90 would be modified for RAST. RAST is the system currently fitted to all of our aviation capable frigates. The representative stated the modification required was "minor". The new information was interesting because the RAST and the "Probe and Grid system presently fitted to NFH90 are substantially different (as you correctly imply). The differences apply to both aircraft and ship equipment and the function of these items. I am not sure that the NFH has been certified for operation with RAST. And that is an important consideration. The AWD is another potential complication because I understand that it is planned to have ASIST which is a system similar to RAST and from the same OEM. But there are differences-as you probably are aware.
The interoperability question remains an open question until we see what "system configuration" has been proposed for the ADF's A9K phase 8. This is made a little complex because there are a number of different configurations. And all of these are yet to reach IOC..Presently the Duthch and Italian NFH, although the initial aicraft have been delivered, they have yet to achieve full in-service status. The subject NFH90 are said to providing a Meaningful Operational Capability (MOC) which appears (and I might be wrong here) to be a developmental status that is some way short of IOC and even further back from the fully effective Full Opearational Capability (FOC). The ADF's Defence Capability Plan (DCP) does not presently stipulate an FOC date for A9K Phase 8. Traditionally the ADF allows systems to operate for their entire life in-service as "fitted for not with" . So an IOC system may be the outcome sought. . But the IOC date specified in the DCP is challenging enough given that there are I understand just short of 600 NH90 of various configurations on the order books. The "build it in Australia" approach proposed by Eurocopter would perhaps be seen to present some considerable risks given the ADF's experience with earlier helicopter procurments. But everything is possible I guess.
Sorry that this does not really answer any of your questions very well. It seems to me that the picture is still quite cloudy. And I too look forward to clarification.
Regards
Sping
Dear agc33e,
You raise some interesting and very important points. First , my comment is directed to the NFH90 (or NFH) as one of the contenders for the ADF Project Air 9000 Phase 8 (Future Naval Aviation Combat System) and not the MRH90. Until quite recently the MRH90 and NFH90 were represented as being "identical platforms". That is no longer the case. And the Netherlands for example has baselined its intended fleet on the NFH configuration rather than have a mix of TTH (MRH90) and NFH as was first planned. This change is reported to be due to the significant differences between the two configurations. The MRH90 was originally seen as a "one fleet fits all " solution by our Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). Perhaps that is no longer the case. The NFH and MRH are now represented as being about 80% the same.
The choice of ship restraint and traversing system should the NFH90 be procured has not been widely discussed. But last wekk I heard a representative of Eurocopter's Australian agent state that if procured by the ADF the NFH90 would be modified for RAST. RAST is the system currently fitted to all of our aviation capable frigates. The representative stated the modification required was "minor". The new information was interesting because the RAST and the "Probe and Grid system presently fitted to NFH90 are substantially different (as you correctly imply). The differences apply to both aircraft and ship equipment and the function of these items. I am not sure that the NFH has been certified for operation with RAST. And that is an important consideration. The AWD is another potential complication because I understand that it is planned to have ASIST which is a system similar to RAST and from the same OEM. But there are differences-as you probably are aware.
The interoperability question remains an open question until we see what "system configuration" has been proposed for the ADF's A9K phase 8. This is made a little complex because there are a number of different configurations. And all of these are yet to reach IOC..Presently the Duthch and Italian NFH, although the initial aicraft have been delivered, they have yet to achieve full in-service status. The subject NFH90 are said to providing a Meaningful Operational Capability (MOC) which appears (and I might be wrong here) to be a developmental status that is some way short of IOC and even further back from the fully effective Full Opearational Capability (FOC). The ADF's Defence Capability Plan (DCP) does not presently stipulate an FOC date for A9K Phase 8. Traditionally the ADF allows systems to operate for their entire life in-service as "fitted for not with" . So an IOC system may be the outcome sought. . But the IOC date specified in the DCP is challenging enough given that there are I understand just short of 600 NH90 of various configurations on the order books. The "build it in Australia" approach proposed by Eurocopter would perhaps be seen to present some considerable risks given the ADF's experience with earlier helicopter procurments. But everything is possible I guess.
Sorry that this does not really answer any of your questions very well. It seems to me that the picture is still quite cloudy. And I too look forward to clarification.
Regards
Sping
I did warn we would see these worthless 'articles' appear in the mainstream press again. The standard of journalism in Australia is so low right now it is shameful. It's not even worth paying attention too (unless you want to give them a 'gold star' for stating the obvious).
They just love jumping on the "bash the Collins class" bandwagon. The other aspect to keep an eye on is the fact it is an election year. There will be plenty more 'stirring the pot' in the coming months not just in the defence portfolio but across the board.
There is another article today or yesterday about the 'ADF pay system in crisis' or some such garbage (yes its not ideal but I would hardly call it a crisis). Sure there is a element of truth to all these articles but they are, by and large, beat up hyperbole designed to fish for broader political turmoil.
I am a big supporter of the Sea 1000 project (being a humble RAN grunt) and where they want to head with regard to that - including working with the US (on our own unique design). However I wonder whether there isnt a window of opportunity to at least do some "due diligence" on the Astute.
Whilst we cant buy a carrier we could help out the Brits by locking in a forward contract for 3 or 4 Astutes. Particularly if they themselves are struggling to fund a production run of 7 or 8. Perhaps they could have the first 4 and we could have the last 3 or 4.
These might be available in say 2017,2018,2019 and 2020 and represent our more conventional sub fleet (the last of the 20th century sub design). These Astutes would compliment the Collins class in the last phase of their operational life. This would also bring forward the onus on the ADF to lift the pipeline of human capital into the sub branch ahead of the implementation of the Sea 1000 design. During this phase we might have 6 or 7 fully operational subs in our fleet (3 Astutes and 4 Collins).
This would also take the pressure off the Sea 1000 project to 'rush' its design and/or production. We want the Sea 1000 project to get it right. We want them to explore design and technological possibilities fully and we want them to re-define submarine warfare as the definitive drone warfare 'command and control' platform. We could lose the opportunity to achieve this if we place too much pressure on the project to replace Collins on an annual one for one basis from 2025.
During this critical transition phase (2025-2030) our 4 Astutes would act as the backbone of the sub force allowing the Collins to be retired at their own pace (either for training purposes or given to NZ for free). With the Astute 'security blanket' our own Sea 1000 build is free to focus in on itself and reduce the amount of exogenous pressures which may come to bare otherwise.
Once the Collins are retired we will be left with a powerful and diverse sub branch that is split across two platforms - the 20th century Astute design akin to a more traditional approach to sub warefare and the Sea 1000 (Collins Mark II) which could focus more heavily on a more asymetrical approach to sub warfare and effectively re-write the role subs play in drone warfare in the 21st century.
The downsides to all of this are obviously many and varied. Dual platform sub branch alone might be a pain in the arse to manage logistically (but surely not an insurmountable challenge). The other key issue is the nuclear reactors. As a general rule I am 100% against nuclear power in Australia. But given these reactors are married to the operational lifecycle of the asset then I am far more comfortable this would not represent a step towards a growth in domestic nuclear industries. All maintenance can be performed in UK in accordance with their existing support structures and relevant maintenance contracts we might sign. Yet another downside is the personnel required to man these subs (100 or so). This is problematic for us but given we must move in the direction of increasing our numbers in the sub branch anyway (to meet the needs of Sea 1000) it might be feasible. Lastly - do we want the hassle of haggling with the Brits? If its in our national interest to put up with them whining at us then I can handle that!
Obviously the Sea 1000 would be scaled back to 8 subs (to fund the purchase of Astutes) so that at some stage around 2030 we will have a sub force of 12. Four of these would represent the very best of British sub tech and 8 of which would represent the very best of US and Australian sub tech.
I realise I have probably overlooked numerous considerations so feel free to pick this apart.
I am just thinking out loud. See Icelord I told you I could talk more crap than you! :dbanana
Last edited:
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
I am a big supporter of the Sea 1000 project (being a humble RAN grunt) and where they want to head with regard to that - including working with the US (on our own unique design). However I wonder whether there isnt a window of opportunity to at least do some "due diligence" on the Astute.
Whilst we cant buy a carrier we could help out the Brits by locking in a forward contract for 3 or 4 Astutes. Particularly if they themselves are struggling to fund a production run of 7 or 8. Perhaps they could have the first 4 and we could have the last 3 or 4.
During this critical transition phase (2025-2030) our 4 Astutes would act as the backbone of the sub force allowing the Collins to be retired at their own pace (either for training purposes or given to NZ for free). With the Astute 'security blanket' our own Sea 1000 build is free to focus in on itself and reduce the amount of exogenous pressures which may come to bare otherwise.
Agreed ...ecspecially with the distances and speed advantage nukes have over conventionals.
Also yes to new zealand getting second hand collins if they were ever to go down that path,singapore style,second hand firts while working into subs then new down the track.
Since aus and nz are going to be fighting together when things are dead serious on our doorstep,then id like to see common equipment procurement by and large to the tune of 5 parts aus 1 part nz mirroring our respective populations.
Whilst we cant buy a carrier we could help out the Brits by locking in a forward contract for 3 or 4 Astutes. Particularly if they themselves are struggling to fund a production run of 7 or 8. Perhaps they could have the first 4 and we could have the last 3 or 4.
During this critical transition phase (2025-2030) our 4 Astutes would act as the backbone of the sub force allowing the Collins to be retired at their own pace (either for training purposes or given to NZ for free). With the Astute 'security blanket' our own Sea 1000 build is free to focus in on itself and reduce the amount of exogenous pressures which may come to bare otherwise.
Agreed ...ecspecially with the distances and speed advantage nukes have over conventionals.
Also yes to new zealand getting second hand collins if they were ever to go down that path,singapore style,second hand firts while working into subs then new down the track.
Since aus and nz are going to be fighting together when things are dead serious on our doorstep,then id like to see common equipment procurement by and large to the tune of 5 parts aus 1 part nz mirroring our respective populations.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,327
Id argue with what you said and all, but its been a long shitty week at sea and id rather just laugh at your free time to dribble...so so jealous, but ill get you back soon enough.
Thank you very much. I have to say that with issues regarding rast system, issues about the certified capacities of various types, plus the dedicated experienced capability of the sikorsky in fleet task, plus the more technical issues on interoperability with usn, plus they are our allies the usa (big brother)...i would go for the sikorski despite theoretical or practical minor capacities in secondary roles like land projection, it they would be.
:smokie
I did warn we would see these worthless 'articles' appear in the mainstream press again. The standard of journalism in Australia is so low right now it is shameful. It's not even worth paying attention too (unless you want to give them a 'gold star' for stating the obvious).
They just love jumping on the "bash the Collins class" bandwagon. The other aspect to keep an eye on is the fact it is an election year. There will be plenty more 'stirring the pot' in the coming months not just in the defence portfolio but across the board.
There is another article today or yesterday about the 'ADF pay system in crisis' or some such garbage (yes its not ideal but I would hardly call it a crisis). Sure there is a element of truth to all these articles but they are, by and large, beat up hyperbole designed to fish for broader political turmoil.
I am a big supporter of the Sea 1000 project (being a humble RAN grunt) and where they want to head with regard to that - including working with the US (on our own unique design). However I wonder whether there isnt a window of opportunity to at least do some "due diligence" on the Astute.
Whilst we cant buy a carrier we could help out the Brits by locking in a forward contract for 3 or 4 Astutes. Particularly if they themselves are struggling to fund a production run of 7 or 8. Perhaps they could have the first 4 and we could have the last 3 or 4.
These might be available in say 2017,2018,2019 and 2020 and represent our more conventional sub fleet (the last of the 20th century sub design). These Astutes would compliment the Collins class in the last phase of their operational life. This would also bring forward the onus on the ADF to lift the pipeline of human capital into the sub branch ahead of the implementation of the Sea 1000 design. During this phase we might have 6 or 7 fully operational subs in our fleet (3 Astutes and 4 Collins).
This would also take the pressure off the Sea 1000 project to 'rush' its design and/or production. We want the Sea 1000 project to get it right. We want them to explore design and technological possibilities fully and we want them to re-define submarine warfare as the definitive drone warfare 'command and control' platform. We could lose the opportunity to achieve this if we place too much pressure on the project to replace Collins on an annual one for one basis from 2025.
During this critical transition phase (2025-2030) our 4 Astutes would act as the backbone of the sub force allowing the Collins to be retired at their own pace (either for training purposes or given to NZ for free). With the Astute 'security blanket' our own Sea 1000 build is free to focus in on itself and reduce the amount of exogenous pressures which may come to bare otherwise.
Once the Collins are retired we will be left with a powerful and diverse sub branch that is split across two platforms - the 20th century Astute design akin to a more traditional approach to sub warefare and the Sea 1000 (Collins Mark II) which could focus more heavily on a more asymetrical approach to sub warfare and effectively re-write the role subs play in drone warfare in the 21st century.
The downsides to all of this are obviously many and varied. Dual platform sub branch alone might be a pain in the arse to manage logistically (but surely not an insurmountable challenge). The other key issue is the nuclear reactors. As a general rule I am 100% against nuclear power in Australia. But given these reactors are married to the operational lifecycle of the asset then I am far more comfortable this would not represent a step towards a growth in domestic nuclear industries. All maintenance can be performed in UK in accordance with their existing support structures and relevant maintenance contracts we might sign. Yet another downside is the personnel required to man these subs (100 or so). This is problematic for us but given we must move in the direction of increasing our numbers in the sub branch anyway (to meet the needs of Sea 1000) it might be feasible. Lastly - do we want the hassle of haggling with the Brits? If its in our national interest to put up with them whining at us then I can handle that!
Obviously the Sea 1000 would be scaled back to 8 subs (to fund the purchase of Astutes) so that at some stage around 2030 we will have a sub force of 12. Four of these would represent the very best of British sub tech and 8 of which would represent the very best of US and Australian sub tech.
I realise I have probably overlooked numerous considerations so feel free to pick this apart.
See Icelord I told you I could talk more crap than you! :dbanana
It is my turn to throw the dice:
Submarines: fleet task: defend and attack surface, air targets
special operations task: tomahawk plus great range of movility.
As we comment we can go for two rows of submarines, for example one more for fleet task, with a transfer of technology and the collins experience australia could build very affordable, produced by couples, very reliable and capable, +-smaller, there are various in the market and with an excellent range of action, we defend the fleet, we can have partial perimeters for defending the whole of australia, we can put the fleet close enough for the tactoms of the awd, with a very strong undersea perimeter..many many subs.
The other row of submarines could be bigger in size and range, with the tactoms, thought more slowly with the years, the collins II etc, for the special operations.
Cheers.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,330
The journalism is not always the problem. The great thing about the ADF spin machine is that they have gone down to a state where all media defence writers have been given such little info, they normally dont find out till well after the fact, and with all their free time start to write anything and nothing, but hey beats 'navy news'
There is another article today or yesterday about the 'ADF pay system in crisis' or some such garbage (yes its not ideal but I would hardly call it a crisis). Sure there is a element of truth to all these articles but they are, by and large, beat up hyperbole designed to fish for broader political turmoil.
Thats a great idea and all, but if we operate both conventional and nuclear, some genius government in there "right mind" would demand one class to save money. And most likely we would go back to conventional, because nuclear is "dangerous".
On that, No government would dare go nuclear as the 'greens' are very wishy washy on policy unless its trees or nuclear mining...think where the power is sourced and how they would get it.
The nuclear sub debate is all but over, they will NOT go nuclear as it means pissing people in politics off, ahead of capability.
Another problem is that they would have extreme security implications in sydney harbour like any nuclear vessel that enters(which is sweet FA). While adding on orders to Astute classes is a nice plan, the risk factor is extensive. Another possibility is awaiting barracudda class for nuclear option, but this could lead to a million other possibilities
BINGO!
Manning is the RANs biggest issue at this point in time. Yeah Sea Patrol is doing great work for "skimmers" and alike recruiting wise, but the subs are still being left out, even though they make a ton in sea going add on bonuses.
If you want to increase personnel, move the subs from one base. Being based in Perth or Cerberus~shudder~ is not ideal for submariners, theres some onboard our ship atm that are in skimmer billots. If there were subs in the East, more would head down that road as they would get to see first hand the work required compared to what they do now, for some it would be less demanding but also different...but hey, what would i know, since NGN helps all
once its here, we'd increase working with the Poms, and would create more trips for subs to the UK along with stops along the way...never a downside im sure, that is until you get to see the british weather first hand.Lastly - do we want the hassle of haggling with the Brits? If its in our national interest to put up with them whining at us then I can handle that!
two birds...one return stone:gunI realise I have probably overlooked numerous considerations so feel free to pick this apart.
See Icelord I told you I could talk more crap than you! :dbanana
I shall comment on the news media. Journalists are writers of the liberal arts education, not science. Their achievements are graded by Pulitzers, not Nobels. Journalists don't understand physics or science much if any at all. They are frightened by nuclear power which they don't understand. Nuclear power plants can't explode, but journalists keep asking this question as if they could. The simple truth is that journalists are paid to create controversy. Controversy sells papers.
When it comes to zoning any electrical power plant, the journalists are swung by NIMBYs. They are more worried about ugly transmission towers than they are whether there is enough juice in the system grid to prevent blackouts. That is until their house suffers a blackout.
When it comes to zoning any electrical power plant, the journalists are swung by NIMBYs. They are more worried about ugly transmission towers than they are whether there is enough juice in the system grid to prevent blackouts. That is until their house suffers a blackout.
Linking to what i said before about having special vehicles (small jet boats, etc) in the heavy deck, we can army them with missiles or with sensors, imagine a small jet boat, automatic that is non-manned, that can go at +100kmh, and has magnetic anomalies detector, a passive sonar and high quality "ear", they could be very useful for the submarines battle (increase perimeter, close the gap), fleet task, etc, we can use them dinamically (searching in movement) or quiet (with some floating system for stealth against subs..), with their small size we can keep many of them in the heavy or light load deck.
Always playing!
Regards.
Always playing!
Regards.
Sorry this is a bit of a silly idea when a helecopter can do all of this with greater operational flexiblity (speed, reactivity, multitasking and load out options) and less of the sea state restictions for both deployed and employing such a light 'small boat' system.
I suspect you underestimate the weight involved in such a system given it most cover stowage, transfer, deployment and recovery as well as the mass of the craft (plural) and their associated stores .............. all above the CoG.
I understand the advantages of an helo, but imagine an unknown zone where you want your helo to work, with an undersea drone detector you risk much less, no loss of human lifes, no loss of helo, when you have enough info you can send the helos, also an helo can be 4 or 5 hours searching, a drone can be 24 hours alert at 0 expenditure of resources (man hours, hours of flight, fuel..), just imagine for the price of one helo (40 million dollar for example) you could have many drones, packed in standarized cargo containers, almost not ocuping space, like the uav´s but for the underwater space.
The weight condition is <27000 tonnes of the ship jeje, i understand that to use the dock has a sea state limit for the beach boats to come back and enter in the dock, but small drones maybe ar much more flexible ("rast" system for them), and also helos have that limit (do they can use rast system in the lhd´s?), with two channel of deploymente in the dock, with a middle wall that makes it easier, the thing is for examples if the dock is busy with the four lmce1, imagine a sea state level forbiden for the lcme´s, so you keep them in the dock, you remove the supercats from behind the lcme´s with the internal heavy deck crane (if it reaches there), or just moving them when the dock is filled with the water, and place the drones where were the supercats (with the crane) or using both "doors" of the lcme, from one lcme to other, and from this slowly to the water, and when recovering them, direct to the container.
We cant say things like "associated stores" are going to forbid these items, you dont know like i dont know, the only thing true is that the lhd is very big, i would like to see it with: soldiers plus equipment, aircrafts (helos, jets, ospreys), vehicles ( motorbikes, sidecars, lorries, hummers, tanks), uavs, undersea detection drones (jet, hovercraft, by lips), sea vehicles, that´s even more "total fleet-army-air force" than ever!
Let me say that the weight of the undersea sensors is little, as you can see them in the helos, maybe we are talking of drones of 3 or 4 tonnes and less or more (the cargo lift from the heavy deck to the ligh load deck is 20+tonnes, the internal heavy deck crane is a high capacity crane for the tanks), of course i never tried to design one, but modern warfare is always looking for improvements, research (they are doing lots of research on uav´s), export bussiness, and more talking of the undersea warfare that is what is going to be less well protected than air missiles etc.
Have a nice weather.
Cheers.
Last edited:
agce33
before you respond again to alexsa it might be worth your while to be aware that alexsa is more than aware of the technical and practical limitations of vessel design.
I suggest that you ratchet it back a bit and take the opportunity to learn from people who do actually have an operational and technical clue about these issues.
before you respond again to alexsa it might be worth your while to be aware that alexsa is more than aware of the technical and practical limitations of vessel design.
I suggest that you ratchet it back a bit and take the opportunity to learn from people who do actually have an operational and technical clue about these issues.
I disagree, alexsa is not so aware of the practical limitations of the ship...
I am surprised how logistical issues are rated as so importante or conditioning, sometimes you have to cope with those issues if you want more capabilities.
Thanks.
He does it for a living. He knows a great deal about it.
BTW, have you ever heard the saying "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"?
With all due respect, if you don't understand the importance of logistics then I'd suggest it's you who is unaware of the practical limitations of the ship... particularly in light of this comment:
How much room do you think these ships have, exactly? With all those platforms on board where the hell are you going to put the ammunition, fuel, and maintenance resources (crews/parts/facilities) to operate them all? How will you accommodate useful sortie rates and operational tempo with limited expendables on board, the flight deck operating helos, tilt wing, fast air and uavs, and your maintenance/hanger facilities packed like sardines? And that's just addressing the needs of the platforms themselves - what about the support structures and crew required to operate them?
I'm not talking up my own limited knowledge here but these are important questions.
I see the many important tasks an naval helo can do, the spanish are buying 100 nh90 or so for the three corps, i paste some nh90 data from Conócenos - Presentation - Armada Española
in the part "modernization", with more info and pictures of lhd, s80 submarine, etc..
Sistema de Misiones Navales
· Sistema de bloqueo de seguridad en la cubierta. (security blocking in flight deck)
· Sistemas de movimientos laterales.
· Sistema de plegado. (folding)
· Telebriefing.
· Transferencia en tiempo real de la posición táctica desde el CIC a la aeronave. (real time transfer of the tactical position from the CIC to the helo)
· Sistema de armas antisubmarinas:
o Torpedos MU90.
o Radar panorámico.
o Sonar.
· Sonoboyas.
· Sonar remolcado.
· Distribuidor de pertrechos de situación.
Armamento (weaponry)
7.62 mm MG
12.7 mm MG
20 mm canon
2,75” rockets
Capacidades: 1 torpedo + 1 misil durante la misma misión
It doesnot look much weaponry..
Best regards.
in the part "modernization", with more info and pictures of lhd, s80 submarine, etc..
Sistema de Misiones Navales
· Sistema de bloqueo de seguridad en la cubierta. (security blocking in flight deck)
· Sistemas de movimientos laterales.
· Sistema de plegado. (folding)
· Telebriefing.
· Transferencia en tiempo real de la posición táctica desde el CIC a la aeronave. (real time transfer of the tactical position from the CIC to the helo)
· Sistema de armas antisubmarinas:
o Torpedos MU90.
o Radar panorámico.
o Sonar.
· Sonoboyas.
· Sonar remolcado.
· Distribuidor de pertrechos de situación.
Armamento (weaponry)
7.62 mm MG
12.7 mm MG
20 mm canon
2,75” rockets
Capacidades: 1 torpedo + 1 misil durante la misma misión
It doesnot look much weaponry..
Best regards.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Is this True ??
From Sydney Morning Herald
I thought the problem with Collins has been taking care off. However if what's written here true, then Collins really still in troublesome state.
If any of this has any bearing, then it will raised another questions for RAN on using an unproven design for the next submarines.
Not trying to fanning anything, however when Australia decided on using large Kockums design as base for Collins, RAN actually in my oppinion gamble on the unproven design. With the amount of money RAN asked the Australian Tax Payers to Invest for the next batch of submarines, don't you guys think it's better for Australia on using a Proven design or trying to follow what the South Korea has been done on intergrating German desihgn to their need.
From Sydney Morning Herald
Is this true ??
I thought the problem with Collins has been taking care off. However if what's written here true, then Collins really still in troublesome state.
If any of this has any bearing, then it will raised another questions for RAN on using an unproven design for the next submarines.
Not trying to fanning anything, however when Australia decided on using large Kockums design as base for Collins, RAN actually in my oppinion gamble on the unproven design. With the amount of money RAN asked the Australian Tax Payers to Invest for the next batch of submarines, don't you guys think it's better for Australia on using a Proven design or trying to follow what the South Korea has been done on intergrating German desihgn to their need.
- Status