Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
LHD accomdation seems pretty good from the photos I've seen (seatrials? they are on one of the links in this forum I think in a video).

Embarked forces are only going to be there for a short ride. I don't know if embarked forces will always be full numbers (Im guessing not). If there is an policing emergency regionally or natural disaster where they want aviation, sea lift but not a full cohort of combat troops (logistics flying in?).

Either way it proberly beats dozing under a hutchi in some mosquito hole.

Few weeks. They have a huge mess, gym, I wonder if they will put a Harry Pies in their, as there is a fair wack of room looking at the cut away pic and some of the layout. That full length deck is huge!! Its not like everyone is going to be restrained to cabins all the time, the mess/rec/misc spaces are huge and offer people a real place to be other than cabins. I would imagine much like on the US carriers, some of that space can be allocated for baskball/netball areas for long deployments. Heck, if they don't get a move on with the helos those aviation decks could be completely empty for the first few years.

One of the big advantages of having a big ship is that you will get much more functionally useful large spaces and not just little rabbit holes with low celings and odd dimentions.

Go into HMAS Onslow and see if you like the accomodation in that. And thats after the deluxe accomodation removing the rear torpedos and putting more bunks in. Hot swap with three people, pissing/crapping into a hole in the wall with your legs in the walkway and do it for a month or more with no coms or air or sunlight. A real sign of the progress over the past 40 years (I know I know, unfair comparison with a surface ship, but Vampire isn't much nicer either).
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It’s a fair question and the first pass approval for the AWD involved selecting AEGIS over competitors. Some of the other systems investigated by the RAN at various times for the AWD included NTDS (as on the Kidd class), APAR (as on the Dutch and German AWDs) and the French-British systems that use the Aster missile.

However AEGIS was the shoe in because of an earlier MoU between Australia and the USA on Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). This is the real reason we want AEGIS not the SPY-1 radars but the ability to use multiple platforms radar measurements to create a single, extremely quick and very accurate radar picture. Each AWD will also be using the radar measurements of a SPY-1D(V), SPQ-9B, 2-3 Anzac PAR Systems, 2-3 SPS-49s and a Wedgetail MESA to create a single radar picture.

As to BMD what Australia is interested is not so much SM-3 which is a mid course weapon and designed to shoot down long range ballistic missiles as they sail overhead en route to some poor city. The nascent BMD requirement is to provide protection for deployed forces not the Australian homeland so is interested in US efforts for terminal weapons that are coming down towards your ship or nearby amphibious landing. For this the US is working on a sea based version of the PAC-3 MSE as the interceptor.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It’s a fair question and the first pass approval for the AWD involved selecting AEGIS over competitors. Some of the other systems investigated by the RAN at various times for the AWD included NTDS (as on the Kidd class), APAR (as on the Dutch and German AWDs) and the French-British systems that use the Aster missile.

Was that Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS), or New Threat Upgrade (NTU), or have the acronym gremlins struck again, as they always seem to in defence, and there is another meaning for NTDS?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
What are people's view about why Australia went down the AEGIS route? noting:
*
RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)
*
and in particular:
*
The Joint United States and Australia MOU was signed July 2004 and provides a 25 year framework for cooperation on missile defense
It's awesome. We should be getting MORE first class off the shelf kit and not praying that Australian Industry and ADF can actually work together, avoid scope creep and actually deliver a product on time and on or under budget and spending billions "locally" and delivering SFA capability...
 
It's awesome. We should be getting MORE first class off the shelf kit and not praying that Australian Industry and ADF can actually work together, avoid scope creep and actually deliver a product on time and on or under budget and spending billions "locally" and delivering SFA capability...
Ahh logic it's somehow lost on the executive. Why pay for existing world class capability when you can develop your own inferior capability for 4 times the cost.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It's awesome. We should be getting MORE first class off the shelf kit and not praying that Australian Industry and ADF can actually work together, avoid scope creep and actually deliver a product on time and on or under budget and spending billions "locally" and delivering SFA capability...
I would modify that and say forget about the praying and award work on merit as has happened with JSF etc. There are SMEs and primes in Australia that can stand on their own two feet if not for political and parochial interests. All we need to do is build on completed projects with follow on work and give successful primes greater autonomy in selecting their sub contractors and partners.
 
I've personally witnessd defence award a 15 million dollar hi tech contract to a random mining company. It failed so they threw another 10 million at it and it still failed. In the end they put it in a shed and pretended it was on the orbat.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I've personally witnessd defence award a 15 million dollar hi tech contract to a random mining company. It failed so they threw another 10 million at it and it still failed. In the end they put it in a shed and pretended it was on the orbat.
I don’t doubt that for a second and have been on the receiving end of some very questionable work myself. In fact on occasion I have had some tool explain to me, as if I am an imbecile, that everything is according to contract and there is no problem, i.e. the person identifying the issue is the problem not the deficient product or the twit who thought to foist it up on us.

Some of the worst examples have been from overseas, the main problem here being the “near enough is good enough” attitude of our home grown decision makers. You know its wrong, they know its wrong but they are the ones who signed off on it so they will pretend all is rosy until it becomes someone else’s problem and they are in the clear, then it is a case of it was tracking well when I handed it over…...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I would modify that and say forget about the praying and award work on merit as has happened with JSF etc. There are SMEs and primes in Australia that can stand on their own two feet if not for political and parochial interests. All we need to do is build on completed projects with follow on work and give successful primes greater autonomy in selecting their sub contractors and partners.
True. I obviously have nothing against local industry and all things considered I'd RATHER they get the work, it's just that we flush SO much down the toilet with the performance of most of our primes, for nothing more than the perceived political benefit of investing in, as they say on South Park, "our jubs..."

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5pqt1sM8w"]YouTube - South Park - They took our jobs![/nomedia]

And then we repeat. And repeat and so on. It's sickening what they will do with allegedly "public money"...
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
True. I obviously have nothing against local industry and all things considered I'd RATHER they get the work, it's just that we flush SO much down the toilet with the performance of most of our primes, for nothing more than the perceived political benefit of investing in, as they say on South Park, "our jubs..."

YouTube - South Park - They took our jobs!

And then we repeat. And repeat and so on. It's sickening what they will do with allegedly "public money"...
Some of our primes and SMEs relish the chance to work with the worlds best, listen, learn and often contribute to the know how of the capability partners, while delivering superb quality at a competitive price. Others assume they are the best, don't consult, don't listen and end up screwing the everyone else involve when they blow out the schedule and stuff the quality, then demand (and receive) a premium to fix what they should have done properly in the first place.

The thing with MOTS is it generally has had the bugs ironed out by the parent service, its a bit like buying the Series II Folden Falcodore instead of the brand new model when it is first released. You know the series one will have fit, function and reliability issues that can only be identified once production models hit the road and do some real world kilometres, once the problems have been identified they can be fixed. This is what we get with MOTS, the fully (or sometimes mostly) sorted series two model.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As an aside, many nations subsidise their domestic industries to a far greater extent that we do and a big part of the subsidies are aimed at securing export contracts. They still make a loss but not as big as they would building extra gear for themselves. When we buy MOTS / COTS we add to their economy of scale, supporting their industry as we leave ours to wither.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Was that Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS), or New Threat Upgrade (NTU), or have the acronym gremlins struck again, as they always seem to in defence, and there is another meaning for NTDS?
NTU was an upgrade of the sensors and computer suite for NTDS ships. Aegis also uses elements of NTDS as well (at this point just signal types for various interfaces).
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
NTU was an upgrade of the sensors and computer suite for NTDS ships. Aegis also uses elements of NTDS as well (at this point just signal types for various interfaces).
I was referring to the Mk 74 Mod 14/15 missile fire control system which is the NTU (New Threat Upgrade) to NTDS (Naval Tactical Data System). The Mk 74 solution the RAN looked at was to be fitted to an Anzac class frigate with the SPS-48 3D radar or the legacy TIR. Mk 74 Mod 14/15 has ICWI illumination for firing SM-2 missiles.

Before the AWD and FFG Upgrade the RAN’s AAW capability was to be recapitalised with additional and/or upgraded Anzac class frigates fitted with an AAW system. In 1995/96 designs were prepared of this hull with either AEGIS with SPY-1F and Mk 74.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Before the AWD and FFG Upgrade the RAN’s AAW capability was to be recapitalised with additional and/or upgraded Anzac class frigates fitted with an AAW system. In 1995/96 designs were prepared of this hull with either AEGIS with SPY-1F and Mk 74.
It was thought about, and there was also some consideration of stretching the hulls to accommodate enhanced sensors and weapons, but it didn't go much further than a few sketches at that stage; genesis of WIP.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
It was thought about, and there was also some consideration of stretching the hulls to accommodate enhanced sensors and weapons, but it didn't go much further than a few sketches at that stage; genesis of WIP.
From what I've read, it went a bit further than a "few drawings"...

AMT - ANZAC WIP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top