Even the KIDDS would have been a good buy. Buy all four and upgrade them for less than the cost of the FFG upgrade, they would have been a great gap filler allowing us to sign on to the Flight III Burkes for a post 2020 service entry. On sell the FFGs and build a class of new multi role frigates with AUSPAR as well as the OCVs, that would keep industry happy even with the AWDs being built in the US.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
DITTO
I would have sleepless nights if they were even concidering it
I truly hope it is not even on the radarI don't think the Kidds would have lasted until 2020. They would have been fine until 2010 (maybe) by which time US yards could have supplied at least four DDG 51-IIs to the RAN. As to upgrading the Kidds they had the combat system we wanted. The only thing they would have needed is VLS to replace the GMLS to save on crew and maintenance. A 64 cell strike length forward and a 16 cell SDSS length aft (can't fit a full size VLS aft on a spru can) would enabled 64 ESSM and 64 SM2 which is more than enough.
Nothing is locked in, the project hasn't kicked off yet. But my bet would be on Saab Microwave AMB, as this is being integrated on LHD as the 3D ASR. The system will then already be available on the 9LV CMS, and hence would be an sensible inclusion in ANZAC. It's also a compact design, which would suit the current SPS49 location on the ASMD baseline ANZAC.
Hmm.. This must be something new. I'm not aware of the test you are referring to. This trial is still being planned, they haven't even procured any of the kit yet. Oh well... time will tell.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,186
Sigh...ill be "that guy"...i like the Austal MRV design...there, happy, i said it! and ive mentioned it before so this isnt something new, hell if you go right back i may have been the first to discuss them on this forum...DITTO
I would have sleepless nights if they were even concidering it
We need to stop trying to build warships in the patrol boat role, its for patrolling against angry fisherman and illegal entries, not war with indonesia! stop trying to put too much armour on them! if we go OPV like most countries(they call them corvettes, cause thats what they are)with missles and steel hulls and all that fancy stuff then we could use them overseas, ala GOA, but to go bigger on the Armidales is just one ups manship really.
the ACPB do a good job and crews love them, the only ones who dont were on Freos and use words like "wasnt like this back on" and unless we want to be stuck in the old world, then our current size is a good match, the only issue is lack of room for illegals, which they werent planned for, which is why we are going OPV, to fit bad govt policy into the RAN role...
and to go back to previous post, i would like to see armidales in the GOA as their speed and size would allow them to sit in covoys and ambush skiffs all over the place, but their lack of armour, 5inch gun etc stops govt from sending them(of note most of the fleet did become operationally ready as of may this year)
The evidence given to the SIEV 221 inquest as reported in the press certainly called the outcome of the trial of the commerical units into question, even with the DSTO processing mods.
That would be the SECAR HF surface wave radar that uses Jindalle tech. Works fine for over the horizon detection of big ships but failed to find wooden fishing vessels.
The MRV would be fine as a big replacement of the Armidales with add on modules for stand off minehunting and survey. But they will not provide the kind of capability an OPV brings to the table for staying out at sea. Like at Xmas Island recently when the ACPBs sat out the storm in the islands lee and an OPV would still be banging away on patrol. Might have made a bit of a difference. Add in the Southern Ocean and up top in the Monsoon season and the steel monohull starts to make a lot more sense. Perhaps the ideal solution is 12 of each: 12 MRVs and 12 OPVs.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,190
ideal solution, almost as close in navy terms as the C word which we forbid onboard, common sense
Austal have builts some impressive craft but it does not mean the HSC model is as flexible as thye wouel have us want to believe. The problem I have is it is a HSC and will be very limted even in the envisaged role. LCS is great for the USN as it fits their structure and they can afford such a specialised craft.
Aluminium multi hulls are generally not long lived and have restricted operating limits (forget the speed in moderate conditions), have poor load carring capacity (noting the modules are a necessity and may preclude the carriage of other options such as a helicopter), cost a lot to run if you want to use that speed, have relatively short range if you want to use that speed and cost a lot to build compared to mild steel.
If the despired speed is in the order of 18 to 20 knots sustained (which is what the HSC do) then why bother with a limited hull and opt for a vessel that can carry more weight at a max speed of say 22 to 26 knots. given out budget we could look at a long range ship capable of carrying a larger module and fuel laod in worse conditions................ hence my objection to the MRV.
According to the inquest the test the referred to was a ship set of commercial Furuno 3 and 10 cm radars with processing add ons.
It was someone on the Evolved team who told me the 4 to 3 ratio, (doesn't mean he was right though).
The figures at the time were 6bn for three AF-100s and 8bn for three of the G&Cs. Subsequent hulls will be cheaper as the knowledge and skill base builds so the fouth AF-100 was assumed to be less than 2bn.
The sad thing is some incorrect assumptions were made on the relative cost and risk of each of the options. In hindsight I do not doubt things would have been done differently, in fact done over again I can't help but wonder if an option other than either of the two finalists would have got up.
I heard 8 bil for the Evolved AWD as well but the 2nd pass approval figure for the AF100s was 7 bil.
Ah thanks for that, so Abe said
Even though you may not have two ships available for the whole year, when it is needed for an operation it will be there. And a 4th just makes that a hell of a lot easier.
Makes 'sense'. If you want to detect a very small radar target amongst sea waves you use a rapid scanning ASW radar like all those mounted on maritime patrol aircraft. Of course the trial would have to use something completely different without the werewithall to do the job.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
If the articles that have been around the internet have any truth, will LCS-2 be seaworthy next year let alone in 10 or 20 years? :devil
And even LCS-1, photo's i saw on another forum showed what looked like surface rust on the forward deck both near the gun and at the bow, and the whole side of the ship was black from particulate matter from the exhaust.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,198
If you look at HMAS Perths new upgrade, its dome is black not storm grey. some genius decided building above the funnels, and what comes out of said funnels is not exactly clear smoke. The only people set to win out of these design failures are the contractors who have to paint them every month, same with LCS. More paint more money for some contract...its all part of someones plan
They are both naked which is why they look so dirty as the soot is able to catch on the rougher surface rather than a smoother, slipperier painted surface.
Aluminium is resistant to corrosion thanks to passivation in which initial corrosion forms a hard, non reactive layer resistant to further corrosion. However aluminium alloy used to build ships does not have this natural trait. But they are usually coated like alcade and anodising.
- Status