Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Was that when Toz Dadswell was NOCNA? My dad worked for him there in the mid to late 70's.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is likely the vessel dedicated to this role (and the back up vessel) will be DMS operated vessels. I understand the vessel needs an A frame and over stern capability which the SB does not have.
It would have cost very little to increase the size of the hanger to permit the effective operation of seakings from ANZACs which would have greatly increased the ASW capability of the RAN through using an existing an paid for capability. No brainer really.
I don't see your point on this one. The Sea Kings had their ASW gear removed before the Anzacs entered service, so I'm not sure how they would have increased the Anzac's ASW capability?
peterAustralia
Member
I know its off topic, I was 5 years old at the time
from what i can tell indonsesia invaded east timor 7 Dec 1975. The whitlam goverment ended 11 Nov 1975. Thus as of 7 December, Malcolm Fraser would have been in power, possibly in a carertaker position, I dont know when in december the election was
that was the information I was going on
It may be that prior to 7 Dec the whitlam govt gave a wink and a nod to the invasion. Perhaps they did not want to upset the indonesians. It may well have been many things were happening behind the scenes whilst Whitlam was in power, and he decided not to object to what he knew was likely to happen.
My post was about that governments do good and bad things, on both sides. It was based on the context of Stephen Smith getting a grilling by some here. I dont agree with the latest Sanki Bergan purcahse, my point is that a view of someones performance needs to be objective. If he as a minister has made many mistakes, then I am prepared to listen to them, at the moment I am neither one way nor the other. an aside, my politics is in the middle, have voted for both major parties. If Stephen Smith has made a litany of mistakes, then I am prepared to read them and change my view accordingly, .
a personal view is that neither party held a partcularly moral line regarding east timor for a good 20 years plus. One eighth of the population died in a few years of occupation. On a totally different subject the Khmer Rouge managed to kill 2 million of their 8 million people, and in a way which I find personally abhorrent, most western governments still recognised the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate govt of cambodia after the 1978 vietnamese invasion. It being true that they were one faction of a coatilition of groups opposed to the Vietamese. If there was one group in the last 40 years I find disgusting it would be the Khmer Rouge.
Another moral failing (in my personal view) was the French intrangiance in Rwanda. They supported one faction (French speaking) and were opposed to their removal by forces from Uganda (Tutsi's Hutu's). They in my view put their geoploitical interests above common decency. In a few months if my memory is correct, 800 000 Tutsis were killed by Hutus, while other world powers stood by and watched.
a personal thing, I am 41 years old, have a full time job in paint chemisty. I consider my general knowledge reasonably good, though there are still so many things to learn.
my apologies, I know this has nothing to do with Navy, was just responding to an assertion on who was in power in dec 1975.
from what i can tell indonsesia invaded east timor 7 Dec 1975. The whitlam goverment ended 11 Nov 1975. Thus as of 7 December, Malcolm Fraser would have been in power, possibly in a carertaker position, I dont know when in december the election was
that was the information I was going on
It may be that prior to 7 Dec the whitlam govt gave a wink and a nod to the invasion. Perhaps they did not want to upset the indonesians. It may well have been many things were happening behind the scenes whilst Whitlam was in power, and he decided not to object to what he knew was likely to happen.
My post was about that governments do good and bad things, on both sides. It was based on the context of Stephen Smith getting a grilling by some here. I dont agree with the latest Sanki Bergan purcahse, my point is that a view of someones performance needs to be objective. If he as a minister has made many mistakes, then I am prepared to listen to them, at the moment I am neither one way nor the other. an aside, my politics is in the middle, have voted for both major parties. If Stephen Smith has made a litany of mistakes, then I am prepared to read them and change my view accordingly, .
a personal view is that neither party held a partcularly moral line regarding east timor for a good 20 years plus. One eighth of the population died in a few years of occupation. On a totally different subject the Khmer Rouge managed to kill 2 million of their 8 million people, and in a way which I find personally abhorrent, most western governments still recognised the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate govt of cambodia after the 1978 vietnamese invasion. It being true that they were one faction of a coatilition of groups opposed to the Vietamese. If there was one group in the last 40 years I find disgusting it would be the Khmer Rouge.
Another moral failing (in my personal view) was the French intrangiance in Rwanda. They supported one faction (French speaking) and were opposed to their removal by forces from Uganda (Tutsi's Hutu's). They in my view put their geoploitical interests above common decency. In a few months if my memory is correct, 800 000 Tutsis were killed by Hutus, while other world powers stood by and watched.
a personal thing, I am 41 years old, have a full time job in paint chemisty. I consider my general knowledge reasonably good, though there are still so many things to learn.
my apologies, I know this has nothing to do with Navy, was just responding to an assertion on who was in power in dec 1975.
Whoops! maybe shouldnt reply based on dodgy memory! Sorry guys.
The gear was removable prior to the mid 90s life extension in which it was permanently landed. Dipping sonar was still fitted when the ANZACs were planned / ordered so making the hanger larger would have removed the need for a new helo type in the short term and increased the options for a replacement down the track. Note that variants of the Seaking could be fitted to fire Sea Eagle, Sea Skua and Exocet, so ugrading ours to fire Penguin would likely not have been an issue.
The cost of retaining the Seakings ASW capability, upgrading them during their life extentions to fire ASM (variants of the Seaking deployed Sea Eagle, Exocet and Sea Skua, so Penguin Maveric, etc. should not have benn an issue) as well as procuring additional airframes to cover the required ship flights would likely have been lower than the failed Super Sea Sprog. Not to forget that the Seaking was already in service and the Sprog never made it.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Article 4 of the Antarctic Treaty put all claims to Antarctic territory on hold and no new claims are to be made for the life of the treaty.Yes a lot of people seem to forget that we have a claim on parts of Antarctica. I think we need to work out what exactly our rights and responsibilities are if we don't want Gazprom, Chinalco etc. turning up and taking resources.Do we even want compensation or if it stays a conservation area how are we going to enforce it? Sure I would like a small number of OPV's but we got to start somewhere
So no claims at the moment are valid and there are no national territories. No treaty, and the Antarctic would become a messy free-for-all of claims that would take some doing to sort out (some overlapping claims).
The AAT is just a "dibs" that Australia has on 42% of Antarctica. Given such weighty interests such as the US and Russia (who have reserved the right to make a future claim), and China, India and Brazil (who have not made a claim), I would say 42% might look a bit greedy.
In favour of the AAT is the early claim (1933), that Australia itself is geographically adjacent to Antarctica, that the claim has been recognised by other nations (including those bordering it), that there are currently no other claims to it or overlapping it, and that the nations that could militarily/diplomatically intervene (the US and China) are also countries that are likely to prefer stability and commercial access to resources. Russia is perhaps the most likely to engage in a bit of Antarctic adventurism in pursuit of a claim.
In all likelihood, any dissolving of the Treaty would be resolved diplomatically and not militarily.
What the papers say is that Australia should be making more of an effort to be present in Antarctica, that the profile of Antarctica should be raised within government and that Australia should take more of an interest in participating in Antarctic projects. Australia should avoid taking a passive disinterest in what happens down south and put a focus on everyday participation and an active presence.
Moin,
does the RAN intend to establish a force similiar to the RM Fleet Protection Group?
When it comes to structure , this Force could be modeled on the RAAF ADG.
With the current expansion of the RAN the new ships would have enough spare space to allocate a dedicatet boarding section, similiar to the RM Fleet Protection Group.
does the RAN intend to establish a force similiar to the RM Fleet Protection Group?
When it comes to structure , this Force could be modeled on the RAAF ADG.
With the current expansion of the RAN the new ships would have enough spare space to allocate a dedicatet boarding section, similiar to the RM Fleet Protection Group.
Equinox
New Member
The ability and interest to police and control the territory would go a long way though, particularly in regard to the claim. Rather superficial to claim and yet not to have the capability or interest to do so, that I think will be the biggest decider of what happens in regards to everyone's claims; especially when Australia may end up being burdened with protecting/policing/controlling other friendly nations claims after the Antarctic Treaty finishes. Unless of course, the Treaty is renewed. Which I find unlikely.
I think you've moved the goal posts a bit on that one.
There's a big difference between making the flight deck of an Anzac large enough for a Sea King to lilly pad from time to time if required and proposing an upgraded Sea King instead of the Sea Sprite for the Anzac's dedicated helicopter. Why upgrade an already 20 year old helicopter for a role its not designed for, not to mention having to more than double the size of the fleet, for a frigate that is supposed to serve for 30 years?
Surely if we are looking back and proposing an alternative to buying the Sea Sprite, the answer would be just to buy more Sea Hawks - a helicopter already in service, already specced for the role required, that already fit into the Anzac hanger and that had a guaranteed upgrade path.
Yep, I worked for Eric Johnston for about 6 months then Tos. In the days before email and satcoms Shoal Bay played a huge role during the 1975 Timor affair. The Darwin naval establishment was very small, NOCNA's office/staff, 4 x Attack boats, base engineering, Coonawarra Comms and Shoal Bay which was under
control of Defence.
Eric and Tos were good to work for.
Cheers
Yes well I did move them a little after checking key dates.
We chose the size of the ANZAC hanger, most other navies specified a full width hanger for two (Lynx or AB212) helicopters, we opted for a redesign to accommodate a single Seahawk and could have just as easily specified one large enough to hanger a Seaking or even an EH-101, which was well into trials at the time. An early account I read on an ANZAC searide stated that she pitched quite a bit and could have done with some extra length which would have made improved helo facilities even easier.
The first ANZAC was laid down in 1993, the Seaking life extension was started in 1995. Prior to the LOTE the Seaking had been tasked shallow water ASW on the east coast with the Wessex in service in the utility role as late as 1987 (The UK did not retire the last of their Wessex until 2003). Trials had been conducted on the FFGs but their helicopter facilities were insufficient to effectively / safely operate the Seaking. I was aware of the FFG trial but not of the changes to the ANZACs.
At the time we are talking (early 90s) the Seahawks were A$32M a piece (the only more expensive aircraft in ADF service at the time was the P-3 Orion) where we owned the Seakings and had already bought three attrition airframes with plenty more available. The Seakings also had a 150m long dipping sonar (the Seahawk relies on sonar bouys). As an aside on the cost of the Seahawks 16 airframes at A$32M a piece is $512M (not counting the cost of modifying three FFGs), or more than the cost of a new carrier to operate the helicopters we already owned.
What I am getting to is this is yet another example of a lack of holistic thinking or grand strategy if you prefer. The government(s) of the day elected to spend more on a reduction in capability than retention of part of an existing capability would have cost.
Just an update on the Canberra's, has been a while since we have had an update on them, the first link is to an article in APDR, the second is some newer pics of the progress on Adelaide. A few key points from the article:
"The LHD 1 hull was launched at the Navantia shipyard in Ferrol, Spain in February 2011 and is due to arrive at Williamstown Yard in the 4th quarter of this year. It is currently undergoing final fit out of the hospital, store rooms, accommodation and machinery spares."
"LHD 2’s hull had its keel laid the day after LHD 1 was launched. Currently 67 of its 105 blocks are erected on the slipway"
"All four superstructure blocks are now built and are currently being outfitted at Williamstown. Two blocks have been blasted and painted and the other two blocks are in the blast and paint facility. All three masts are built in the BAE Systems yard in Henderson WA and continue to be outfitted prior to transportation to the Williamstown site for consolidation with the other superstructure build blocks."
"The transit is expected to start in the August/September timeframe with 2 days for float on, 45 days for transit, and 2 days for float off at Williamstown."
Have also read elsewhere the MV Blue Marlin is booked for the task and will begin to head towards Ferrol in July for preparation, so fingers crossed all looking good at this stage
JP 2048 | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - 03 HMAS Adelaide
Cheers
"The LHD 1 hull was launched at the Navantia shipyard in Ferrol, Spain in February 2011 and is due to arrive at Williamstown Yard in the 4th quarter of this year. It is currently undergoing final fit out of the hospital, store rooms, accommodation and machinery spares."
"LHD 2’s hull had its keel laid the day after LHD 1 was launched. Currently 67 of its 105 blocks are erected on the slipway"
"All four superstructure blocks are now built and are currently being outfitted at Williamstown. Two blocks have been blasted and painted and the other two blocks are in the blast and paint facility. All three masts are built in the BAE Systems yard in Henderson WA and continue to be outfitted prior to transportation to the Williamstown site for consolidation with the other superstructure build blocks."
"The transit is expected to start in the August/September timeframe with 2 days for float on, 45 days for transit, and 2 days for float off at Williamstown."
Have also read elsewhere the MV Blue Marlin is booked for the task and will begin to head towards Ferrol in July for preparation, so fingers crossed all looking good at this stage
JP 2048 | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - 03 HMAS Adelaide
Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,557
While there are similar groups in the RAN, there is no dedicated FPG like the RM has.
We has the Transit Security Element(TSE) working out of Darwin on patrol boats for Operation Resolute. While this does encompass any service(army, navy, air force) its starting to become more towards Navy and any rate to be selected as its hard to get army or RAAF personnel loaned for 6mths. While the information reads they are utilised as boarding party they are mainly used is steaming party for vessels apprehended and towed back to darwin, and mostly Seaman of any rank as theres no other vessels to use for training, so under the guise of TSE they do more competency log then boarding(see, moving the trainees to platfroms that can not train them properly like a MFU, note any other vessels like this...)
As for MEAO boardings we use TAG qualified Mine Clearence Divers from the dive teams. The RAN still maintains a ship based boarding capability drawn from crew of all rates, but as ive seen the MCD are doing the same type of boardings in the GOA as the crews did in the persian gulf, but they would rather have a more capable unit.
As much in name, as its the Boatswains catagories main role for boardings,speaking as a dibby this is a load of recruiting BS, unless on Patrol boats.
Prof Alan Dupont
Just heard a Lowy Institute presentation from the above prof. He seems to want to steer defence away from warfighting and towards more irregular warfare. He suggests that too much of DoD budget is being spent on subs and F 35's whilst he supports the LHD's.
What is this chaps standing amongst the Defpros and what influence does his opinion hold with govt?
Just heard a Lowy Institute presentation from the above prof. He seems to want to steer defence away from warfighting and towards more irregular warfare. He suggests that too much of DoD budget is being spent on subs and F 35's whilst he supports the LHD's.
What is this chaps standing amongst the Defpros and what influence does his opinion hold with govt?
I am not sure to be honest but would not be surprised if he is yet another ex-hippy / anti-Vietnam protestor reborn as a defence analyst.
Unable change things from the outside they infiltrated the halls of power and acedamia with the intent of dressing the military in colorful clothes instead of uniforms and turning them into a modernday regional Peace Corps with less combat power than the average bikie gang.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I find it curious that he would be interested in turning Defence away from subs of all things. They are at their core a "special" capability with the potential to disportionately tie up hostile forces since they presence (or absence) is not known. Nevermind their ISR capabilities.
If such a person is advocating against subs in the future ADF, I would be forced to question their motives and/or expertise.
-Cheers
- Status