Tee, only one watch keeper?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I can't help but think that it's a blessing that all they did was take a couple of shotguns and pistols. What if they'd had more sinister motives?
I get the impression that given the sensitivity that not a long of information will come out via members here?
No doubt a lot of people are being asked a lot of questions at the moment.
I get the impression that given the sensitivity that not a long of information will come out via members here?
No doubt a lot of people are being asked a lot of questions at the moment.
The local media state that security upgrades (CCTV cameras, new gates etc) had been purchased but have not been installed because of the latest cuts. They also report that the programmed security upgrades to bring Larrakeyah up to the southern/Holdsworthy standards had also been deferred.
I understand that there is no duty watch when the boats are in DNB. On board security is provided by the contractor/DMS. Icelord could confirm this or those with ACPB current experience. The days of full duty watches have long gone.
It was also reported that the magazines and ammo for the stolen weapons were locked in a separate and more secure place and were not stolen.
Regards
Last edited by a moderator:
Gordon Branch
New Member
The integration of the island of the CANBERRA is proceeding at Williamstown in Victoria.
All Images - FotoWeb 7.0
For those who do not know Williamstown it is here: [ame="http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ll=-37.861327,144.912297&spn=0.006166,0.014226&t=h&z=17"]Google Maps[/ame]
I think the fitting out wharf is where the two NZ OPVs are in the Google Maps picture.
All Images - FotoWeb 7.0
For those who do not know Williamstown it is here: [ame="http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ll=-37.861327,144.912297&spn=0.006166,0.014226&t=h&z=17"]Google Maps[/ame]
I think the fitting out wharf is where the two NZ OPVs are in the Google Maps picture.
There is speculation that the intruder gained access by sea, so the above measures may have been of no use anyway.
Certainly is a wake up call for RAN security. No doubt some other program will have to be sacrificed to pay for beefed up security measures.
Can't have anything interfering with the budget surplus, can we!
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Good to see they are getting on with it.
Couple photos of JC1 and Canberra's superstructure from roughly the same position on the flight deck.
They show the clear differences to the front below the bridge between the two, I know a little while back, when someone uploaded a BAE video of the front block being moved to the fitting out wharf, there was speculation as to what the "protrusion" was for on Canberra, but I don't think there was a clear answer.
If you have a close look at the photo of JC1 it appears that, lower down and directly onto the face of the bridge structure, a "swing" arm is mounted which appears to be associated with the refuelling at sea equipment below it.
On Canberra, the fittings in the four corners of the protrusion look the same as the the fittings that attach the swing arm to JC1.
Anyway, that's what I think it might be!
Just been reported that a unit in Darwin has been raided and a person in custody, all weapons have been recovered 
I have been looking at the armament for the Canberra class ships, Is it just me or are they are little under-armed with no AA capability. Sure they say that job is for its escorts but that will mean the Canberras will always need an AA escort. That will also probably mean that 2 out of the 3 new Hobart class ships will always be assigned to the Canberras (especially when they operate away from Australia) leaving one for to use with the fleet.
Also why keep the ski jump ramp on the Canberras?, not like we are looking at getting and operating the STOVL F35IIs? or should we. An Amphibious operation would need air cover and relying on the land base aircraft is a bit far fetched if we could operate air support from the Canberras (especially since the air force will be operating F35IIs, the only difference would be that the STOVL ones don't have to go far to rearm)
Also why keep the ski jump ramp on the Canberras?, not like we are looking at getting and operating the STOVL F35IIs? or should we. An Amphibious operation would need air cover and relying on the land base aircraft is a bit far fetched if we could operate air support from the Canberras (especially since the air force will be operating F35IIs, the only difference would be that the STOVL ones don't have to go far to rearm)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If one reads further back in this thread, this has all been covered before. To quickly recap it though, it is something like this.
With 3 AWD in RAN service, there is going to be at most a single vessel available at any given time, with a surge capability of two vessels. This is also assuming that an AWD is not assigned a distant station/deployment, much like when an FFG or ANZAC-class FFH was deployed to the Persian Gulf. What this means, is that if any sort of RAN task force was operating, a Canberra-class LHD (or perhaps both of them if they are on a surge deployment) will be part of the task force.
At present, it is believed that the LHD's armament is to consist of some Typhoon mounts with 25 mm cannon for self-defence protection vs. FAC. It is also believed that some of the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS mounts will be fitted from a weapons pool as needed. That is how it had worked with Bill & Ben. They were capable of being fitted, but depending on what the area of operations and mission were, Phalanx were not always fitted.
The reason the ski jump is still part of the LHD design, is that it was deemed to expensive and risky to delete it. While there would have been potential advantages in removing it, namely an extra helicopter landing spot or two, it would have impacted the design integrity. The structure which made up the ski jump, the requisite bow reinforcement to support the ski jump, all of the has an impact on the LHD's displacement, as well as the CoG. If that had all been removed, other structures would have needed to be moved or rearranged to maintain the required CoG. In the end, it was decided that the funding required to properly redesign and rearrange the LHD without the ski jump, as well as the programme delays such design work would have caused, was more than the potential gain from having an extra landing spot. Given the current condition of the RAN's amphib fleet, with the LHD's still something like a year or two from entering IOC, the decision to keep the ski jump and therefore not push the IOC of the LHD's back any further was the correct one.
-Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
Its been said before that the reason to keep it was made because of cost factors, it was going to cost more to make room for 1 more spot than keep it.
Others have alluded to the ramp being used by others F35B users (USMC,RN), or if there is a need we purchase an STOVL UCAV in the future the ramp will still have uses.Theres more to it than that but look back thru the thread and you will get all the information your heart desires.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,991
Considering im typing this from my boat while on duty...i find that incorrect.
We maintain a duty watch of X amount of people within the crew. while the incident in question is being reviewed, im not commenting...
The LHD will be better armed than any other amphibious ship employed within RAN within recent years, why is it now such a big problem?
The LHD's will have four 25mm Typhoon guns and six 12.7mm Mini-Typhoon guns, plus on-board MH-60R Seahawk and likely Tiger ARH helicopters, with Hellfire missiles, guns and rockets (in the case of Tiger).
It's ability to defend itself from likely threats is sufficient for the scenarios RAN envisages using it in.
If consideration is given to the vessel being deployed to higher threat environments, then the vessel will have the ability to be up-armed in the manner than HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora where, when they were deployed.
These upgrades included Phalanx CIWS 20mm guns, surface to air missiles and probably non-kinetic measures including decoys, EW systems and the like.
Plus as mentioned by others, it will have Australian escorts with very capable anti-air warfare systems whenever needed and will generally operate within a larger US led Coalition structure if any real high-end warfighting is to be conducted with this vessel.
Answered by others, but basically cost related. It was cheaper to keep them on the ship then to remove it and we may even use it one day, though likely not for F-35's, but UAV's or UCAV's may be a possibility at some point...
There you go, saved you from reading the very same information that's already within this thread...
You should give it a go yourself next time!
:rel
That pretty much sums it up.
I remember seeing somewhere that the 12.7mm were to be simply crew served weapons - didn't know that they had been upgraded to mini-typhoons. I think that there has been provision for carrying nulka, but don't think it is part of initial fitout.
I would be interested to see where a phalanx CIWS would be located if it is ever fitted - somewhere on the superstructure , I guess ........
the road runner
Active Member
The Minister for defence has toured the LHD to see the progress on her in Melbourne.
Of note to me was the ceiling height in the cafeteria/galley seems like it has a low ceiling height.
The LHD really is looking good.All the bridge blocks are in position
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Y5Vqe2Axs&feature=g-all"]Minister for Defence visits LHD - YouTube[/nomedia]
Edit : Thanx for the correction ASSAIL as per "all building blocks in position"
Of note to me was the ceiling height in the cafeteria/galley seems like it has a low ceiling height.
The LHD really is looking good.All the bridge blocks are in position
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Y5Vqe2Axs&feature=g-all"]Minister for Defence visits LHD - YouTube[/nomedia]
Edit : Thanx for the correction ASSAIL as per "all building blocks in position"
Still one more (aft) bridge block to go
They've got the Mini-Typhoons and control stations available from Kanimbla, Manoora and Tobruk by the time she retires, so I'd be amazed if they weren't re-used. They aren't that old...
Good to see you back mate.
In the "ancient times" each boat had a duty watch of OOD (grunts plus Buffer and Cox'n), 3 x Watchkeepers including 1Techo. Stood 1 in 4 when in harbour.
Is it the same today or is there 1 duty watch for multiple boats? I seem to have been given a bum steer.
Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
Might be an optical illusion, but it does look low.
I'd say they will be a few eager bods looking forward to call this home
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,999
In modern times we have a computer which monitors the ship, allowing control from the one point. we have less requirement, allowing for around 1 in 10 duties on a good boat. The requirements to be duty are more course work and knowledge then on a major ship, to allow for better understanding of the boat.
This was all pre-break in so its bound to change from now on.
I only hope that the seniors think before stuffing it for all of you. One or two watchkeepers is fine if the ship can be easily monitored. In our day most of the crew actually lived on the boat and there were people coming on and off all the time so duty watch's main job was keeping the drunks from falling off the wharf in the 8 mtr tides.
One in four/three harbour watches is really onerous especially with a single crew.
I think Navy worked this out some time ago as it was a real deterrrant to recruiting.
Seems to me that the main problem at Coonawarra is the base access both by road and by sea. Decent control at the gates and close monitoring of the basin by CCTV from the tower would probably solve the problem. Its a base problem not a boat problem (provided current procedures are adhered to - you hint that they were not)
- Status