t68
Well-Known Member
24 AWD/ Frigates? I read that right.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Except the us limits the number of cars Australia can export to the us. They are only allowed to import a few thousand, and apply a gas guzzler tax. See Chevy ss.
The Ute can't be exported to the us because there is a tarriff on "trucks" as I recall 50%. Even though it is just a car. Clever.
Thailand also applies 160% tax for cars imported with an engine bigger than 2.0l. Even though Australia has freetrade deals with both the usa and Thailand.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agree completely with the weapons that you have nominated, and if the AWD hull is going to be reused for the Future Frigate, why cut the current 48 cells down to the bone?
But there is one more weapon to add to the list too, and that is if Harpoon is replaced somewhere in the 2020-30's by LRASM for example, then there is a further requirement to have a reasonable size Mk 41 VLS capability.
So maybe stick with the current 48 cell VLS or go down to 40, but going down to 32 will certainly limit the capability to carry reasonable amounts of the above listed weapons, if all are chosen of course.
As long as this delivers you the right capability.
My concern is that capability is being compromised for industry policy reasons.
In my opinion this is the wrong way about.
Regards,
Massive
Yep 48 not 32 (had a brain fade sorry)
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Brain fade? No problem, have plenty myself! I'm sure we are both on the same page.
It just seems logical to me (my non Def Pro, but reasonably logical brain?) that if the AWD hull can be successfully adapted to fill the Future Frigate role that we carry over as many of the existing systems and capabilities as possible, and that includes the 48 cell Mk 41 VLS too.
Same basic systems, same gun and same VLS capability too, maybe the only change that might be worthwhile (other than the obvious change from AEGIS to CEAFAR) is to see if the hangar capacity can be altered to allow for two MH-60R's instead of one, or maybe at least one MH-60R and a useful UAV capability.
I could imagine that at some future time (if needed), that a taskforce of RAN amphibious and support ships, escorted by one AWD and a couple of Future Frigates (all equipped with CEC and 48 VLS per ship), that the AWD and it's sensors would have a significant capability to protect the fleet in both long and short range air defence if all of those missiles (SM-6 and ESSM), were distributed around the fleet of escorting ships.
Anyway, makes sense to me and just my opinion of course!
No arguement. If the cells were not fitted then weight would be requied to compensate for the loss to ensure the CoG remains satisfactory. For a simple transition to a new class minimum structural modifications will be a key stone.
It will be interesting to see how this developes
Its not misrepresentation it was an error, or partial error, on my part as my understanding is the tariff on US vehicles imported into Australia has been zero since the free trade agreement between the two countries was implemented while the tariff on Australian manufactured vehicles has remained in place. I have had a quick look for a reference to this effect but have not found one and from memory I read it in a number of the many articles in the Australian motoring and news press relating to the topic as this has been widely discussed in Australia how poorly executed FTAs have harmed Australian manufacturing as they have been run on the brief to assist primary producers.
Now notice what I have done here, I have admitted I may have been wrong, elaborated on my original statement and given an indication to where my information came from, you should try it at some point. To be brutally honest I can not recall you, even once, admitting you were wrong, nor taking any heed of advice offered by more qualified and knowledgeable members. In fact I would go so far as to say you are one of the most arrogant and worthless posters on this site, all you ever do is knock Australian industry even though you appear to have no background in manufacturing, engineering, shipbuilding or anything technical at all. I am surprised you have never been banned for trolling, I guess its because once you see you have the desired reaction to your baiting you disappear for several weeks before returning with the same old incorrect rubbish.
Why don't you make this a more pleasant place for sensible contributors to visit and stay away for several months this time or, even better, forever.
Chemo brain, I can't multiply anymore .....
I am curious as to how long the cells in the mod 3 are, i.e. are they tactical or point defence, can they accommodate SM-2 and VLASROC etc. IF they can ship longer missiles then it makes the ships even more versatile.
Back in the late 60s, then Def min, Malcolm Frazer was pushing for 20 destroyers for the two ocean navy. I even read one news story in a contemporary edition of flight magazine, that he was also keen on increasing the number of carriers to three.
I was thinking of this more in a modern context of current plans for 11 Destroyer sized ships and 20 of 2000t.
Regards,
Massive
Crewing is what is really expensive. While the purchase cost is significant, think of how much you have to pay on average everyone on a ship, how much you have to spend on training that person, etc.
Which is why I think the AWD hulled frigate replacements are reasonable investments over something smaller. They can do the air defense, and other combat missions. You then have a huge drop in cost and crew to operate the next tier down, the off shore patrol vessels.
The Armidales take 25-29 crew at 300t, where as something like BAM ship, can make do with 35 crew for 2500t. While I think BAM is too big/too expensive for the RAN (unless a high/low was adopted), the actual running costs would not be wildly different and the capability would be huge. These ships could take (up to) most of the missions the Anzacs currently do. Thus freeing up our 11-12 surface combatants to train and operate as intended, not chasing whales.
Obviously with the Damen 2400 ordered it looks like we will go for a mix of several 2400t ships (lets say 6 specifically replacing the Huons, Leeuwin) and then let aim high and say 14 Damen 1000 (or 1400). The smaller ships only require 30 crew to 60 on the 2400.
Possible future ran
6 AWD (3 Hobarts, 3 Hobarts+ with 9.0)
6 AWDlite (AWD hull with updated CEAFAR/AUSPAR/Saab same 48 cell launcher)
6 Damen 2400 (fitted with Ceafar/Saab? 76mm?)
14 Damen 1400 (20mm only but can deploy UAV or Helos also has a slip way that can deploy mini-LCM/RHIB)
3 LHD (no other landing ships, money/crew from the Heavy landing ships diverted to buy 3rd LHD - Patrol boats take on Landing ship tank missions which is more about aid, troops and light vehicles)
1 LSD (We keep Choules)
weegee
Active Member
Sub News?
Hey guys,
I came across this today:
Australia leans toward buying Japan subs to upgrade fleet - sources | Reuters
Sensationalist journalism? or is there some truth behind the stories? I suppose everything will come out at the white paper release.
Hey guys,
I came across this today:
Australia leans toward buying Japan subs to upgrade fleet - sources | Reuters
Sensationalist journalism? or is there some truth behind the stories? I suppose everything will come out at the white paper release.
Seems to be a few reports with similar info this morning, I wouldnt be surprised if theres an announcement in the next few Months as they state. As has been mentioned you need to build up to 10-12 boats slowly, Ideally to me you would want 2-3 in the water prior to starting to swap the first of the collins, to ensure transition is seamless.
If thats the plan then surely you'd want to place an order by 2016 for operational capability of 2019-2020 ?
Theres certainly talk of buying off the shelf turn key systems but as the article points out:
* Selling a fleet of subs would mark the first time since at least the end of World War Two that Japan had sold a complete weapons platform overseas.
*South Australia is home to 27,000 defence jobs, 3,000 of them in shipbuilding, and Hamilton-Smith said the submarine project would generate industry activity worth A$250 billion over 30 years
We risk, not just pissing off the Chinese, but the South Koreans as well.
I also love this line:
"Discussions have since moved rapidly from engine-technology transfer to a full build in Japan, with the goal of replacing by the 2030s Australia's six outdated Collins-class boats with 12 scaled-down versions of the 4,000-ton Soryu, the world's biggest non-nuclear subs."
Cool so its not even off the rack, we are going to buy Soryu-lite some sort of unique, smaller Australian version. That will make it more expensive.
How about instead just build them here to a common design? Or are the liberals so fearful of their ability to manage a project like that. Japan, UK and the USA are prepared to help us out but we still can't do it?
Pls consider not harassing Sea Toby. There are some who enjoy his incompetent rants:nutkick
Joe Black
Active Member
I would think it would make sense to get the first 2 boats built in Japan and the rest of the 8 licensed built by ASC under Japanese supervision. ASC can at the mean time do a drive train replace on the Collins based on the same Japanese engine for the new Australianised 'Soryu' class and learning the trade from the Japanese to ready themselves for the eventual license built of the rest.
I am a bit leary of the reprots in the press. We were getting 216's a while back. There certainly seems to be some cooperation with Japan on the cards and it is a bit early to specualte on how this will play out. It could be similar to the start f the Collins project where some parts of boat 1 were built overseas moving to full doemestic production.
In the Collins case taht was not as successful as hoped but in technologiy transfer (and I suspect this will be a two way street) this would built capability and capacity for what could be a long production run. This approach would get less blow back from China as well.
It isn't all doom and gloom for the local industry. There is still a chance that the Collins class will get a life extension and, as the article stated, the new subs would still be serviced and upgraded locally. The long term plan should be to eventually build in Australia.
The thing that has me curious is that we would want a scaled down version.
Also the time frame of after 2030 would suggest that we might be more interested in the next generation of Japanese subs rather than the Soryu.
The thing that has me curious is that we would want a scaled down version.
Also the time frame of after 2030 would suggest that we might be more interested in the next generation of Japanese subs rather than the Soryu.
- Status