Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Dave has the honour of the LAST A4G 'catapult' from HMAS Melbourne. It was a COLD catapult meaning not enough energy imparted for various reasons (catapult malfunction). He attempted to stop with the brakes (wearing them down to metal) and with 'EJECT EJECT EJECT' from Little F in his ears Dave did so just as A4G 885 reached the bow. Dave said the 'chair lifting' was rough (we can see the pilot/seat combo rotating left on the way up via rocket) and then he splashed down near the sinking A4G to have the parachute become entangled with the tail. He went down briefly but then became untangled to surface and to be picked up by the rescue crewman via SAR Helo (Pedro).

The story of that young helo pilot is in the latest TOUCHDOWN RAN Safety Magazine as I recall (perhaps now superseded?). I'll get a link. Also Dave's story has been told many times at various places online - links can be provided.

After this second A4G loss off the catapult on their last cruise (Indian Ocean) all A4G ops ceased. Most of VF-805 crew disembarked to fly home otherwise with a few left onboard to crane/lighter off in Jervis Bay when MELBOURNE returned to Oz. Apart from touch and go deck landings later - that was that.
I remember it all very well, I was the CAGTAS (Carrier Air Group ASW officer) at the time. If I seem to over-indorse the return of fixed wing seaborne capability it stems from a deep tactical appreciation of what it adds to capability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
unfort its not as simple as that.

its the combination of tech, common capability issues, interoperability, alliance issues, mutual sharing issues (theres some tech that australia won't share, even with principal allies) etc etc.......
I know nothing of the protocols regarding defence briefing of parliamentarians but surely , if there was such a programme, these issues would be better understood and we wouldn't get the totally ignorant displays of muppetry on the floor of both houses.
What you have said, particularly regarding interoperability and alliance issues, should be well understood by any member commenting on defence procurement. It shouldn't have to wait until they become Defmins.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I remember it all very well, I was the CAGTAS (Carrier Air Group ASW officer) at the time. If I seem to over-indorse the return of fixed wing seaborne capability it stems from a deep tactical appreciation of what it adds to capability.

No I don't think your being over - zealous in wanting fixed wing Naval Aviation return to the ADF, we just differ in our views on how it should return

If by placing the aircraft on the LHD was a interim measure till a suitable platform was decided on I' d say yeah it's only short term, but because the introduction of both would be several years away and the report say that the return of fixed wing Naval Aviation is desirable we either do it right from the beginning or don't do it.

Will be interesting to see if and when the Italians release ther own version of a LHD will they require F35B to operate off it?
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
'ASSAIL' said:
"I remember it all very well, I was the CAGTAS (Carrier Air Group ASW officer) at the time. If I seem to over-indorse the return of fixed wing seaborne capability it stems from a deep tactical appreciation of what it adds to capability.
Good to know. In an earlier time (mid to late 1971 to early to mid 1972) I was on VF-805 as a sprog A4G pilot denting that infernal round down one night. The Admirable of the day took me down to his cabin to explain (after embarkation) with much hilarity all round, what it was like to have the ceiling (thick lashings of white paint over cork) fall in on him when he was at his desk that night. Fun times - we took part in the first RIMPAC late in 1971 - ah Hawaii.

Dave trained with Air Chief Marshal Binskin back in early 1980 on A4G OFS (Operational Flying School) at NAS Nowra when they were both Midshipmen. Dave went on to be CO of 800NAS taking them to Iraq and Kosovo on INVINCIBLE c.1998, being awarded an MBE for his services.
 
Last edited:

mickm

New Member
Enough escorts for LHD

Gents
I have been reading with interest the comments regarding fleet air power and acquiring a 3rd LHD. My main concern is that with a proposed future surface fleet of only
3 AWD and 8 Anzac replacements we would be flat out escorting and protecting one LHD and that the majority of the fleet would be tied up with one asset, leaving little room for other operations or deployments. What do you think?

I also read today that HMAS Perth's Commanding Officer Captain Goddard handed over command to Captain Ingham. Although I have never been in the navy, I was under the impression that the first ship of the class in this case HMAS Anzac when commissioned was commanded by a Captain(Les Pataky) and the follow on ships a Commander. Why would Perth have a Captain in command rather than a Commander when she is the last ship of the class to be commissioned?.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I know nothing of the protocols regarding defence briefing of parliamentarians but surely , if there was such a programme, these issues would be better understood and we wouldn't get the totally ignorant displays of muppetry on the floor of both houses.
What you have said, particularly regarding interoperability and alliance issues, should be well understood by any member commenting on defence procurement. It shouldn't have to wait until they become Defmins.
I think the problem lies in the fact that there is a fair bit of colour and movement being generated at the moment

some of the commentariat stuff is just plain silly.

its about time some of them had a bex
 

t68

Well-Known Member
While not in the same space as F-35 or UCLASS, we might see something like this grace the decks of the LHDs in a decade or so....

VTOL Advanced Reconnaissance Insertion Organic Unmanned System (VARIOUS)
VARIOUS · Lockheed Martin
Mmm very interesting certantly food for thought for the future, has a lot of possabiltes for numerous nations
 
Last edited:

Trackmaster

Member
I think the problem lies in the fact that there is a fair bit of colour and movement being generated at the moment

some of the commentariat stuff is just plain silly.

its about time some of them had a bex
They would probably have a green tea with that...and then a period of meditation.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
East Asian waters to be US aircraft carrier-free for a time- Nikkei Asian Review

Australia is moving in this direction. The idea of turning its two Canberra-class amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers by equipping them with F-35B fighters has been floated in the country. It appears any move in this direction would be designed to secure independent defense capabilities against emergencies when no U.S. carriers are deployed in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Is this what is driving the carrier push? Particularly if the US having no carrier in the Pacific and Indian oceans for 4 months of the year.

Of course with only two LHD's, we won't have enough to have one acting as a carrier for 4 months of the year.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Whilst I think alliance and integration is important, I also think that having a balanced approach is equally compelling too. Whilst an "Australianised" Soryu class is a quicker solution, I don't think it is the best long term solution for Australia if ASC doesn't get to build any single hull. I hate to think that the skillset we have built over the last 2 decade just simply go to waste. If it were a proposal where the Japanese build the complete hull for boat 1 and 2 and the components for 3 and 4 where ASC assemble them, the rest are build from scratch in ASC yard, I would be very supportive of that notion.

Today's friend might be your enemy tomorrow. It was only half a century ago where the Chinese and Australia were close friends and the Japanese the opponent. Today the situation is the total reverse.

Lets not look at a short term gain and long term pain strategy. Neither do we want to be impractical and have a totally Australian built boat which may take a lot longer time.

An alternate strategy might be to rope in Saab together with the Japanese. Using Soryu as the base design, incorporate some of Saab's innovation for their A26 and derive an evolved Soryu class. Afterall, the Japanese are already looking post Soryu. Surely we do want to incorporate some of the latest thinking and technology into an excellent hull like the Soryu to produce sometime that will last the next 30 years.
 
Last edited:

Milne Bay

Active Member
groan.
The Arthur Herman article explains what this is all about.
AFAIK the Soryu's are an evolving design which will continue to have enhancements added as the hulls are built. The Japanese themselves are working on extended range for the next iteration, and any Australian Soryu-au's will be the same.
There is no future for us with HDW or Saab that I can see, and the French won't be part of the US combat systems that we want ....... who does that leave .............
Maybe we need a stalking horse for the negotiations with the Japanese, maybe not, but there is really only one answer for the Collins class replacement as I see it and that is tying into the Soryu programme
MB
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Whilst I think alliance and integration is important, I also think that having a balanced approach is equally compelling too. Whilst an "Australianised" Soryu class is a quicker solution, I don't think it is the best long term solution for Australia if ASC doesn't get to build any single hull. I hate to think that the skillset we have built over the last 2 decade just simply go to waste. If it were a proposal where the Japanese build the complete hull for boat 1 and 2 and the components for 3 and 4 where ASC assemble them, the rest are build from scratch in ASC yard, I would be very supportive of that notion.

Today's friend might be your enemy tomorrow. It was only half a century ago where the Chinese and Australia were close friends and the Japanese the opponent. Today the situation is the total reverse.

Lets not look at a short term gain and long term pain strategy. Neither do we want to be impractical and have a totally Australian built boat which may take a lot longer time.

An alternate strategy might be to rope in Saab together with the Japanese. Using Soryu as the base design, incorporate some of Saab's innovation for their A26 and derive an evolved Soryu class. Afterall, the Japanese are already looking post Soryu. Surely we don't want to incorporate some of the latest thinking and technology into an excellent hull like the Soryu to produce sometime that will last the next 30 years.
I spent a few years dealing with sig mgt/acoustic mapping on subs. The Oyashios/Soryus were regarded as being as close to as acoustically "perfect" within proscribed operating conditions - they were a golden mile ahead of anything out of europe.

if they can be built here then that's always the preferred option as its a national strategic interest and capability.

however, Defence can't continue to be held hostage to buying and building in Australia as the primary political selection driver - that's untenable

The capability of the Soryu's is being lost in this idiotic chatter bleating about "build in Aust etc..."

Its not difficult to work out the build and development model so that japan and oz wins

Unfort some of the commentary to date reflects the same kind of lunacy that I witnessed at AIDN Conferences over JSF and P8's

The capability should come first. Something that VADM Moffit tried reinforcing to industry at various SIA conferences.

Some of these politicians have very short memories about the things that almost bought Collins undone - they are basically falling over themselves to get european vaporware designs, And for a variety of reasons I cannot see a French sub getting up (I treat them differently to a spanish, swedish, german option)

I should add, that I strongly support ASC as a builder and they have been unfairly maligned by both political parties from the time of inception to the current state of affairs.

IMO there is a way to build an extant large sub with all the fruit we need in Australia.

I have almost zero appetite for a euro vaporware design as it will trigger the same problems that we had with Collins in the early days.

Subs shouldn't be politically driven - we've all seen the spectacular and continuing own goals that have come out of the parties as they oscillate between being the Govt of the day and then the opposition party. Both have treated subs with indifference and used them as point scoring footballs

its why the general public considers ASC to be hopeless and the subs to be useless - both are so far from the truth that its not funny
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
And...linked to that Herman article in case others missed it, further commentary which confronts the political reality

For Australia, Japanese submarine debate smooths history but riles industry - Nikkei Asian Review

If the SA Govt had any sense they would be sending an industry support team )from whatever has replaced the old Industrial Supplies Office), a small relevant team from the DTC and ASC and spend some time talking to the Japanese (or anyone else) how they could value add by build local etc..... SAGovt have some form in being able to pull off hard jobs, so its not as if this is outside their skill remit

6 months of pro-activeness will do more than any hysterical parochiol and frantic media assault,
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
If the SA Govt had any sense they would be sending an industry support team )from whatever has replaced the old Industrial Supplies Office), a small relevant team from the DTC and ASC and spend some time talking to the Japanese (or anyone else) how they could value add by build local etc..... SAGovt have some form in being able to pull off hard jobs, so its not as if this is outside their skill remit

6 months of pro-activeness will do more than any hysterical parochiol and frantic media assault,
Naaaah ..... don't bother lighting that candle ... they are better at cursing the darkness ..........
MB
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
I spent a few years dealing with sig mgt/acoustic mapping on subs. The Oyashios/Soryus were regarded as being as close to as acoustically "perfect" within proscribed operating conditions - they were a golden mile ahead of anything out of europe.

if they can be built here then that's always the preferred option as its a national strategic interest and capability.

however, Defence can't continue to be held hostage to buying and building in Australia as the primary political selection driver - that's untenable

The capability of the Soryu's is being lost in this idiotic chatter bleating about "build in Aust etc..."

Its not difficult to work out the build and development model so that japan and oz wins

Unfort some of the commentary to date reflects the same kind of lunacy that I witnessed at AIDN Conferences over JSF and P8's

The capability should come first. Something that VADM Moffit tried reinforcing to industry at various SIA conferences.

Some of these politicians have very short memories about the things that almost bought Collins undone - they are basically falling over themselves to get european vaporware designs, And for a variety of reasons I cannot see a French sub getting up (I treat them differently to a spanish, swedish, german option)

I should add, that I strongly support ASC as a builder and they have been unfairly maligned by both political parties from the time of inception to the current state of affairs.

IMO there is a way to build an extant large sub with all the fruit we need in Australia.

I have almost zero appetite for a euro vaporware design as it will trigger the same problems that we had with Collins in the early days.

Subs shouldn't be politically driven - we've all seen the spectacular and continuing own goals that have come out of the parties as they oscillate between being the Govt of the day and then the opposition party. Both have treated subs with indifference and used them as point scoring footballs

its why the general public considers ASC to be hopeless and the subs to be useless - both are so far from the truth that its not funny
It is really sad that this important capability is becoming such farce....

I am sure there are valid engineering, technology transfer and political challenges (no more than what we are facing now though) but I am rather curious as to why an American designed scaled down version of the Virginia with conventional propulsion systems hasn't been thrown into the mix?

Mini-Virginia so to speak in the same vein as the baby-Burke was done for the AWD requirement.

Say a 1/2 (3950 tonnes) scale mini-Virginia fitted with Japanese propulsion technology....

Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics/Electric Boat built a 1/4 scale way back in 1997 - Cuttthroat LSV2.... surely an evolved half scale fully operational and highly capable sub in 2014 is not completely out of the question..Cuttthroat LSV-2 - AUVAC

can anyone shed some light on this?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top