Was speaking to a former colleague who is currently in new projects at ASC and he has heard nothing. They have to gingerly move forward on assumptions because they have nothing concrete to work from but can't afford to wait either.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Difficult situation that may be helped in a small degree in that it 'appears' those shortlisted need to provide a complete design ....... it does not help put it into production.
This isn't a reference to the Bushmaster is it? prime example of party needs trumping cost/capability.
The T26 might be a great ship but given orders have been downsized to 8 before construction has even begun, doesn't inspire confidence in the long term support for the class.
I can't see them being as supportable as the FREMM's or the evolved F100 series in our service.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
When will an announcement be made? Good question....
Historically Governments have 'usually' made major defence announcements at either the end of the year, around the last sitting days of Parliament, or around budget time.
I remember reading in a transcript of what the Def Min had said (maybe it was a speech at an ASPI conference?) where there would be some more defence announcements later this year, so maybe by year end for the OPV's?
I suppose it all comes down to 'when in 2018' will they plan to start cutting steel for the start of production for the OPV's.
Could range from Jan 2018 all the way to Dec 2018, if the plan is for early 2018, you would think an announcement is due by years end, if late 2018, maybe not till around budget time.
You would assume, that at the outside, around budget time 2017 would be getting to the point of cutting things a bit thin!!!
Anyway, my best guess (uneducated of course!), would be somewhere between late this year or around budget time.
Cheers,
CEP is an aberration 
its not part of the normal aquisition process and was a "get out of gaol" process injected when future subs became a political football
there is no CEP for SEA 1180
its not part of the normal aquisition process and was a "get out of gaol" process injected when future subs became a political football
there is no CEP for SEA 1180
B1 and B2 colloquially referred to HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora..... either that, or Bananas in Pyjamas.
Last edited:
Can anyone give me a lecture about the 2 Newport class in RAN? I know their conditions and the not so successful conversions caused not a small political scandals (and became one of the factor why the Kidd deal didn't go-ahead). But I was not yet an Australian by that time so I don't know much about them.
Guys read what GF has said here, B1 as in the weapon system - NOT THE SKIMMER !!
So no he is not talking about Bill and Ben or B1 and B2, or Bananas in pajamas etc.
To answer the questions about Bill and Ben, I saw Bill when he first arrived, and to put it basically, there was so much head shaking going on from fleet that it should have caused an earthquake !!
After a lot of money and effort, more than should have ever been spent, they turned out to be very, very effective and what they did, to the point where the US "requested" their presence
Cheers
apart from teething problems in pre-assessment and acquisition, you'd be struggling to argue that they were not useful or successful vessels post modification and upgrade
in fact they were universally regarded as some of the most effective flag ships used to undertake the anti-piracy C2/3 role in the Gulf
t68
Well-Known Member
A small overview of HMAS Kanimbla, if you look hard enough there is a good comprehensive read out there on the program. I had a copy on my old computer but lost it when it died.
Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Kanimbla, a Short History
Edit
Found it,
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net616/f/anao_report_2000-2001_08.pdf
Last edited:
The AWD alliance has released this video of Hobarts Sea Trial.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lDG64rcyQ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lDG64rcyQ
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Nice!
Interesting to see that the Phalanx is already installed and mounted above the hangar too.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Saw this the other day, Bell's proposed V-247 Vigilant:
Bell Helicopter Introduces Bell V-247 “Vigilant†Tiltrotor Unmanned Aerial System in Ship-Borne Configuration
And:
Bell Unveils Pilotless Tiltrotor Aircraft Model | Defense News
I've often thought that if Government ever decided in the future to have a large UAV to operate off the LHD's, a UAV that has long range, high endurance and especially a decent payload for roles such as AEW and ISR, then a tilt rotor design would be the way to go (a 'mini' V-22 in other words), this is exactly what I was thinking of.
Bell is claiming (hence the '247' name), that with two systems, that it can provide a 24 hour ISR capability for example.
Bell appears to be suggesting that the 247 will have a very large range of capabilities, including weapons carriage.
Anyway, be interesting to keep a watch on this one, see if the US military eventually orders them into service.
Maybe RAN/ADF service one day too??
Bell Helicopter Introduces Bell V-247 “Vigilant†Tiltrotor Unmanned Aerial System in Ship-Borne Configuration
And:
Bell Unveils Pilotless Tiltrotor Aircraft Model | Defense News
I've often thought that if Government ever decided in the future to have a large UAV to operate off the LHD's, a UAV that has long range, high endurance and especially a decent payload for roles such as AEW and ISR, then a tilt rotor design would be the way to go (a 'mini' V-22 in other words), this is exactly what I was thinking of.
Bell is claiming (hence the '247' name), that with two systems, that it can provide a 24 hour ISR capability for example.
Bell appears to be suggesting that the 247 will have a very large range of capabilities, including weapons carriage.
Anyway, be interesting to keep a watch on this one, see if the US military eventually orders them into service.
Maybe RAN/ADF service one day too??
The video shows that the Harpoon launching rails have also been fitted. I was pleased to see that Hobart already has her main armament in place whilst running her sea trials rather than sailing in a 'fitted for but not with" state.
Tas
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agree.
Hopefully we've moved well past the 'fitted for, but not with' configuration.
The next big step for Hobart, and her two sisters (and possibly the Future Frigates too), is to see additional weapons being procured for the Mk41 VLS (beyond the initial ESSM and SM-2 load out).
Weapons such as SM-6 and TacTom (or similar), LRASM and/or JSM and maybe even the latest VLS version of ASROC too.
Anyway, hopefully when all three are commissioned over the next three years or so, they are well armed (from day one), and we also have some clear idea of their future weapons load too.
Thanks gf and t68.
The comment for the conversion was from a friend of mine, who was an ensign from Taiwanese navy and he once held several post in the HQ. When Taiwanese got their Newports, they paid close attentions to RAN's conversion as they may did the same if it was good. However, they concluded the conversion was not successful as the aviation capability was still not as good as a through deck LPD/LPA like the Osumi class.
He didn't mentioned much about C3I capabilities though, probably because Taiwanese navy is not as blue water as we do.
And other project he was involved, was the design of the Taiwanese's 8th FFG-7 (which was canned as the HQ considered too ambitious/risky). It was an enlarged FFG-7 with phase array radar, MK-41VLS, 5" gun and S-70/SH-60. If that sounds familiar, that's because after the project was scrapped, the yanks sold the works to Spanish, which became the F100.
I think thats the point - they were very much developed from lessons learnt from East Timor - and in fact if a serious look is taken they are the reason why we ended up with the phatships. The govts of the day never were keen on pretend aircraft carriers, but saw the merit of getting vessels to take on the expeditionary support role - as such rotary air was not a dominant requirement - command and control, comms and a flag role was the priority. They were baby steps to justifying and emphasising the need for proper assets to take on a bigger flag role, armed helo support and a raft of other things that were softly pointed to but not loudly asked for.
their evolution has to be seen around the local politics and geopolitics of the period.
If your mate was in the Taiwanese equiv of Naval HQ in early 2000 he might have come across me and some of my pasty faced colleagues - the mob I was contracting for meant that I was over there discussing UDT issues.
Never came to pass as couldn't do the tech transfer they wanted.
How very true. And, in particular, with the (failed) attempt to procure a "Training and Helicopter Support Ship", which would have looked remarkably like an LHD, if somewhat smaller.
When that was scuppered, the fortunate availability of the Newport class was seen as a way of ensuring that a capability, albeit not all that was wanted, was acquired. The expectation was that they would prove so useful (as indeed they did) that they would have to be replaced by purpose built ships. I don't think we anticipated that they would be in the RAN for nearly 20 years though.
thatsamguy
Member
Looks like the DCNS design phase agreement for the subs has been signed, along with choosing Lockheed over Raytheon for the combat systems.
To early for me to post links - but it's on skynews, the australian, AAP etc.
To early for me to post links - but it's on skynews, the australian, AAP etc.
Last edited:
- Status