Says they were out of action dueing the cyclone, which is true enough. They were both docked in Sydney at the time, IIRC...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Maybe out of action, but they would not have gone anyway as Choules was the online HADR asset, typically poor reporting from our mass media friends.
Cheers
weegee
Active Member
Good little bit of news this morning.
Australian Navy’s MV Sycamore arrives in Sydney | Naval Today
Its always nice to see a shiny new asset/toy come to town.
Australian Navy’s MV Sycamore arrives in Sydney | Naval Today
Its always nice to see a shiny new asset/toy come to town.
I know that this isn't the design or ship type for sea 1180. But don't it look nice.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
You've got to admit Damen do make very nice looking ships.
I am sure it won't hurt the Damen case. On time, on budget, no other issues that would be likely to derail their bid.
It is also based on the OPV2400 which isn't a million miles away from the OPV1800.
You chaps have a very different idea of a good looking ship than I do. She is a little squat and boxy with the superstructure and the bow form less attractive than the 2400, 1800 or 1800 SeaAXE. Because of the superstructure the Sycamore does not have the tumblehome and chine of the 2400 (being slab sided) and has a blunter and rounder focsle.
In so far as being based on the 2400 ..... it is very loosely based on the 2400 hull form. The internals (even below the water line) are very different and the upper works are completely different.
However, I agree it cannot hurt Damen in the OPV race.
What was the budget for the MV Sycamore? I have about a sustainment package for her but not much else. Is it because she is not directly ownrd by the Govt that it is not widely known?
I like her tubby. Shes not a combat ship. She looks pretty neat with her night lighting on.
That said the seaaxe front on a 1800 would be much more serious for an all grey ship. But put a bloody hanger on it.
I am dead keen to see some of these South african OPV's.
And reduced lift from the bow in a head sea? I'm afraid I'm a traditionalist - I like plenty of reserve buoyancy forward, and a degree of flair to keep the water away. To me, the conventional bow is a much better solution and yes, I know what Damen have said and I've read the papers; but for general open ocean work I'm yet to be convinced.
They do seem pretty wet. Why can't you have a sea axe front and some flair to keep it a bit drier.
As a traditionalist, they remind me a lot of the vertical prow from the early 1900's.
The NZ replentishment ship will have a simular bow.
RNZ Navy's new fleet replenishment ship approved - CONTACT magazine
Wouldn't surprise me if in a few years a lot more ships have that type of bow or a x bow.
Tony Abbot urges the government to investigate a nuclear powered sub option.
What is it with ex-prime ministers?
He bagged the Japanese sub ... that he strongly advocated when he was PM ... as lacking range, the German boat was too small and clearly isn't a fan of the French option.
I haven't got a problem with nuclear submarines ... quite the opposite in fact ... but if this were such a critical issue the Abbot should have pushed for the nuclear option when he was in charge.
Mind you he did say something that I agree with.
“Creating a nuclear industry to service subs here would take a *decade, perhaps more, yet might turn out to be a lesser challenge than designing and building a new class of submarine almost from scratch.”
I tend to agree with that. I think the decision not to go down the nuclear path is more political than technical. I don't even think that it would be that big a sell to the general public.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...d2c125&usg=AFQjCNFZ1FPU31P3EOYB3jo8g3d6O-ccFA
What is it with ex-prime ministers?
He bagged the Japanese sub ... that he strongly advocated when he was PM ... as lacking range, the German boat was too small and clearly isn't a fan of the French option.
I haven't got a problem with nuclear submarines ... quite the opposite in fact ... but if this were such a critical issue the Abbot should have pushed for the nuclear option when he was in charge.
Mind you he did say something that I agree with.
“Creating a nuclear industry to service subs here would take a *decade, perhaps more, yet might turn out to be a lesser challenge than designing and building a new class of submarine almost from scratch.”
I tend to agree with that. I think the decision not to go down the nuclear path is more political than technical. I don't even think that it would be that big a sell to the general public.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...d2c125&usg=AFQjCNFZ1FPU31P3EOYB3jo8g3d6O-ccFA
Hmm seems like politicians aren't a huge fan of defence until they need to use them.
Nuclear submarines eh Tony? That would be quick to build.
Plus it would have to be economically feasible.
Nuclear power isn't 'economically feasible' in Australia, but ...
I can't believe the liberals haven't shafted Tony. He is a walking disaster for them now.
Nuclear submarines eh Tony? That would be quick to build.
Plus it would have to be economically feasible.
Nuclear power isn't 'economically feasible' in Australia, but ...
I can't believe the liberals haven't shafted Tony. He is a walking disaster for them now.
Great day to be in Sydney.
3 Huons, an Anzac and an Adelaide class out and about earlier in the day and the Bonhomme Richard arriving.
Interesting looking at HMAS Adelaide and USS Bonhomme Richard side by side.
Hard to believe there is a 13,000 tonne difference in displacement.
Regards,
Massive
3 Huons, an Anzac and an Adelaide class out and about earlier in the day and the Bonhomme Richard arriving.
Interesting looking at HMAS Adelaide and USS Bonhomme Richard side by side.
Hard to believe there is a 13,000 tonne difference in displacement.
Regards,
Massive
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Buying a Nuclear Shortfin might end up being easier and better than trying to convert it to a diesel-electric sub.
Displacement does not necessarily equate to physical dimensional size, the US have a very different build and manning approach.
13,000 Tonne difference ? is that tonne v tonne ? or short tons, or long tons ?
Cheers
I think "Shortfin" refers to the conventional design. The nuclear version is just "Barracuda".
Pedantism aside, one must wonder about our politicians. How did they manage to make conventional submarines more expensive than SSNs? If we are going spend so much money, maybe we should be getting SSNs to make it worth the money. However, were it up to me, I would have gone the Japanese subs, built in Japan, lower risk, available on time, they already have US combat systems and we would save money. In terms of economics, we sell resources to Japan, so it would still return at least some money to the Australian economy.
I wonder if this Shortfin project is the most sensible idea? Defence resources are limited for smaller powers like Australia and we do need to be careful how we use those resources. There are lots of other things we could do with the money 12 of the world's most expensive conventional will cost. Like get more aircraft. Or increase readiness levels. Quite possible both with that much money.
Historically submarines proved very dangerous. I can't think of any battleships sinking aircraft carriers, but quite a number of carriers were sunk by subs. Yet submariners typically suffered the highest causality rates in their respective navies. It is true that modern submarines haven't really been tested in sustained war. So nobody really knows how they would fair today against state of the art ASW. I rather suspect that the balance hasn't changed much and that subs will continue to prove dangerous but they will also suffer high attrition.
For Australia, we need subs to preform covert reconnaissance and minelaying. Going after enemy subs or surface warships is, in my view, too risky. Trading a sub for a destroyer isn't worth it. Though having a crack at a carrier would be worth it, though the sub might not escape. Aircraft using advance cruise missiles, torpedoes and sea mines are a much better way to fight naval war. Especially the sea mines.
Maybe we would be better off getting good at finding and sinking subs rather than responding to increasing numbers of submarines in regional navies by getting more and bigger subs of our own? So Poseidon aircraft look good to me. If we had to get more of something...
I recommend looking at the Japanese campaign against Australian coastal waters. The Japanese didn't achieve much because they didn't commit much, and the Australian defence didn't achieve much due to lack of detection equipment and possibly experience. What it showed was that finding small numbers of submarines in vast areas of ocean was problematic. Quite a contrast to the density of the Atlantic battle. We need good situational awareness underwater as well as on the surface and in the airspace in our region. Some sort of broad area detection system like the Americans had in the Cold War. Plus sufficent Poseidon aircraft. And sea mines. Sea mines are a very efficient way to balance disparities in sea power.
We will need to replace the Collins class but I fear the project has been hyjacked by vested interests and money will be unavailable for other needed defence purposes.
Interesting post, thanks for chiming in. I do think the 15 Poseidons we have planned is pretty close to the upper limit of what we could reasonably be expected to acquire within the current force construct.
The problem with exponentially expanding one specific capability area is the force distortion it would have on the overall force structure.
If we need better ASW capability, I think personally we'd be better off aiming to give every navy ship a constant ASW capability, ie: an MH-60R and other ASW capabilities, on every vessel big enough to support them.
Actually what is the light displacement of the HMAS Adelaide?Displacement does not necessarily equate to physical dimensional size, the US have a very different build and manning approach.
13,000 Tonne difference ? is that tonne v tonne ? or short tons, or long tons ?
Cheers
The only figure I have seen is around 27,500 tons full load.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The American sub campaign against the Japanese was quite significant, especially the efforts to cut off resources to Japan. Subs are feared by all navies and the resources required to defend against a single sub lurking around is an important reason why so many countries are investing in them.
- Status