Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
iambuzzard said:
The thing is, the Mogami/FFM is in production and a proven and active design. The hiccups could be the language barrier and commonality of weapons systems.
What is the Mogami fitted with and can we easily fit our chosen systems?
And I would suggest if we choose the design it would be the batch II with 32 VLS. Most of the other candidates are based on older designs with no room for growth. Plus the Batch II has improved ASW capabilities.
As a layman I apologise for my lack of technical knowledge.
My only naval experience has been guided tours of USS Mobile Bay (post 911) and HMAS Brisbane. A former gun captain was my guide and another mate was a cook on board with the Red Crew. At least I got to sit in the CO's modified seat on the bridge. From a Holden Commodore I believe. Lol.
Click to expand...
Sort of yes and sort of no. One needs to remember that major warships, even if in production, are 'custom' builds so that there can be minor differences between vessels built, even of the same class and by the same yard. If one were to also factor in any changes required to use systems that are already in Australian service and/or could be easily supported by Australia, then one is likely making far more significant changes than would likely occur for any aircraft bound for Australia.

IIRC the RAAF SHornet order had some of the gauges changed to reflect metric units vs. the standard units of measure used in the US. There might also be some slightly different comms systems fitted for Australian units.

A warship however, could have a number of different systems in use or that require either a changeover or interface developed. This reality, coupled with the very compressed timeline for selection, contracting and then build is all part of why I am not really optimistic about the DSR and subsequent naval review..
 
7

76mmGuns

Active Member
Todjaeger said:
Sort of yes and sort of no. One needs to remember that major warships, even if in production, are 'custom' builds so that there can be minor differences between vessels built, even of the same class and by the same yard. If one were to also factor in any changes required to use systems that are already in Australian service and/or could be easily supported by Australia, then one is likely making far more significant changes than would likely occur for any aircraft bound for Australia.

IIRC the RAAF SHornet order had some of the gauges changed to reflect metric units vs. the standard units of measure used in the US. There might also be some slightly different comms systems fitted for Australian units.

A warship however, could have a number of different systems in use or that require either a changeover or interface developed. This reality, coupled with the very compressed timeline for selection, contracting and then build is all part of why I am not really optimistic about the DSR and subsequent naval review..
Click to expand...
From memory, wasn't one of the (many) reasons the Japanese sub was not chosen was the berthing areas were too short? adding an extra 1 -2 feet in every sleeping room in length, maybe 1-2 feet in ceiling height across the entire vessel. just giving an example of how designs might need to be modified for other countries
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
If you think HMAS Anzac is looking a bit rough wait till you see the condition of next generation warships after a few years. With basically just bridge crew and mission specialists I imagine ship husbandry will be near non-existent.
 
protoplasm

protoplasm

Active Member
hauritz said:
If you think HMAS Anzac is looking a bit rough wait till you see the condition of next generation warships after a few years. With basically just bridge crew and mission specialists I imagine ship husbandry will be near non-existent.
Click to expand...
Yep, and that inevitably leads to greater need for short maintenance stints in port to try to fix or maintain all the things that would have been handled as part of normal ship husbandry. Over time it has a tendency to lead to greater unplanned maintenance issues and as the ships age their availability rates drop. It would be very easy to end up in a situation where your nominal fleet has expanded significantly, but because the number of sailors per vessel has been reduced, therefore maintenance has been deferred, your actual available fleet could be less than what you started with.
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
I have seen worse. Those black marks on the side of the hull would be scuff marks from wharf side rubber fenders. The indented pockets would relate to the steel shell deforming around the internal frame. New ships would look the same after a short period of time. I think with ANZAC the real damage is internal with high corrosion levels within tanks, and worn out main propulsion machinery, both very expensive to refurbish.

Hauritz, your point about minimum crew is valid, however maintenance programs will to some extent adjust. I would suggest that most painting is already outsourced and done by contractors when in port for instance. The days of the crew being responsible for preservation are long gone. In my time (back in the early 2000s) every maintenance period included a repaint of a section somewhere. Given that the average ship will be in port for at least a third of the year, there is plenty of time for this.

I think also the equipment reliability improvements coming out of the autonomous programs, such as for the LOCSV, will make their way into staffed ships and help lower the crew workload.

The bigger issue I think for a small crew come with activities such as at sea refuelling (which is people intensive) and during critical incidents such as damage control. Again to some extent these can be reduced with automation (RASs could employ auto wire tensioners rather than a line of people on a rope for instance), and damage control can be likewise with fitted fire suppression equipment (the new hifog systems for engine spaces are great). Hull breaches, fire waterwalling and the like worry me the most as these generally need a lot of people and there is limited technology options available for these.

Perhaps the new Atlas robots from Boston Dynamics are the solution (to those who have seen the videos of the new Atlas model, the days of the Terminator are not far away).
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
I have seen worse. Those black marks on the side of the hull would be scuff marks from wharf side rubber fenders. The indented pockets would relate to the steel shell deforming around the internal frame. New ships would look the same after a short period of time. I think with ANZAC the real damage is internal with high corrosion levels within tanks, and worn out main propulsion machinery, both very expensive to refurbish.

Hauritz, your point about minimum crew is valid, however maintenance programs will to some extent adjust. I would suggest that most painting is already outsourced and done by contractors when in port for instance. The days of the crew being responsible for preservation are long gone. In my time (back in the early 2000s) every maintenance period included a repaint of a section somewhere. Given that the average ship will be in port for at least a third of the year, there is plenty of time for this.

I think also the equipment reliability improvements coming out of the autonomous programs, such as for the LOCSV, will make their way into staffed ships and help lower the crew workload.

The bigger issue I think for a small crew come with activities such as at sea refuelling (which is people intensive) and during critical incidents such as damage control. Again to some extent these can be reduced with automation (RASs could employ auto wire tensioners rather than a line of people on a rope for instance), and damage control can be likewise with fitted fire suppression equipment (the new hifog systems for engine spaces are great). Hull breaches, fire waterwalling and the like worry me the most as these generally need a lot of people and there is limited technology options available for these.

Perhaps the new Atlas robots from Boston Dynamics are the solution (to those who have seen the videos of the new Atlas model, the days of the Terminator are not far away).
Click to expand...

Or the tens of thousands of robot dogs with guns that can be dropped via transport plane


- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
SammyC said:
Perhaps the new Atlas robots from Boston Dynamics are the solution (to those who have seen the videos of the new Atlas model, the days of the Terminator are not far away).
Click to expand...
TARS and CASE are marines, and have already proven themselves in the field.

Some Automation will be welcomed if it is well done and actually good. Finding efficiencies doesn't always have to suck, the problem is often efficiencies is used as an excuse to dump more work on less people.

People using modern excavators, very much happier than just shoveling. How ever, often many manual jobs, particularly those that are cyclic or not frequently, like RAS, often still require strong warm bodies. The USN has been very burnt by "efficiency" drives that reduced crewing, by just dumping the same jobs on less people. Also things are often looked in isolation.. Great you have saved 5 people from one part, but those 5 people had other jobs across the ship. Are the ropes lighter? Is there less cleaning? Are there less people for watch rosters? With a smaller crew, impact of junior people, or sick people or training is magnified. You also get a lot of small group dynamics.
 
M

MickB

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
I have seen worse. Those black marks on the side of the hull would be scuff marks from wharf side rubber fenders. The indented pockets would relate to the steel shell deforming around the internal frame. New ships would look the same after a short period of time. I think with ANZAC the real damage is internal with high corrosion levels within tanks, and worn out main propulsion machinery, both very expensive to refurbish.

Hauritz, your point about minimum crew is valid, however maintenance programs will to some extent adjust. I would suggest that most painting is already outsourced and done by contractors when in port for instance. The days of the crew being responsible for preservation are long gone. In my time (back in the early 2000s) every maintenance period included a repaint of a section somewhere. Given that the average ship will be in port for at least a third of the year, there is plenty of time for this.

I think also the equipment reliability improvements coming out of the autonomous programs, such as for the LOCSV, will make their way into staffed ships and help lower the crew workload.

The bigger issue I think for a small crew come with activities such as at sea refuelling (which is people intensive) and during critical incidents such as damage control. Again to some extent these can be reduced with automation (RASs could employ auto wire tensioners rather than a line of people on a rope for instance), and damage control can be likewise with fitted fire suppression equipment (the new hifog systems for engine spaces are great). Hull breaches, fire waterwalling and the like worry me the most as these generally need a lot of people and there is limited technology options available for these.

Perhaps the new Atlas robots from Boston Dynamics are the solution (to those who have seen the videos of the new Atlas model, the days of the Terminator are not far away).
Click to expand...
No need to worry about RAS, I'm sure the Greens have plans to have an all solor net zero fleet by 2040.

Just start with the Collins class, already has batterys and electric motors.
Just throw away the deisels and fit a wind turbine and away you go.

Perfect political solution.
 
Last edited:
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
SammyC said:
The indented pockets would relate to the steel shell deforming around the internal frame. New ships would look the same after a short period of time.
Click to expand...
It is called tin canning or oil canning and is a natural affect and happens to all ships. Different rates of expansion and contraction between the plates and ribs.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
aussienscale said:
Depends on the construction, but yes it does, have a look at the NJ videos of her current docking in the US. They actually did a video about it because people were asking the question.
Click to expand...
Ryan Szimanski the Chief Curator for the New Jersey produces a lot of excellent YT videos on the New Jersey especially but also about the Iowa's in general.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
aussienscale said:
Depends on the construction, but yes it does, have a look at the NJ videos of her current docking in the US. They actually did a video about it because people were asking the question.
Click to expand...
Probably more obvious on the Iowa class then it was in most Battleship classes due to the internal belt and the US using all or nothing by the time they built her, but even with an external belt its highly unlikely to stretch all the way to the bow and stern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top