OldTex
Well-Known Member
One reason was that at Federation there was a requirement for capital cities to have a port. So for Canberra to be the Australian capital it required a port, hence Jervis Bay became the exclave port for the ACT.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Correct. When we relocated the ammunitioning facility, one of the places we looked at first was JB; would have been on the northern side where there was and is little development. At the same time we were looking at establishing at least a minor base on the south side, essentially by expanding around CRESWELL. However, the environmental aspects of the Bay, being effectively unspoilt due to 100 years of both isolation and preservation by the Navy meant that it was knocked on the head; specifically because there were certain important sea grass beds which would have been disturbed.
For this who might not know only a small part of the Bay, which would have been the port for Canberra, is managed by the federal government, the area which now forms the Booderee national park. It’s actually a separate federal territory although administered as part of the ACT. The rest is part of NSW; although the fact that a large bit of the northern Bay, the Beecroft Peninsular, is a Naval live fire range continues to protect that area. There has, however, been considerable development on the western side around Huskisson and Vincentia.
Finally, it is beautiful location, with some of the whitest sand beaches there are. I still think that after spending 3 1/2 years there as a Cadet….
For this who might not know only a small part of the Bay, which would have been the port for Canberra, is managed by the federal government, the area which now forms the Booderee national park. It’s actually a separate federal territory although administered as part of the ACT. The rest is part of NSW; although the fact that a large bit of the northern Bay, the Beecroft Peninsular, is a Naval live fire range continues to protect that area. There has, however, been considerable development on the western side around Huskisson and Vincentia.
Finally, it is beautiful location, with some of the whitest sand beaches there are. I still think that after spending 3 1/2 years there as a Cadet….
HMAS Cresswell is indeed located in a beautiful area. I was only there for a few weeks on my Direct Entry Reserve Officers “knife and fork“ course, unfortunately in winter. The two day exped at Yalwal Gap was bracing, bobbing around in my life jacket in the middle of Jervis Bay waiting for the Iroquois on the Survival at Sea training and pleasant evenings cleaning the kangaroo poo off my parade boots. Happy days!
I was never posted to JB, but spent many days in and around Currarong on the Northern side fishing the rock ledges. JB is Australia's best kept secret, very special place. I even tried to get posted to PTS at HMAS Albatros to get that little bit closer!
downunderblue
Active Member
Hyams Beach is stunning and for me just one tier down from Whitehaven as our best beach.
It's a beautiful spot. A lot of the r/estate is owned by Sydney weekenders who have no interest in having their view interrupted or the dolphins 'harassed'. 'Move along' would likely be consultitive sentiment if the RAN sought to expand in the Bay.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Well, after the weekends events how do we sit on defence?
Will the GPFs eventuate?
How soon until the announcement?
I hope it's the Evolved Mogami. It's common sense and the one most able to take upgrades, but what would I know?
Will the GPFs eventuate?
How soon until the announcement?
I hope it's the Evolved Mogami. It's common sense and the one most able to take upgrades, but what would I know?
-The final selection is Q4 2025 which has been known since the ASFR.
-Cut steel 2026, built overseas and delivered by 2029 at the latest.
-1st RAN GPF could be delivered in 2028 if it’s the 1st or 2nd Upgraded Mogami off the production line. Ships 2 and 3 built overseas could be delivered at anytime between 2029-2034.
-Australian production of the chosen design is supposed to begin around 2029/2030 after Henderson consolidation + upgrades.
-Could be sometime before we see an Australian built GPF in service.(Probably not before 2035.)
I think it means exactly as they have stated. The Government has been fairly metronomic against the 2024 IIP commitments to date. I would not expect them to deviate much from this strategy in the short term.
Expect an announcement on the GPFs later this year, probably fourth quarter.
The PM (and an entourage) will be going to the Canadian G7 in June, and one would expect some meetings with the US at this time. There might be some defence announcements afterwards that could give more of an understanding of where we go with long term funding for Defence.
The good part about the Government remaining in power is that the Defence strategy doesn't get automatically thrown out the window and completely changed. Stability (mediocre or otherwise) is far better than repeated turnover.
I do think that post an election, the Government has more freedom to adjust the Defence strategy, but I doubt this will happen quickly or significantly. Don't expect the Government to suddenly make a commitment to achieve 2.5% or 3%, but we might see some programs brought forward or consolidated, changes for cost growth on existing programs, or some minor budget increases of a few billion for specific activities.
The next IIP is due in 2026. I would view it will be a moderate increase from the 2024 one. Hopefully recruitment turning the corner, maturity on the current round of GWEO programs and commencement of the next group of requirements.
I should note there is still a lot of unallocated and unspent money in the current IIP, so there is plenty of room to move within the existing framework. There is still heaps of money for GWEO, such that it could probably announce a medium range missile defence and a deal with Raytheon for missile production, all within the current 10 year funding. Satellites still remain to be formalised and the funding is still included.
None of the equipment or munition factories will be coming to the end of funded programs in the near future, so there is no need in the short term to authorise new procurements to keep these factories open.
Hunter class mast shape change + reorientation?
Array no longer faces directly forward and looks like they’ve tried to shave some weight off the lower section.
From article on ADM
www.australiandefence.com.au
2nd pic taken from BAE Aus page.
Got to say, it looks even uglier.
3rd and 4th pic, what it looked like before.
Array no longer faces directly forward and looks like they’ve tried to shave some weight off the lower section.
From article on ADM
The University of South Australia proposes naval financial solution - Australian Defence Magazine
Researchers at the University of South Australia have proposed a new planning formula to optimise the lifecycle value of Australia's naval fleet.
www.australiandefence.com.au
2nd pic taken from BAE Aus page.
Got to say, it looks even uglier.
3rd and 4th pic, what it looked like before.
Attachments
Last edited:
thatsamguy
Member
Comparing to the older ANI hosted rendering, I'd have to agree - uglier.Hunter class mast shape change + reorientation?
Array no longer faces directly forward and looks like they’ve tried to shave some weight off the lower section.
From article on ADM
The University of South Australia proposes naval financial solution - Australian Defence Magazine
Researchers at the University of South Australia have proposed a new planning formula to optimise the lifecycle value of Australia's naval fleet.
2nd pic taken from BAE Aus page.
Got to say, it looks even uglier.
- The third radar band face looks to be as large as the 2nd now too
- Slight configuration changes just to the rear of the mission bay door with shelf for something + radome no longer top mounted
- Bridge wings now have a cutout for something
Old model, still has harpoon.
new render looks to have something next to CIWS, dragonfire maybe.
Last edited:
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The antenna section on top of the mast has also been updated, it has a similar appearance (layout) to the UNICORN on the Mogami class.
Also, does the mast assembly appear to be squatter? Might be trying to get the weight lower.
The new design still shows radar arrays on the upper surface giving coverage against near vertical threats.
It may look uglier but it oozes functionality.
Also, does the mast assembly appear to be squatter? Might be trying to get the weight lower.
The new design still shows radar arrays on the upper surface giving coverage against near vertical threats.
It may look uglier but it oozes functionality.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Is this official? Are they trying to tell us something regarding the GPF choice? It's May, not April. And yes, I agree. It's ugly. They say about aircraft, if it looks good it should fly well.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Are there any more images apart from these?Hunter class mast shape change + reorientation?
Array no longer faces directly forward and looks like they’ve tried to shave some weight off the lower section.
From article on ADM
The University of South Australia proposes naval financial solution - Australian Defence Magazine
Researchers at the University of South Australia have proposed a new planning formula to optimise the lifecycle value of Australia's naval fleet.
2nd pic taken from BAE Aus page.
Got to say, it looks even uglier.
3rd and 4th pic, what it looked like before.
thatsamguy
Member
Yup - DTR has another one with much more detail in the May edition on pager 30-31. The radar face orientation now matches the upgraded Anzacs.
Still 32 Mk40 VLS since that was asked earlier.
What is the new set of small faces on top of the mast? Are they for top protection/ballistic missile tracking? Different band?
On ANZAC each band was a different face size. Now it looks like 4 faces (1 large, 2 medium, 1 small) for each 60 degree arc.
thatsamguy
Member
Also looks like 3x Rheinmetall MASS sets, but no CIWS?
Still feels like a absolute bucketload of radar designed to support a lot more effectors than the vessel provides (by itself anyway).
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The released drawings indicate that it still has 6 faces for the radar arrays which means that each array only has to operate 30 degrees either side of centre which is more optimum than looking at more acute angles.
I can’t say for sure but I believe that the large array on each face is L band, the 2 medium arrays could be S & X band - I’m sure that there’s more knowledgeable people on this site who can correct any of my errors. There are small arrays on the roof of the mast which may be S band for ballistic missile defence.
It certainly looks like one very impressive radar fit that would be suitable for AAW operations.
Last edited:
Cea mount is the x band randar from CEA. They are one and the same thing.
The upwards facing panels have always been part of the design, I've attached the earlier radar layout for comparison. You can see them at the top if you zoom in.
I'm thinking they are additional x band panels to provide better resolution around the vertical.
From what I've read x band is advantageous for BMD, as it can track smaller and closer together objects. For instance when an ICBM carrier splits into multiple warheads and other decoys, it can be more effective in this kind of high clutter environment. It can provide very high resolution at long distances.
Long range ballistic missiles tend to come down at very sharp angles, so upwards facing panels would enable the radar to operate in its optimal range.
It's an interesting move, there is not a lot of modern radar designs that have this roof top feature, however nor is there many other six sided radars either.
Just another point on the updated Hunter image: it seems to have Harpoon rather than NSM fitted, so it's not entirely accurate.
Last edited: