FedaykinBack to Submarines if people don’t mind.
I think a Scorpene or U214 (U216?) stretch with AIP would surely meet Australia’s needs (endurance etc…).
I would think that western sub design houses will bend over backwards to meet Australias needs.
I doubt the Japanese government would allow co-production of one of their designs but I think other designs could meet the requirement.
Personally I would lean towards an increased endurance version of the U214 with the American combat systems that Australia prefers. On that note I have always wondered why other countries haven’t requested the magic bullet that the Bae Systems Spearfish is, as far as I can make out it’s the most sophisticated torpedo on the market. But then again is it the UK’s version of the F22…..our toy only boys and girls!:diablo:
FedaykinI would surprised if Russia operated the Alouette III, maybe it was being demonstrated? Or was it a gift? I remember seeing a picture of a Boeing or Piasecki twin rotor type at the russian Monino museum which looked like some kind of gift (it was in company colours).
Or was it operated by a communist country that operated western and soviet types. The Congolese air force comes to mind of just that situation as they did operate this type but they had a roundel.
Oh and I would love to go to Monino some day:D
FedaykinMADs worked by overflying the submarine, and, if you can sense that, you’ll probably be able to see the carrier, so I’m not sure it would be useful.
The EM energy, however, might radiate like a beacon if not properly shielded?
To be honest I don’t think an American Nimitz class carrier exactly works in EM silence.
With all the radars that they carry I have a hunch that they have a fairly large em footprint.
FedaykinThere is no ‘sad end’ for the Collins, with them remaining in service with upgrades until 2025. That will see a service live of 35 years.
There is no in-service date of 2018 for the new subs. The date beng considered is 2025. 2018 is the date for fixing the design. This has been previously announced by the former government but the new Labour government is trying to make itself appear as if it has new ideas.
The likelyhood of a fouth AWD is receding, not getting stronger, with the new Treasurer looking at slashing current government expenditure to fund the new governments programs. There is nothing so vulnerable as an as-yet unordered, un-contracted military procurement.
The name Australia is currently reserved for a major surface combatant, which the LHD’s does not comprise. There may be rumours, but the section that handles naming of new ships (Naval Historical Section) confirms that Australia is not under consideration for the LPA’s.
As for the public pushing for name changes, the public barely knows about the RAN’s new building program,let alone get excited about naming. Sounds like some collumnest getting themselves lathered up about nothing.
The robotic systems are not on the menu for the RAN, the manufactuer is talkig up the possibility however it is a non-starter for a few reasons. There is negligable pirate activity in Australian territorial waters, which means the only place these would be used is in other people’s territorial waters (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore). These nations have shown themselves to be VERY reluctant to allow other navies to undertake anti-piracy operations within their waters, let alone the use of deadly force. Now we are supposed to believe that not only will they authorise deadly force but that they will allow someone else’s UAVs to do so. Nah, not going to happen this decade.
There has been no order for F35Bs, I don’t know where your getting your info Ja, but they should try a reality check. There has been no contract signing for the actual order of F35s, let alone an order for a sub-group of B models. Australia has signed a MOU for F35s however no contract for acquisition has been signed.
The RAAF is opposed to a split buy of A and B models, and Navy is painfuly aware it does not have the personnel to reconstitute the fixed-wing FAA, leaving it reliant on the RAAF for pilots and MX.
Talk has been going on that NH-90s were gong to be acqured to replace the Super Sea Sprites for at least five years, pre-dating the MRH-90 buy. At this stage it is possible that the new government may junk the aircraft, blaming its failures on the previous government and order something new, but no decision has yet been made by the Minister or CDF or CN.
Unicorn
I stand happily corrected!;)
A 2025 in service date makes far more sense anyway especially as the Collins are going through a rolling upgrade program at the moment.
FedaykinThe French link is not working. I can confirm that the yacht is called ‘Sigma’ or ‘Project Sigma’. It is 387 feet long. It may belong to Roman or Malenchenko (who?).
Try now
FedaykinJa, you know the 1928 Australia was a Heavy cruiser! 😉
What order, any info?
AIP is still possible, it just means no direct-drive option… they power electric generators.
The newer AIP systems are fantastic giving near nuclear capabilities, its one of the reasons I think that the Royal Navy should go back to a mixed nuclear/conventional sub force. Something along the lines of Astute light, a smaller version of the nuclear design with diesels and and an AIP system. Actually that would be along the lines of what Australia wants…
FedaykinWow! Thats quite a sad end to the Collins class saga, I presumed that they would be in service for longer with AIP being introduced at a later date.
A 2018 in service date will require a very tightly run program, it will have to be a variant of an off the shelf design to meet that target date in my mind.
Expect every conventional western sub design houses to be offering increased endurance versions of their current designs. Certainly will be interesting:)
FedaykinIn which case, the UK would have to shoulder the cost of integrating it with PAAMS.
The argument for Sylver A70 is that it will not require any integration of anything with anything, & will permit the additional VLS tubes to be used for the current SAMs as well as a long range land attack missile. Once we start considering adding entirely new capabilities, we throw debate open to such things as reviving the stalled Aster 45.
Yeah Sylver A70 wins for me as well, its the way to add a land attack capability with the least pain. I like Tomahawk but SCALP NAVAL offers a very good capability.
FedaykinThe project name is Sigma (SF99 Hull number 970) and she was designed by the French designer Philippe Starck http://www.philippe-starck.com/.
The contract was with Blohm and Voss but due to the Hamburg yard being too busy it was decided to use the HDW yard at Kiel.
FedaykinThe F-117 is a maintenance hog re: Maintaining the stealth profile. A different generation on that kind of operation. That is night time-only stealth requiring… offboard jamming support also. F-117 ops never left home without jamming support.
The idea that the F-111 had to go away due to structural risk as the reason, ( an after the fact fairly tale justification by Defence ) is just that: A fairly tale.
Nelson being duped out of his skillset to make the snap-decision on Super Hornet is the case of the fox (Boeing and Boeing Australia) telling the Farmer (Nelson) the definition of a chicken.
Guess who is involved with maintenance support of the F-111? Boeing. Guess what started happening to F-111 support of many flavors as soon as the ink was dried on the Super Hornet deal? A race to tear down all flavors of F-111 support (software labs etc) so they can hold up their hands and say “no esta” on any future work.
A really great con game. Although that is just another story in the shambolic story of Defence leadership throwing billions into the trash bin on numerous questionable Defence programs. A tradition even.
Yeah it is a bit fishy especially as there are row after row of F111 at AMARG able to give up their major structures and engines.
Actually I have been curious to know what the annual purchase by Australia for spares from AMARG in respect of the F111 fleet.
FedaykinAre these commitments which the Lib-Dems would have made? Certainly not on Iraq, which then of course means it could be read that cuts are then okay.
The problem with the Lib-Dems is that, aside from criticising every procurement, what do they actually propose to do? The only recent comments I can recall are vague assertions about supporting UN Peace-keeping operations. If that is what the armed forces are going to shaped for, then to most that will be cuts, in equipment at least.
How can not supporting the Iraq war be seen as supporting defence cuts?
The fact is people are far to happy to use the throw away line that the Liberal Democrats will be a disaster for defence when there is no evidence that this is true. The parties policy documents back a well maintained armed forces.
As for criticising every procurement, where is the evidence? There is criticism of bad procurement which is something the previous Tory government and todays Labour government have been guilty of, how can that be seen as bad?
I’m proud of my party membership and it makes me angry when people throw cheap shots without doing any kind of research beyond what the Torygraph says!
FedaykinOne thing is for certain and that is that a Liberal Democrat government would be apocalyptic for the UK armed forces.
Sealord I respect your opinion on many things and I know your not the only one but I am fed up with people saying that a Liberal Democrat government will be a disaster for the armed forces! As a paid up member of that party I do find it VERY insulting!
Aside from the nuclear issue where I do not agree with the party line (and even then the official policy states that the deterrant should be retained at the moment) where is the evidance that the party will be a disaster for the armed forces?!
I can’t find any policy statement from the party saying its going to destroy our armed forces but I can find plenty of official statements criticising defence cuts!
This is an exert from the official Liberal Democrat manifesto on defence for the 2005 election:
Britain’s armed forces protect the
country and are a force for good
in the world. But with increasing
overseas commitments, they are
overstretched. The Government
should not be cutting the size
of the armed forces while at the
same time asking them to take
on ever more difficult tasks.
I would think that most people here would agree with that sentiment and I don’t see how it fits in with the idea of the Lib Dems being a disaster for defence!
Rather then making offensive sweeping statements about the Liberal Democrats wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually check what the parties defence policy is.
Frankly I find it small minded and childish.
😡
FedaykinIf I was Argentina (and Brazil for that matter) and I had the money to spend in the future on carriers I would take a very serious look at the ADS being built by India.
India plans to build two to three of the things and it looks like a farely adaptable design, I would think the Indian yard (Cochin isn’t it?) would welcome building one or two more with the added cost savings of purchasing in scale. Argentina could go for a pure CTOL fit or maybe even move to STOBAR. As for Brazil it would probably be a very suitable replacement for the Sao Paulo down the line and if it was a joint purchase to a common fit with Argentina there could be significant cost savings to be had.
Fedaykini have read those. what i was wondering was, how accurate is the kh-31s seeker at range, because if i launch it at 100 km, and at 80 km away, if the radar shuts down, how will my kh-31 react? will it miss the target totally, or will it explode harmlessly, or will its seeker continue scanning for the radar to reappear?
the latest version of harm apparently uses a gps to have a ;last position for the target to take it out, even if the radar goes off. but knowing how seekers need to be updated, and the need for triangulation, for 3 coordinate availability, i doubt it can do this at range.
imo, against an opponent like pakistan, which is devoid of air defence but target rich, the best thing to do is launch kh-31s at low altitude and min safe range (say 10 km out of AD envelope) to take out the radar. or use man in the loop missiles like popeye or kh-59 mk to target radars already pinpointed by satellite surveillance or esm.
As far as I’m aware Pakistan has a comprehensive air defence network (with gaps) so I don’t quite understand how you came up with the idea of devoid of air defence.
The biggest problem Pakistan has is the small size of it’s land mass leading to a very small warning time.
FedaykinFedaykin,
According to the information in Bill Gunston’s ”The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines”, I paraphrase:
The J47 has its roots in the TG-180 (to become the Allison J35), which first ran on the testbed on 21 April 1944. This engine had an 11-stage compressor handling 75 lb/s at a p.r. of 5, eight tubular chambers and a single-stage turbine, producing 4,000 lb thrust. It first flew in the XP-84, a single-engined fighter, on 28 February 1946.
The TG-180 was redesigned by General Electric to become the TG-190, which first ran on 21 June, 1947. This had a 12th compressor stage and as the J47 became by far the most important engine for the USAF. Studebaker and Packard helped to produce 36,500 of them by 1956. The biggest applications were in the B-47 and the F-86, thae latter in the afterburning version (F-86D and-K) providing 7,650 lb thrust.
Thanks for that Papa Lima, have a nice Christmas.
Sign In
