Yeah this thing is massive, too big for what is needed. One of the US only design i suppose as in too big for most nations to bother with.

I was meaning the things on the side about half way down the mast. The prickly ring thing are IFF antenna as far as i know. There are more of them on the rear mini mast behind the harpoon launcher area. The flat panel things aren’t on the T45 mast

Dont suppose that would be one of them?? If so 🙁 damn. Nice big ship that anyhow, maybe extend the stern and add a helo deck?

HMAS Success was a development of the French Durance class and is already at 18k weighting, so you are a little off on this one mate- think bigger!

The Durance class are about 7,600 tons deadweight they only weigh 18k tons when full loaded. Im speaking of a ship double the size that is around the mid-high 30,000 tons when fully loaded.

As for the F-35B’s I have been trying to tell everyone for some time that this is a very high probability of acquisition. Under the current planes, the RAAF are to get 76 F-35A’s divided up into three sqdns, this leaves 24 unaccounted for at present. The LHD’s are being built to the exact same standards as the Juan Carlos I retaining the ski jump fo’ard- now given that the Juan Carlos I is going to act as a secondary carrier to the Principe de Asturias and that the Spanish operate Harriers atm and are in line for F-35B’s, it is a foregone conclusion that we are getting these machines reviving the Fleet Air Arm of the RAN. This was a secret deal done under the Howard government who over night switched plans to buy a LHD without any capabilities of fixed wing aircraft, to an LHD that has a capability to operate all manner of air units and then said that the bow ramp would aid in deployment of UAV’s (cods wallop)!

I hope the RAN really does get F-35B’s as it will be a massive boost to what they can do alone when needed or operate as part of a larger group. A true powerfull regional naval force once more.

This is not entirely true, many of our neighbours rely upon us for tanking duties when on excercises. When on Task force duties, these days you can’t rely on the British these days as their fleet is shrinking at a fast rate and I can’t see the British ministry of defence giving up any fuel stores. The Americans are pulling back now so their fleet units are not traveling as far.

Yeah my thoughts are stuck in the past mostly, The RFA used to be a very busy and active fleet around the world and it still is to some extent but it’s been trimmed like every other defence item. The RAN could do with a larger support fleet but it’s all about money at the end of the day as usual.

In peacetime ships need fuel to outrun storms, SUBSINK or for long range rescue operations, in war the tanker might be sunk by enemy action – ships are constantly topping up fuel. Theres a certain percentage of fuel that RAN ships had to enter port with – otherwise Naval Command had to be informed by signal. Tankers result in more time at sea on station and on task.

Very true in peacetime tanking will be avoided in rough weather but in war it will happen in rough weather more often. Generally when on deployment i know the USN and RN likes to keeps it’s ships with more than 60% of total fuel left just in case they are asked to do something or something happens with their fuel supply. Smart planning as the last thing you want is you big fancy ship running outta fuel.

That’s A14. Navantia’s A15 has about 2k tonnes greater displacement

Ahh im getting confused i need to pay more attention to things.

EDIT: When people talk tonnages could they also say what tonnage it is. I usually use deadweight as it’s better for comparision IMHO.

The Caimen 200 i would say is a boring simple replacement like for like, the Frank S Besson class also falls into the same category as i think you mentioned before this would be the least risky idea possible as the Philippine Navy operates a few of them with helo decks most likely for the same missions as the RAN would use them for.

I like the L-CAT as it has advantages so if the French derive a BATRAL replacement from it then i think if the timeline is suitable that would be the best option hands down, especially when joint op’s are taken into account. There a few things i dont like about the design and that is unfortunately the thing that makes it unique, i can see the hydraulics used to lower are raise the deck failing at some pesky time but thats me being picky. I also wonder what is the best way to add a helo deck, part of me says have a block at the back with the two hulls extending out that hold the deck. In this block at the back would be all the normal things and the roof could act as a heli deck.

Australian tankers do spend quite a bit of time in the gulf but i dont think it will be a huge amount as there are plenty of freindly Auxiliaries already operating there. There are also freindly ports that are visited to re-fuel etc when on patrol. Australia also like every other nation operates with allies who bring tankers etc with them such as off somalia most of the vessels there are using US fleet support assets and the RFA also always have a ship as part of the task group.

Australia needs tankers dont get me wrong but the RAN usually co-operates with other nations when far from home. Most of these other nations mainly the UK and USA bring their own support regardless of who they work with so it makes sense for the RAN to use the assets already there as they mostly deploy a single ship or 2.

They dont even have to work with HMG just contact BVT and say gimme some info on that design. If they like it order some and BVT get the design fee and maybe throw them some work but they should do it for the design fee. Furthermore HMG should support it as teh RAN might want thngs like those converteam 15MW motors so they are spending some money here.

Basically no need to get the UK Government involved as they would no doubt **** thngs up for the RAN. Simple private contract/partnership would be the ideal way to do things if they fail the contract then so be it.

Yup there is very little out there about the design, i liked the model since it had the perspex flight deck to allow people to see the TAS and stern ramp. I dont suppose you could send me anything you have found out about it?

All i know is thats it’s by BVT it’s the latest refined design they have, it’s around 6000 tons with IFEP, the launchers on the front are A43 launchers as far as i know so far to allow for Aster 15 and CAMM they could be A70’s but i doubt it. Everything else you can get from the image more or less.

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2009/sections/daily/clues-to-the-uks-frigate–2.shtml That gives you a crappy digital image of the front.