anandaSomeone call? :D:D:D
The design of these news subs will be massive, we have a vast area to cover, but manning them will be interesting- there is a call for an unprecidented level of automation in the new boats, thus reducing the crew levels from the 72 in Collins down to the same levels seen in the Israeli Dolphins. People talk about the S-80, Barracuda, and others- truth is, the new subs will actually be designed specifically for the RAN as the requirements specified do not reflect any current design. To this end talks have already started with BAE Naval Systems in England (designers of the new Astute class), so from this I can only conclude that the new boats will be an offspring of the Astutes. People are wondering why we aren’t going to the US, truth is that the designs the US have are not flexible enough for modification to RAN standards and the US are not interested in looking at D/E powering options.
An Astute D/E derivatives ? now that’s interesting. However isn’t the ex RN Upholder class now in Canada also a derivatives of RN nuke’s (if not mistaken the design is derivatives of Swiftsure class).
Still if want to use SSN as based, why not also considered Barracuda ? I know I seems belong to the guys that think Barracuda can be a fit based for next RAN SSK, solely based on assumption that Barracuda design fit (at least from the outset) the parameter that RAN wants. But again it’s only an observation from a fan boy 😀
anandaWould a mixed fleet of say three Barracuda nuclear subs, and nine Australian built non-nuclear subs work? The 3 nuclear subs could be introduced to the RAN shortly, not having to wait for the AWD run to finish etc.
Or Ausies join with Barracuda project, while at same time uses Barracuda design for AIP/SSK version. That could work.
anandaI think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
If Australia needs to go nuclear — and I don’t think we do — the French Barracuda is by far the more sensible option.
In my post at the early of this thread, I already suggest Australia to go with French Barracuda SSN program. It’s not as big as US and UK nuke’s and does will be more manageable by RAN which I believe have manning problem.
However I put this article more interested with some statement that the ‘political’ mainstream in Australia has changes some of their objections for Nuclear Subs, and begin ‘seriously’ considering them for RAN. Politicians ‘usually’ does not change their mood on something that consider sensitive, if they don’t sense changing mood also from their constituents. Will Australian public more acceptable with the idea of nuclear subs in RAN ?
If India can operate Nuke’s and I believe Aussies can do that also. Heck even Brazil seriously considering going Nuke’s at least on some their future subs. Australia maybe have smaller economy than India, but have more affluent and more ‘better’ trained population bases. Thus I believe getting 6 nukes (you don’t have to go for 12 SSK as originally plan if you can get SSN), will be still in my opinion doable for RAN.
However going with US option (even though Virginia perhaps give more challenge to operate for RAN compared to Barracuda), can provide much needed nuclear supporting infrastructure (including waste fuel disposal), that this sensitive issues can be handle. I do not know if going with French will provide same kind of support that USN can provide.
4-6 Virginia on RAN will create much perhaps bigger deterrence factor and capabilities than what RAN looking with 12 SSK.
anandaUS floats nuclear subs option for Australia
Is this credible option ? http://afr.com/p/national/us_floats_nuclear_subs_option_uPMgRrev3KjNwBLfFxpdeO
Seems there’s increasing Political will within Australia it self on operating nuke’s subs. If US also willing to provide support for nuclear subs, this will reduced the need to developed in-house nuclear support infrastructure within Australia (which I believe is one of the main arguments for not operating nuclear by RAN).
anandaNot encouraging news for KAI T-50. I believe after loosing Israel, KAI need this , since they with Lockheed team-up seems to be favorite.
anandaWill see if ROK, start drop all their future procurement contract with Israel.
anandaSummary:
Deyz want more fighters
– More F-16s and More Su-30s
– Considering F-5 replacement, F-16 is likely
– Getting some C-297’s for transport
– Getting Super Tucanos to replace Broncos
– Getting T-50s for training
– KF-X will replace rest of Hawks
– Want AWACS but will not settle for C-297 variant.. they want BIGGER
– Will finally get weapons for Flankers
– C-235s and 737s will be upgradedsounds like a pretty respectable force its growing into. F-16 and Flanker combo..
Watch out Australia!
If you talking about those Hawk 209, well if KF-X turn out to be an actual development program (at this moment KF-X still just a ‘studied’ program), it will be ready after 2020, then by that time KF-X will replace not just Hawk 209, but also those F-16.
Anyway, most what the Indonesian AF plan is for replacement. Not something that will worried Australian Shornet and F-35. If Indonesian AF replaced all their squadrons with Pak-fa or J-20, then perhaps it’s something that will worried Australian.
anandaI’d be astonished if the final number was >8.
Personally I’d be opposed to the nuclear option even if it weren’t unnecessary from an operational perspective and impractical from both financial and political perspectives: too much reliance on USA.
Why not just join French ‘Baracuda’ SSN Project ? With that kind of Budget, it’s impractical in my opinion if still go with SSK.
anandaInteresting purchase if true. They recently bought Mi-35s- and not Mi-35Ms, but vanilla, good ole Mi-35s. From that to Apaches?
It’s still a very early process, thus procurement still long way to go. This is just an assessment process since according to some unconfirmed report (that is local forum ;)), the Army after operating MI-35 conclude that even-though they like the MI-35 for the simplicity and toughness, but it’s lack the advanced technology needed for night and covert operation. Thus they conclude a ‘hybrid’ operation with MI-35 as workhorse and more advanced gunship as ‘escort’ needed.
anandaPersonally i think they may be able to lease a number of F-18 E/F from the US, to form up a squadron for FAA use supported from the US much in the same way the Predators and Airseeker RC-135W are done. These would remain in service untill sufficent F-35C have been delivered to allow the FAA to form a Squadron. Of course alot depends on how the US/UK Carrier Cooperation deal is developed in the coming years and how the F-35 program fairs in that time period.
Is there or will be enough SHornet available from USN/USMC/NAVAIR inventories to be temporarily supplied as ‘leased’ to RN as stop-gap ?
If yes, then the problem solved. Since ‘leasing’ SHornet as stop-gap will be the most appropriate solution.
However I believe much of discussion on this thread has evolved on the condition that not enough SHornet will be available to be use temporarily by RN as Stop-gap from existing US inventory. Thus RN has to buy new build SHornet or new build Rafale as stop gap or (at least in my opinion) have to modified some ‘mothballed’ legacy hornet as stop-gap.
Anyway I do hope RN will get some arrangement with USN to ‘leased’ one or even two sq of SHornet while wait for F-35C (if the fighter really delayed).
Just wandering though, why any discussion that mentioned Rafale in this forum, seems more than often turned into ‘Rafale vs Typhoon’ at some point 😉
anandaCongrats for French and Dasault. Does this mean India will use Rafale for their next gen carriers to ? Hope this thread not turn to another Rafale Vs Typhoon.
anandaKeeping flight-hours & cat/trap cycles evened out among the entire type fleet was a normal part of NAVAIR operations for long before I was there, and remained standard procedure to current days.
Thanks for the info. So, basically the conditions for USN and USMC Hornets basically are the same, since NAVAIR keep the rotations betwen two services practically even out, right ?
anandaBecause their airframes are crapped out, and they have no more carrier landing cycles left.
To re-certify them for carrier ops (which is the only reason the UK would want them) they would require a rather expensive complete repair/rebuild/overhaul of their airframes… something the USN is not willing to do, preferring to buy new Super-Hornets instead.
I don’t have the data, but read somewhere on other forum that the ex USMC Legacy Hornet conditions (for carrier operations), is better than ex USN.
Agree this is not the most ideal conditions, but for me with the kind of prices that Rafale M and SHornet asked, is not make sense to get them only for short term interim solution. If RN choice to take either one of those two, then it’s for substitute of F-35C and not for interim solution. Interim solution only works if you take Legacy Hornet.
anandaI think something needs to be laid to rest as I a significant amount of confusion here!
Any interim lease or purchase by the UK WILL NOT INVOLVE THE LEGACY HORNET!!! That is F/A18A/B/C or D!
Firstly there are none available from the US secondly there are none available from international operators. Even if there were they would be either too worn out or in limited numbers for UK operations.
Any interim purchase or lease will involve the F/A18E/F Super Hornet (or Rafale – maybe those mothballed Rafale M – F1). In respect of the Super Hornet it could be made available for lease fairly easily from US stocks, as it is Boeing have capacity to ramp up production if needed.
USN now put more legacy Hornet on Mothballed conditions. If RN only need 1 or 2 sq for interim Aircraft, they can choose from the mothballed stocks, refurbished them, and use them for 2-5 years. After all it’s for interim solution.
However if you take SHornet, then they (if we talking Time Frame of 2016-2020+), will still be utilize full by USN, which it’s questionable they can spare 1 or 2 sq to RN. Probable yes, but questionable. Thus RN need to get newly build. Same thing with Rafale. In short if this is newly build SHornet or Rafale, with their price, it’s not for interim solution, but as ‘alternative’ for F-35C (RN ‘dump’ F-35C for SHornet or Rafale).
anandaGuess we could drag out all the mothballed Jaguars and use those on the carrier for a cheap stop gap.:eek:
There will be a lot more mothballed F-18 A/B/C/D. With relative short modification will be suitable for 2-4 years more in the QE Class Carriers. Very suitable for relatively cheap interim solution.
Sign In
