Considering it’s to do with military personel I’d say it’s Richmond in Sydney 😉
Kev, I have some contacts in those Sydney areas I’ll see what I can find out for you!
You may have to PM me because I don’t come to this board often
I believe Choules is receiving further Australian Navigational equipment. Choules will be receiving a lot of Aussie equipment over the next couple of years.
Thanks for the advice guys, I will follow it up with the CEO’s and CASA (who are already watching Tiger after their grounding earlier this year.
As I said, Jetstar are great and will be testing Virgin (though I doubt I will have issues with them as I have a couple of friends who work for them, a friend who flies them regularly and we all know Sir Branson sets really high standard).
Well done guys!
2 left- see how good you are!
You guys are really good- the guys on Facebook have no idea and are messaging me privately to get the answers.
Anzac Class (Modified) HMAS Perth
F-310 KNR Fritjorf Nansen
City Class Logistics Support vessel- BRP Dagupan City
😀
New project …. in Spratly island 😉
Ahhhhhhh Club Med Spratley Islands, awesome. That should bring a few Dong’s to Vietnam (and I’m not talking currency) :dev2:
Well Swervey mate, we are getting way off topic. You and I could debate the Japanese Constitution till the cows come home, but it would get us nowhere.
But I think you and I can both agree that this carrier is just a pipe dream by some ill informed person- right!
… import from Israel 😀
Why is Vietnam importing Vietnamese Soliders from Isreal?
:p
Could the Japanese amend their constitution if they see China as a groing threat to their security?
With the way China is re-arming itself, and with Japan having no ambitions for a large empire anymore. Would the rest of the world be more willing to support them?
No Voodoo, the Japanese can not amend their consititution without refering to the US who are the “Care Takers” of Japan since winning the war, (it was a trade off- Japan got to keep their Emperor, but the US got to make policy for the country).
The US has major bases in Japan: Yokosuka being the biggest for the Navy- with a permenantly stationed CVN. If China does become agressive- you can be sure the allies will be ready.
I figure talks with the Brits boil down to this: conversations with BAE about selected design and construction elements and capabilities. Unless someone is confusing this with Babcock, who are under contract for development of a propulsion test site? And there is BMT, who are offering full DE submarine designs.
I don’t think it is a company who is being spoken to- more like the RAN speaking to the RN about design, employment (mission profiles) and on going support of the new boats.
I read an interesting article in “Defence Today” (Vol 9 #3- Dec 2011), about the new program. The article was the Magazine speaking with the current President of the Submarine Institue of Australia- Mr Peter Horobin and he states that any new project becomes the responcibility of the parent country. Australia used to buy most of it’s vessels from over seas sources- thus they were the parent countries. If we had an issue with maintenance or upgrades, we would consult the parent country about these issues. Buying the Type 471’s (Collins Class) we became the parent country and it threw us out of our comfort zone. We had a step learning curve to get these boats into a decent working order. Now that we are experienced enough with being a parent country, the new boats should have fewer problems (provided we have learnt the lesson and not forgotten them).
He also shares that if we are smart, we would model our efforts on the Japanese one where the lead boat is launched, trialed and problems corrected before the second vessel is built. Traditionally Australia has pumped out vessels on a timeline basis to complete upgrade conversions as quick as possible. Taking the Japanese model we are able to build, sustain and improve designs during a projects entire life cycle. This has the added bonus of keeping key personnel employed right through generations (another issue we have here in Australia- with the end of the Anzac Project, we are having issues with ship building and this has affected both the LHD and AWD projects due to lack of trained ship builders here who were laid off after HMAS Parramatta was completed. We now have “Start up” issues with personnel, which has forced delays in both these programes.
If Australia is to undertake such a huge program as SEA1000, it must look deeply at the project from project definition right through to final retirement.
You read Japanese? Does it say where this proposal originates? Is it official? Fascinating indeed, if so.
Yeah I read a little Japanese… helps when you are a translator in the navy 😉
Japan can & does have a strike capability. Current JASDF aircraft are equipped for anti-shipping strike, for example.
Ohhhhh Swerve, you crack me up mate- Article 10 of the Surrender stated that Japan will give up all forms of agression and renounce all weapons that can be viewed as agressive. The weapons you call “Strike weapons” are used in a defencive posture only. ASM’s are not only a strike weapon but can also be employed to stop ships getting close to the Island Nation.
F-18C/D suggests the work of an ill-informed journalist, since it’s long out of production. Even F-18E doesn’t make sense, given that Japan has already selected F-35A. There’s enough commonality to make F-35C the logical choice. If (big if) this carrier is ever built, it won’t be until F-35C is in service, so there’d be no delay leading to a need to lease F-18s.
According to the article, the F-35 in Japan will be the J model- thus I can only conclude local content differeing to all other models (similar to the F-15J’s). Mention of the Hornets may be in a lease deal as people already know the Lightning is a slight step up from the Hornet in terms of flight performance (at least this is what Lockheed Martin say).
Could be just fanboyism run riot.
I agree, what I could read mentioned no government source thus someone has a great dream- besides, Japan wont have carriers again as these are recognised as Strike weapons and thus fall under the terms of Article 10.
It could be that the mention of the F/A-18C/Ds is with regard to cross decking with the US Navy, who of course operate these. Overall, it would make sense for them to cooperate with the UK on this, given the similarity in size etc… Who knows, perhaps they could do a deal to buy one or two slightly modified CVFs, and the UK buys a batch of P-X maritime patrol aircraft?
No the article doesn’t mention cross decking operations. As for buying CVF’s, wrong… as for the UK buying P-X, they can’t afford it.
By the time these hypothetical ships might be in service, will the USN still be flying F-18C/Ds off its carriers?
That is probable, the E’s, F’s and G’s are still new products and with the F-35 coming on line around 2016, We WILL see both pplatforms on the decks of CVN’s
You see this is called ‘ship porn’ and should be banned from decent forums such as this……
Nurse!!!…Its happening again…..bring the medication. 😉
How’s that Viagra working Jonesy, keeping the situation up and in hand mate?
:dev2::dev2::dev2::dev2::dev2::dev2::dev2:
Whoa this is interesting, they mention the F-35J being the primary aircraft, but also the F/A-18C/D as a secondary plane. Japan can’t have a strike capability, so why this particular plane? Also hasn’t production switched from C/D’s to E/F’s now? Are they thinking of leasing some fighters till the J’s come online?
We don’t know the tonnage figures, but based on the figures we do have (length):
JapanCV: 285m, ? tonnes
HMS QE: 284 m, 65,600 tonnes
MN CdG: 261.5 m, 42,000 tonnes
I’m not so sure about that mate, extencive use of newer materiels could produce a vessel of bigger size than the QE, but at a lighter weight, look at our (RAN) patrol boats, the Armidales are almost twice as big as the Fremantle class they replaced, but weigh only a fraction more.
My Chinese is rather weak these days — could somebody translate the most important bits and pieces?
Thanks!
It’s not Chinese, it’s Japanese- they are talking about a proposal for a new defence ship.
Apparently powered with 4 LM-2500’s, with EMAG cats and CTOL arangments (F-35C’s), advanced radars with twice the capacity of the current ones fitted to the Helo carriers.
Size will roughly be 285m, 30-40 aircraft. I can’t understand this bit about 2000-3000 Nm range… I can only conclude that they are looking at missile range (SSM’s possibily).
They go on to talk about why the proposal has been made- China opting for between 4 and 6 carriers with the first one due around 2015.
———————————————————
Facsinating find.
Size will be around the same as CdG but much better layout.