Ja WorsleyI know here with the RAn that we do this with HMAS Tobruk, though she doesn’t have any hanger space for a helo, she does deploy with a Seaking on the aft landing deck and either two or three Blackhawk helos forward, sometimes a Chinook.
As for our Hanger ships (all our frigates), they only deploy with their compliment of helo’s…
Anzac’s deploy with a Seahawk (perhaps oneday a Super Seasprite if they ever come into service)
Sydney class (former Adelaide class), they usually deploy with one Seahawk and one Squirrel. It is rare to see two Seahwaks on our FFG’s.
Ja WorsleySome more questions about our new Hobarts:
1. Will they be fitted with Bow Thrusters? The standard design doesn’t seem to have a bow thruster but I know the RAN require it fitted.
2. What form of CIWS will be fitted to them? The Spanish ships are fitted for but not with the Merkoa CIWS. Also the G&C design had two CIWS’s one fore and one aft, will the Aussie F-100’s have the same as the Spanish or will they have the two they originally wanted?
3. There are 2x 20mm canons either side of the bridge. Will these be replaced with two Remote controled Typhoon canons of the 25mm caliber?
4. Aft on the top of the hanger are a couple of spots for 50 cals, will these be replaced with the remote controled Mini Typhoons that are now fitted to the Sydney and Anzac class vessels in the RAN?
5. Will these vessels get the new Kiwi made Jetboats as their Rhib’s or will the older type be transfered over?
Ja WorsleyDo you think that if we draw a couple of eyes on it we could market it as a new UAV to the Australian government? After all, it does say “own artwork required”.
Actually thinking about it now, after we buy the carriers and the AWD’s, the Rhino’s and the F-35’s, this might be the only project worth any value to the ADF.
They could call it- the defence WHITE PAPER! :dev2:
Ja WorsleyPioneer: mate my analogy is just and sound because it is based on the ecconomics of both times and not the threats of the time. Now despite us being in a budgetary surplus atm, Defence spending will rise sharply over the next five years to cover the cost of all the new programs and systems coming on line, not to mention upgrades that will be needed to key support areas as well;De-militarisation of RAAF Richmond as the ADF pulls out and hands over to Civilian Authorities, Millimeter Wave Radar for the Tigers, Upgrades to the Hawk Mk-127’s, not to mention Base and Facility upgrades (Have you seen RAAF Laverton lately? The buildings look like they are about to fall down).
Mate like I said, I am basing my arguments on Eccomonics, not countering threats.
Scoot: Mate the hooks on the Air Force model planes is basically a one time use only thing. Our F-111’s have them and we saw late last year what a good invention they are- what few people know is, each time this system is used on a field, it actually damages the structure of the plane is it saving. With the F-111, sure the plane was saved in one piece, but the Hook damaged a good part of the rear tail area and engine exhausts, so much so that the whole section was replaces with one of the spares currently sitting on the sideline at Amberly (we may have 35 F-111’s on the books, but we’d be lucky to field about 16 in the air).
The reason for this damage is that the wires on the field are not rectractable like those on a carrier. I remember a few years ago during an Operation Pitch Black exercise, an American F/A-18C had trouble and flew down to RAAF Williamtown and used the hook down there. The Pilot used to Carrier arrestings was injured using the emergency wire there because it didn’tr have the same leeway and retration as a Carrier wire does. The plane ground to a halt but the field wire was wrecked completely and had to be redone.
The only F-16’s I’ve seen with a wire are the ones used for DACT by the USN (F-16N I believe they were designated). As for the other fron’t line fighter types, The F-22 does not have one- according to Mick Spick in AFM with his tech drawings he has provided. Only a few European based F-15’s had the Hook and No A-10’s have it- though I think the upgraded A-10C might include one now- can’t remember.
Tiddles answered your question on the Single engine issue with the Mirage and it’s losses. And the F-35 is getting the nod on a technicality- the engines these days are far more reliable (so they say) and the B models actually have two engines (very sneeky).
Ja WorsleyHmmmmmm ok here I go with my bob’s worth!
Australia bought the Bug because of the above mentioned single engine fear, it’s competitors at the time were:
[INDENT]Dassult Mirage IIING
Dassult Mirage 2000
F-16 Fighting Falcon
JA-37 Viggen
F-15 Eagle
A-10 Thunderbolt II[/INDENT]
Dassult bombed out because the M2K was new and thus represented an unknown factor (risk) and the NG was not a new toy but rather an upgrade. The Viggen lost out because the US would not allow export of the engine only because they had their products in the mix and knew they would get whopped buy this amazing machine. The Eagle was far far too expencive and the Hog was not a real fighter and there were issues regarding it’s ability to take on other planes in the A2A role.
The only real contest came between the Bug and the lawn dart. The two main factors that swung it in favor of the Bug were that a) it had two engines and b) Canada had just placed an order for a large number thus ensuring that Australia wasn’t going to be the only customer again for another US product (remeber we were the only ones who bought the F-111’s even after the RAF had said they would but dropped out).
The reason why Australia was able to buy naval versions and not Land versions is because we had introduced a new saftey system at our bases using a wire and hook system just like those on the carriers. Also the idea of folding wings was appealing to the bean counters who thought that they could save sapce and have a few of these systems in the shop at the same time, while not needing to expand the facilities at the bases whetre the sqdns operated from (a Bug with wings folded is roughly the same size as a Mirage III).
Australia is not interested in the F-22, though after having met Carlo Kopp, I wouldn’t call him a “Worthless Turd”. I had a chat with him as we shared a few sandwiches and drinks at Avalon back in March. The guy has crunched the numbers and does have good reasons for his arguments. But I have to agree, his wording could be a little better in his articles and his advice to defence should be one of consolling rather than bullheadedness. His ideas are not to everyones cup of tea, but then again neither are everyone elses! We all have a difference of oppinion on various aspects of defence but if one of you could crunch the numbers as much as what he has done then I will listen to your arguments as I listened to his and I will make my own judgments.
The F-22 for us is like the F-15 back when we chose the Bug- too expencive to buy, too expencive to run, too expencive to arm and too expencive to support. The Rhino deal, after much deliberation on my own behalf, is actually a decent deal and I seriously doubt that we are going to get rid of them as the F-35 comes on line.
As to which version we are getting of the F-35: We are lining up for 80 F-35A’s and 20 F-35B’s, no C’s are envisioned for RAAF service at all. There was talk at one stage of buying a version that is on the drawing boards, but since this is both a risk and the associated costs (both in deveoplment and support- being the only country with this type as opposed to having the networked support for the standard issue) we’d be living a dream and may as well kick the whole thing in the teeth and go for the YF-23 (why do I get goosebumps when I think of that plane)?
Finally the F-35 is not the only option on the market for us, there is the Typhoon which even developed the CFT’s just to gain a foothold in the Aussie market after range became a concern. SAAB are still pushing the Gripen as a back up option should any further problems arise on the F-35. The Rafael is right out, it’s lack of orders outside of France doesn’t fill the RAAF with confidence neither does the option of having to buy all new weapons due to compatability issues.
Ja Worsleydocrjay: Mate I hav heard that CEA is being touted as an upgrade on the Anzacs in the 2010-2015 time slot, while the process for the Hobarts might actually include these systems straight off the production run. Don’t forget mate, they are being built in Spain but fitted out here in Adelaide at ASC’s facility there.
The case is still being negotiated as we speak but I can actually see this happening giving the fleet a common system and with the next class Frigate taking over the Sydney class they will have the latest versions of the CEA products.
The export market is looking good as well with interest coming in from across the globe- Chilie are looking at the system, as is Argentina and a few other clients
Ja Worsleydocrjay: Todate, only the CEAFAR radar has been tested on HMAS Arunta (FFH- 151). The system is being further evaluated and refined but so far no government contract has been issued for systems to be placed on any ship of any sort.
I can not find any comparsion data on the web at this point in time, but will direct your attention to the CEA website.
Ja WorsleyNow that the Hobart class are having the CEA-Mount as missile directors instead of the SPG-62’s. How will it improve against missile saturation attacks. Will it be at par at least with the APAR ships and Sampson ships or even the Burkes in handling multiple inbounds?
Who mentioned this mate? I have seen nothing on this- not saying that it won’t happen, but from what I saw at Avalon back in March, CEA were not in a postition to even approach the government about adding their systems to the Hobarts.
Ja WorsleyActually guys, should there be a fourth Hobart (HMAS Melbourne being touted as its name), just about all the FFG’s should be paid off, the last in service (HMAS Newcastle FFG-06) should be on her last legs.
The government and the navy have committed to a three level force with Destroyers and two typs of Frigates, thus what will replace the Sydney class Frigates currently in service will be a new type of multi-purpose Frigate. New systems are to be included is is the incorperation of U/UCAV’s and U/UCUV’s (robotic subs). Electronics and automation will play a high part in the new navies design philosiphies, thus reducing the actual human resources needed which the military are finding harder and harder to recruit these days.
Sure we have recruiting incentives for the forces, but under the current administration, no one wants to join up and go to a place that isn’t safe. Lets hope the Rudd government can win the election and change things for the better.
Ja WorsleyMerlock: Mate that’s a great site, I read a few more of the articles and they are talking about another Mistral being bought to replace Jd’A, which when it retires will be 46 years old. Jd’A has had a marvelous career and provided sterling service to the MN. She’s a facinating ship and worthy of being preserved.
Ja WorsleyI was under the impression that the Israelis already had a sea based quasi deterent force in the form of the existing dolphins with Popeye Turbo missiles?
They have been developing this, but it’s no good on subs that need to Snort every second day. With the two new subs and their AIP system, they can go six weeks before ever having to surface again, this will keep the Iranian Navy guessing as to where they are. Add to this, how conjested the Gulf is these days and you can see already what a master plan this is.
Ja WorsleyYeah it is the SMX-23, nice design and such, expect to see more of them. As for the two new Dolphin class, they too will differ from the original designs as the AIP will be incorperated in them allowing longer sea times.
There is speculation about, that these two new subs are the start of a deterant force, that is being put together for patrols to the Gulf region in order to let Iran know that should they launch an attack on Israel, the Israeli’s will strike back with minimal time launch missiles.
Ja WorsleyTo my knowledge, the RAN has not settled on any Tommahawk Missle program for any vessel let alone the AWD’s. MConrads, could you please enlighten us as to the inclusion of the missile in your drawing.
The only mention ever made about any Tommahawk fit was with the Collins, but that was cancelled when costs to fix the problems of the class rose rather sharply.
Ja WorsleyTurbinia: Mate seriously, look at the following pages first before you say anything more ok mate, that way I’ll be somewhat satisfied that you have at least a rudimentry understanding of New Zealands Military and political position.
Ja WorsleyA shame the RNZN didn’t buy a LSD(A) for moving their Army, their chosen vessel is a slightly militarised freight Ro-Ro, useful but a lot more limited even than the LSD(A) design, which IMO is a very useful type and a massive boost to UK capability over the old LSL.
Mate it’s obvious you don’t know anything about the Kiwi’s or their military. The Canterbury that they have (which has now been delivered guys), is just the right size for their needs, They don’t have a big army, but what they do have is constantly in demand for UN duties. Had they have gone for the ship you mentioned, it would have turned into another “Charles Uppham” (Look that one up and make the comparisons).
Sign In
