Maybe it should be explained for some that the RAN stands for Royal Australian Navy, whereas RN stands for Royal Navy (British).

Give up mate- I’ve tried, they aren’t interested.

I imagine that, much like the F-111, these boats will (possibly allready have) will settle in as very fine systems.

Well it’s like every system, not just the F-111’s, the new Patrol Boats, the Anzacs, the LPA’s, PC-9’s everything. Collin’s is now a very capable system don’t let the history tell the story- let those who have served and are serving on them do that- the only thing that lets them down is the poor standards of the Sub Contractors who couldn’t fix a flat tyre on their grannies wheel chair! (Yes I have issues with Tenix)!

Wan: I read a similar report in “The Navy” a magazine down here it was about 2-3 years ago, though back then it was only “planned” not actually happening. With the Russian carrier in now for extensive refit, I thought that perhaps this was what they had mentioned all that time ago (given the economic problems over there).

Now as for Vikramditya getting this hanger extension, i don’t know about that one nor do I know of any for Shi Lang.

Thanks Kev, some people can’t seem to distinguish the difference between RN and RAN- goes to add weight to their pointless arguments!

These people wouldn’t know the difference between Collins and a Lotus Espirit and given my back ground in the RAN I think I should know what we have and what I actually was aboard!

Steve: Mate they use those Computers now, but in the begining they were equiped with a Honeywell system that promised so much but delivered so little- the problem was sensor fussion, too much info was coming in and it just couldn’t be sorted by the processors we had- thus everything from Fire Control through to life support was messed up!

As for these vessels- yes now that the problems are sorted they are a huge step in front of most other subs, these aren’t piddly little SSK’s these vessels are huge SSG’s two decks deep (IIRC not even the Japanese subs are two decks), they really are the biggest D/E subs around and the main reason is due to the area these boats operate in- It’s not just across a little Puddle to the next country!

Hey Badger: seems like some people around here don’t understand Naval tactics like you and I, nor understand what the LCS is really about. Mate don’t fight it- you’ll only tare out those last remaining hairs you have :p

H_K: mate if you honestly think that is what the LCS program is really about, then you seriously need to sit down and speak with someone who has served in the navy or is currently serving in the navy!

I for one will not

cut with the mission bay crap

, nor will most other naval personnel who understand this concept- unlike you!

Lets just have a quick look at what you just said and try to clear up things so you do understand:

Except that LCS didn’t turn out to be what was originally intended (edit: as Pfcem noted). In practice, it’s armed like a patrol boat, sized like a frigate, and powered like a 10,000t cruiser. IMHO, a really bad joke.

This is a joke right? LCS was never intended as a replacement for the Cyclone class nor any other class of vessel, where did that idea come from? It’s armed like a patrol boat because it’s main threat will be coastal speed boats such as those operated by the Iranians. As for the size, last time I was aboard an FFG (HMAS Sydney to be exact) it was more than 138 meters long (Freedom is 115 Meters long and Independance is 127 Meters long). The power is needed for the fast get aways involved with Special Forces especially when facing the previously mentioned High Speed power boats of Iran. Bad Joke- the only bad joke is people pretending to rubbish what they don’t understand!

Size? No difference with a frigate. If you don’t believe me, check the dimensions.

I have checked the size difference and from where I sit and given my experience, These vessels are more akin to Corvettes than Frigates.

Draft? At best 50cm difference – completely irrelevant for littoral missions.

I checked comparing current RAN equipment and there is well over a 2 meter difference in draught here (note English spelling not American). In littorals even 1 meter makes a difference- this was evident to me aboard various patrol boats in Australian service.

Propulsion? LCS 1 has 25% more power than a Ticonderoga class cruiser – about as much in fact as the 42,000t Charles de Gaulle! LCS 2 is slightly better, but still has more power than a Ticonderoga.

There is good reason for that power and I won’t restate my point but will point out to you that a French Carrier and an American LCS may have the same power but the thrust to weight ratio is the deciding factor here- more power on a vessel this size means quicker get away times.

Cost? Somewhere north of a frigate, that’s for sure. The propulsion and weightsaving penalties alone will guarantee that.[/QUOTE]

Mission modules? Let’s cut with the mission bay crap. Using the Stanflex principles, a frigate do that just as well. E.g. forward bay for gun/VLS, midship bay for 20ft containers, RIBs & missiles, and a stern bay for helicopters, and RIBs or UUVs.

With this comment it is clear that you do not understand the principle behind a Mission Module when compared to a Modular building type- Mission modules are designed to slip in and out in a matter of hours, Modular construction requires days for change over and that is provided you have the right module available and the technicians to install it- then you need the staff to operate that module (we have MEKO 200’s down here, so Australia is fully aware of how to use this design principle, in fact we have done and currently are doing major module swaps on our MEKO’s as we speak). We previously operated a mission module pack aboard our Bay Class Mine hunters- we could change those in a matter of 2 hours to suit the need. These modules looked like Shipping containers on the backs of these vessels neatly parked between the two funnels. Mission Modules are designed for RAPID deployability- Modular construction means you have a layout that you can change when you want but requires a refit to accomplish, that’s the basic difference!

What’s the edge with LCS? Speed? That’s about it.

I hope you have a better understanding now of what the LCS is about-
Small crew (56 only), quicker insertion/ extraction times, better support of forces in areas previously denied to an navy such as the USN. Weapons fit to achieve a mission not blow another nations navy out of existance. Quick turn around times between missions- Extract a seal team, get them back to a staging point then swap the module for a Sea denial mission in under 2 hours.

Now getting back to this topic:
I honestly think this will go nowhere! The design principles are messed with too much and a vessel having this “Add on” would find it suffering some serious performance issues! I know it’s supposed to help with performance and it’s supposedly designed by one of the best- but I expect serious problems initially. For starters, you are messing with the designed Center of Gravity, chuck this add on on a currently serving vessel in MN, then have that vessel put to sea in the torrid North Atlantic: watch as the ships center of gravity forced the wave piercing bow through the wave alright, in a slight 25* down pitch and see your frigate become a submarine- Why do you think Vosper Thornycroft killed off the Sea Wraith so quick- they tried it! This adaption would serve well in calmer seas such as the Agean, Northern Indian or even the Black Sea.

Unital or Contineted

When I heard about this on the news down here I thought straight away of the impact on the market- seems like the only way Boeing could have survived was with this merger since just about everyone else is buying Airbus these days.

Boeing now support the two biggest aircraft users in the US, This super airline and the USAF (the KC-X which was to have been a version of the Airbus A330 has now been dropped by Airbus from the competition after the new findings have shown that Congress re-wrote their requirements to favour the Boeing product).

Long live Boeing, no one else wants American, America will have to have it :p

Logic dictates that the now vacant area of the Missiles should be taken up with extra fuel stores and/or weapons bunkerage- not hard to add a small lift there for ordinance!

As for Hanger space- only a moron who doesn’t understand carriers would even talk about such a proposal!

Take a leaf out of Burt Rutlan’s book and you might come up with a better Pocket Stealth plane. I’m no designer but lift does seem to be the major principle in all planes no matter what, so here is my idea:-

Flatten out the center section, give it a Diamond cross section, add a small phased array radar (say an adaption of CEAFAR as used now by the Australian Navy- a radar that can attach and detach sections of the phase panel to suit the intended fit), have the wings in a major dihedral config say -45* and give the Cannards or tail planes a reversed anhedral config again 45* giving the plane an X look when viewed from the front and you start to build a decent stealth plane.

You don’t need Vertical tail planes if you have such a cross section and the rudders and wings offer the same principle in a less radar intrusive fashion (experience gained from submarines which itself is based on an aircraft principle- ever hear of the Beechcraft Bonanza or the Fouga Magister?)

A little birdy told me that the Migs are intended for naval service though they won’t be 29’s but 35 as these have more weapons capability and take up far less room- besides these are cheaper to operate than the Larger Sukohis. The Su’s are actually for land based operations like the good old days of Naval bomber regiments, but will keep the ability to operate off the ship like a sort of hop island that has been prepositioned. Tactically I can understand this move, the smaller Migs can stow aboard in bigger numbers and the larger Su’s can fly in and out having the greater range, but logistically, I see a nightmare coming should an Su go US aboard- the Russians don’t have any aircraft that can fly an Su’s engine out should one be needed.

The other thought is that a small number could be used aboard as a version of AWACS in a similar move to what the IRIAF has done with their F-14A’s, but again my point on Logistics stands!