UnicornWhen was Sea Shadow in Sydney Harbour? :confused:
Unicorn
UnicornWhat is the “missile carrier Varyag ” Isn’t Varyag the Kutznetsov class carrier that was sold to China ?
Varyag is a Slava class cruiser.
Unicorn
UnicornThank you Wanshan, for exposing that very shakey Photoshopping job.
Begs the next question, who did it and for what purpose?
Unicorn
UnicornYes, the RAAF is very happy with their Hawk Lead In Fighter Trainers (LIFT)
Unicorn
UnicornExport model perhaps?
There are rumours Indonesia is chatting to China about frigates for the TNI-AN.
They would be cheaper than buying second hand Western gear, a situation which has a bad reputation after the East German vessels, and the Indonesian’s would get ships that represent an increase on current capability at a price that their economy could afford.
China would also probably like to build better relations with Indonesia after all these years.
Unicorn
UnicornRoyal Australian Navy calls them Fleet Concentration Periods.
Thus FCP2/05 is the second FCP of 2005.
There are the usual series of exercises such as the Kangaroo, Swordfish, Kakadu and other series of exercises but I believe that FCP is the closest aproximation to what your referring to.
Unicorn
UnicornWell, if finally what is getting the RAN is a “modernised Burke”, even longer than a Flight IIA, we must admit that the competition hadn´t much sense. A Burke is obviously a vessel in a higher division than a F100 or F124. A Kongo, KDX-III or something like that would be in that case the logical competitors in the 9-10.000 t category and not 6.000 t vessels more or less stretched.
Of course, bad thing if a 9000 t Burke hasn´t a seakeeping at least slightly better than a 6.000 t F-100.Regards.
I never said that there was a true competition, however there was the semblance of one conducted for the sake of appearances.
It was similar to the one recently conducted for new main battle tanks for the Australian Army, the Abrams was always going to win unless the opposition came in with a world beating deal. They didn’t and the Abrams duly won.
The same with the AWD. The F100 was always the second choice for a number of reasons, including the pig headed attiitude of the former builders of the F100, before they were restructured as Navantia.
Bazan told the Australian government that they were willing to help set it up so that the Australian’s could build the F100s in Australia, with the vast majority of work to be carried out in Australia. This was a major aspect of the AWD project.
Unfortunately for Bazan, they were tumbled telling a completely different story to a Spanish parlimentary committee, in which they said that the only work that they were going to do in Australia was fairly basic steelwork and assembly, the majority of the major design, building and integration work would be done in Spain, and that various “difficulties” could be found in Australia to justify this.
When questioned they stated that they were a Spanish company, in the business of employing Spaniards.
Bazan thought that their comments would be kept “in house” so to speak, but news leaked very quickly (as such things do) and the head of Bazan’s negotiating team was summonsed to Canberra. When questioned, he stated that it had never happened, it was all lies designed to damage Bazan’s image, etc etc, which did not help Bazan’s case.
Basically any chance Bazan had of winning the deal (which was very unlikely anyway, as they were very expensive for what you got by comparison with the Burkes) went out the window.
The F100 was the best alternative to the Arleigh Burkes, however it was always going to be an alternative compared to the Flight 3 Burkes which is what is being negotiated now.
Unicorn
UnicornA couple of comments
The comment about the stability issues of the F100 class came from a member of the RAN project team (who had previously served as PWO on board a DDG, and this was qualified to comment) who had visited Spain and been a sea rider on board the first F100.
The information that was issued to the media was that the Gibbs and Cox design was a derivative of the Arleigh Burke class but that is not what is being considered.
I can attest that the design that the RAN is working on with Gibbs and Cox and Bath Iron Works is a sister to the USN Arleigh Burkes. If you parked them alongside a USN DDG51 Flight 2, the only major differences would be the paint colour and the fact that the RAN ones will be slightly longer.
The RAN is looking at the long term with these ships, which includes an ABM capability, identical to the one being fitted to the USNs Burke’s.
Unicorn
Unicorn
UnicornIndeed hiding the CVN’s inside Fjiords is a central part of Battle of the Fjiords, whicle its discussed in The War That Never Was.
Clancy’s Red Storm Rising covers hiding the Russian SSBNs in the White Sea behind minefields
Unicorn
UnicornMight I suggest a book called Battle For The Fiords, Nato’s Forward Maritime Strategy In Action by Eric Grove and Graham Thomson.
First published in 1991, it answers a number of your questions.
Another somewhat simplistic book that will help is The War That Never Was, by Michael Palmer, which postulates that a wargame was held 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that the key decision makers at that time reconvened to play the war. Interesting look at grand strategy.
Of course there is also Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising, which has some interesting thoughts and concepts hdden amongst the mass market drivel.
Unicorn
UnicornThat was one of the original proposals, except the 76 was to be replaced with a 127mm forward in the spot that the Mk 13 GMLS currently occupies on the bow, with a 36 cell strike length VLS system to replace the 76 mm on top of the superstructure.
The intention was to field 24 – 28 SM1 and quad pack VL Sea Sparrow in the other cells.
Result would have been no loss of capability from the current FFG configuration, upgrade the 76mm gun to something with more range and a less circumscribed arc of fire, and replace the aging Mk 13 with all its moving parts, with the VLS cell.
Somewhere along the line some faceless bureaucrat (who would never have to go to sea in them) said it would cost too much and a minimum change mod was agreed, which has turned oiut to be not so minimum cost and has led to all sorts of problems.
Unicorn
UnicornFFG upgrade woes
Uni: mate you are saying the same things I have been saying for a while, though I think that Sydney and will go through an upgrade to keep her in the fleet just a little longer same with Darwin
Not likely, ADI / Thales / what are we called this week? have so badly stuffed the FFG upgrade that the other ships may never be modified.
Basically the weight of the VLS system up forward and other mods made the ships bow heavy. Counterweights had to be fitted aft, which lowered the designs freeboard limits and used up the last of the designs growth alowance (and then some), and has resulted in the hull “hogging”.
That is the bow and stern are sagging down in the swells and causing stress fractures in the centre section of the ship, which became frighteningly apparent during the sea trials which took place after the mods.
The ship is back at Garden Island in Sydney while the architects try and work out where to try and fit strengthening braces along the hull, trying to counteract the hogging, and coincidentally making the ships even more overweight.
The crew has been told they are going nowhere till sometime in 2006…
Dear oh dear 😮
Unicorn
UnicornAWD
The final design will be a slightly modified version of the Arleigh Burke Flight 2 (with some of the modifications the USN was planning for Flight 3)
The RAN is not looking to reinvent the wheel here, they simply want a design that does everything the Arleigh Burke can do, which is interoperable with the Burke class and the USN, and can be built in Australia.
Funny enough, they picked the Burke.
The major changes are incorporating a lot of the USN’s “Smart Ship” program into the design to reduce crew numbers, a perpetual RAN issue.
One thing that counted against the F100 design was that it has proved to be unstable in heavy weather, particularly with beam seas (too much weight up high, unavoidable really with the limitations of combining a 6000 tonne hull and the Aegis system)
The decision has been made, the nuts and bolts now are contractual things, paperwork, deciding when it would be most politically expedient to announce the decision, etc. :rolleyes:
Oh, and selecting the names. The scrapping over that is something to behold, as it has just dawned on several parochial types that Adelaide, Sydney, Darwin and Canberra will be out of service by the time the AWD enters service, plus Hobart and Brisbane also have no major warshps named after them, so we have six capital cities and only 3 AWDs. He he he :diablo:
To be honest though, Canberra will probably adorn one of the new amphibs, with another possibly being Australia. The RAN has been waiting a long time for a ship suitably prestigious enough to carry that name again.
Unicorn
UnicornThe DDL
The RAN Light Destroyer program was an ambitious attempt to replace the aging Battle class destroyers with something capable of combatting the full range of threats as envisioned at the times.
As such things do, the design size and cost escalated as the Navy started adding capabilities and costs.
The change of government to a more socialist one in 1972 saw a number of Defence programs heavily scrutinised, with the rising costs of the DDL project making it the first to be cut.
The RAN ended up purchasing the Oliver Hazard Perry design, a much smarter move IMHO for several reasons;
Williamtown Naval Dockyard was a byword for ineptness, inefficiency and featherbedding at that time. Cost and timeframe were both guaranteed to increase if built there.
The USN was in series production of the FFG7, and Australia’s order slotted straight into the USNs production schedule (in a manner similar to those of the three DDGs) which meant that the RAN got the four FFGs faster and cheaper than if we had built them here.
The RAN plugged into the USN’s own support network to support the FFG’s, rather than having to re-invent the wheel here with sole navy support of an orphan design. We have seen the RAN’s initial struggles with this concept with the Collins class.
That said, the design would have been very capable for its day, with a number of changes from the details that Badger provided, which came from a contemporary source.
Lead designer was the Yarrow Design organisation (YARD) so the similarities with a the Type 42 are understandable, however the DDL was substantially longer that the Batch 1 Type 42 (some 40 feet longer) and would have discplaced substantially more due to the RAN’s demand for very long range.
I have a set of builders plans for the design, dated July 1972 and classified “Confidential” 🙂
Dimensions
Length Overall 450 feet
Length at waterline 425 feet
Extreme Breadth (moulded) 48 feet
Design Draft 14 feet
Displacement 4200 tons / 5000 at full load
Compliment
Officers 26
Warrant Officers 3
CPO’s 13
PO’s 31
Junior Sailors 190
Total 263
Armament
1 x 5 inch Mk 45 (forward of the bridge)
1 x Mk 13 GMLS for Standard (atop the hangar)
2 x triple torpedo tubed (port and starboard adjacent to the funnel)
2 x Quad Harpoon launches (mounted port and starboard at the rear of the forward superstructure block)
2 x twin 30mm gun mounts (look a bit like the Korean Navy’s Emerlec mounts. A discussion with the head of the Project team revealed that these were always conjectural and the decision had been taken to fit Phalanx port and starboard at sime after commissioning)
Twin hangars for Wessex sized helicopters
Electronics
This would have been subject to the largest number of changes, as the plan shows a strange mixture of US and UK kit.
The main Air search radar is the AN SPS-49, relocated to forward of the funnel, as opposed to above the forward superstructure in the drawing posted at the head of this thread.
AN SPS 10 Surface Search radar
RM 916 Nav Radar
AN SPG 51 missile director
Sonar was to be Mulloka
Abby Hill
AS 1018
Scot Satcom
Propulsion
The design shows Olympus and Tyne gas turbines, although whether this would have been changed to LM2500’s was unclear. The Project Team guy suggested that the design lock down date may have precluded a change to the engines.
Twin shafts and screws
The ships would have carried the names of Australian cities, as the Adelaide class have. Most likely would have been Sydney, Canberra and Adelaide.
The reason for the interest is that I am building a radio controlled version of the DDL in 1/72 scale.
Check out our organisations website for some spectacular images of 1/72 RC warships at http://www.taskforce72.org/gallery.htm
Unicorn
UnicornFremantle class colours
Whyalla trialled a colour scheme that was much closer to USN grey than the RAN’s Storm Grey during the same period that Fremantle was running around in blue.
The first of the new Armidale class are sporting a new colour, which has a much reduced reflectivity compared to Storm Grey.
Superficially it looks almost like Storm Grey, but is a much more “matte”-like paint which does not shine as much nor reflect as much lightfrom external sources (such as the moon or light amplification systems)
As for operating one, the fuel bill would eat up any profits that you might make from ferrying passengers, especially given the costs of fuel today. One reason why you rarely see the Australian National Maritime Museum’s old Attack class boat out on Sydney Harbour these days.
Unicorn
Sign In
