Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Spanish Armada Sails Into Australian Navy  
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Australian Govt has decided the Royal Australian Navy will be getting 3 new air warfare destroyers and 2 amphibious landing/force projection ships. These will be built in Spain and Australia

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21936065-31477,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...hips/2007/06/20/1182019156106.html

The 2 amphibious ships at 27,000 tonnes will be (I believe) the largest ships the RAN has operated and will add greatly to their ability to respond to situations both military and humanitarian in the region.

The Spanish F-100 destroyer was chosen over the upgraded Arleigh Burke which was the preferred choice of the navy but I think the right decision was made. The Arleigh Burke admittedly seems somewhat more capable but IMHO was too much ship for the RAN. 3,000+ tonnes heavier, 200 or so more crew.. simply a lot more expensive over it's life than the F100 and not available as soon either.
Sure the US ship has 56 Tomahawk launchers but if we need to shoot off a whole F100 load we are likely in over our head anyway.

Cheers

PS, some reports say the amphib ships will have(or are capable of) having a "ski jump" flight deck so I wonder if there are some in the RAN harbouring ambitions of adding a few F-35Bs to the RAAF F-35A program


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1592 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Great!!!  thumbsup  Very good news for Navantia. It seems the F-100 is a hell of a ship after sales in Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class and now RAN.
Also interesting are the amphibiuous ships.Thanks for sharing this news.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

My understanding was that the US design, was a much modified one.
Maybe after the Collins Class subs, now satisfactory but with a long teething trouble history, or the ongoing debacle of the Kaman helicopter variant just for the RAN, the government wanted to avoid specific versions again, be a bit more 'off the peg' this time.

The amphibious ships look an impressive size, maybe some F-35B might be an add on in the future, though I'm surprised the RAAF are not going for the F-35C which is meant to have the best range out of the F-35 series.

Some history maybe in this selection, when in the late 70's/early 80's, the RAN were looking at a direct replacement for the carrier HMAS Melbourne, several VSTOL designs were looked at.
No selection was ever made, but it was known that the Spanish design (which was built for their navy), was the front runner, though this was itself was a version of the un-built US Sea Control Ship.
Then the UK Thatcher government, in a fit of collective insanity called the 1981 Defence Review, offered up, at cut price, the new HMS Invincible, it was too good an offer.
(If people think the RN is too small now, just consider what the 1981 review would have done if it had followed it's course).

But this review caused the Falklands War, so no sale.
Many in the RAN were relieved, since the 1960's, when the UK started with withdraw 'East Of Suez', the RAN had looked to US designs and their supply chain, as they'd be working with the USN more than the RN in future, so Invincible would have been a cuckoo in the nest, with it's UK engines, equipment, weaponry.
A change of government in Australia settled the whole carrier replacement then, there would not be one.
Until this announcement maybe?


User currently offlinePMN1 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

At least one Aussie is not all that enthusiastic about the decision...

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1di...Message?topicID=877.topic&index=23

and

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1di...Message?topicID=877.topic&index=28

he makes some interesting points....

Info on the Tamesis class Ro-Ro Mark mentions.

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/tamesis/

[Edited 2007-06-23 18:57:15]

[Edited 2007-06-23 18:59:22]

User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PMN1 (Reply 3):
At least one Aussie is not all that enthusiastic about the decision...

You are always going to get that and Mark does seem to have some experience in the subject.

Whilst I tend to agree with the AWD decision I am in some agreement with him on the Landing ship decision, to my mind they are just too big.
3 smaller ships would seem to be to make more sense perhaps even 4 Kanimbla/Manoora sized ships would seem to make a lot of sense.
Having bought M1A1 tanks for the Army I guess the RAN brass is caught in the bigger is better thing.

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
though I'm surprised the RAAF are not going for the F-35C which is meant to have the best range out of the F-35 series.

That surprises me just a bit as well but hey with all those tankers we are getting, who needs range??  Big grin

Maybe we will refine our F-35 plans as the B/C program matures

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would think that any operation where the RAN was actually sailing into harms way where enemy air could get at them they'd probably be doing it in conjunction with the US. I'd think that ASW and littoral support would be more interesting to them navally.
Will these vessels require Kamans or something else?

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
Maybe after the Collins Class subs, now satisfactory but with a long teething trouble history, or the ongoing debacle of the Kaman helicopter variant just for the RAN, the government wanted to avoid specific versions again, be a bit more 'off the peg' this time.

You'd hope they learn at some point. They're also having integration problems on the AEW aircraft.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
You'd hope they learn at some point.

You'd think we would!!
After every "troubled" program there is a new promise to buy "off the shelf" but it rarely happens, the C-17 being a recent exception.
I think a large part of the problem is the size of our "area of responsibility" (large) and population (small). The size of Australia could justify a navy* much larger than we have... if not as large as the USA. Our population being smaller than California means there is no way we can afford that. This leads to a temptation, one often given in to, of trying to get more roles out of any single asset than would be the case in the USN for instance. Sadly this rarely succeeds and often leads us to getting "first of type" or new technologies that need proving and development, examples are the Wedgetail project mentioned by DLO21 and the Tiger Armed recon helicopter.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
in conjunction with the US

Like to think our freinds would remember us if ever the need was there.

Cheers

C

* Army & Air force as well



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1592 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
You are always going to get that and Mark does seem to have some experience in the subject.



Quote:
defence sources saying there was about a $1 billion price gap between the two competing designs.

Well some points of him are valid for sure, but the Arleigh Bourke isnt on everything superior over the F-100 and a billion more is a lot.
Also for what does need the RAN need the possibility to launch 56 tomahawks, they would never use that many.


Btw, someone knows if the F-100 will get the spanish MEROKA CIWS or US Phalanx CIWS?

From what i know the amphibious Ships has served the Spanish Navy very well they are happy with them.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 6):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
in conjunction with the US

Like to think our freinds would remember us if ever the need was there.

Hell....I doubt there'll ever be a situation where the Australians ask for help that we won't render.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 7):
Also for what does need the RAN need the possibility to launch 56 tomahawks, they would never use that many.

You never know. Australia is a small nation in terms of population and a continent of size...they have to be able to defend themselves.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 7):

Btw, someone knows if the F-100 will get the spanish MEROKA CIWS or US Phalanx CIWS?

I think it'll be whatever the Spaniards can fit on those vessels without extra integration issues.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 7):
Well some points of him are valid for sure, but the Arleigh Bourke isnt on everything superior over the F-100 and a billion more is a lot.

Yes..the Arleigh Burke is superior on almost every count to the F-100....but it does cost more.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2765 times:

Those 2 amphibious ships will be a great investment for Australia! With a few F-35C they will have a formitable warship!

User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2749 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Thread starter):
200 or so more crew

Just a small question - did you mean the Arleigh Burkes have 200 or so more crew members than the F100s?

Because there are 180 crew members on the Burkes, and 220 on the F100s.

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
My understanding was that the US design, was a much modified one.

Mine as well. I wonder what the final cost would have been. Surely considerably lower than the USNavy ticket price.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
I would think that any operation where the RAN was actually sailing into harms way where enemy air could get at them they'd probably be doing it in conjunction with the US. I'd think that ASW and littoral support would be more interesting to them navally.

Agreed. I was surprised that they didn't choose to augment the purchase of the two amphib assault ships, with destroyers more suited to supporting a beach assault, and not anti-air.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
Yes..the Arleigh Burke is superior on almost every count to the F-100....but it does cost more.

Agreed, but I wonder how much of our technology we were willing to share?

-Uh60


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

If the lower cost of the F-100 does mean the proposed 4th hull could eventually be procured, then definately the right choice.

The amphibious ships look quite impressive, Spanish sources state that F-35B is a possible fit, is a longer term intention for their Navy.
Also rumours that the last 20 of the planned 100 RAAF F-35's, might be the F-35B version.

Even so, they will be great force multipliers for the RAN, with or without an eventual F-35B, (but very likely to eventually include UAV's).


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
Because there are 180 crew members on the Burkes

My mistake, I based those crewing numbers on Flight I/II/IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers not the "evolved" type under consideration.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
Surely considerably lower than the USNavy ticket price.

Doubt that, our habit of trying to cram more capability into everything is unlikely to reduce the price, even changes to reduce capability are unlikely to reduce costs much for a 3 hull program.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Spanish Armada Sails Into Australian Navy
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Indian Navy Carrier Delayed--Wiring Problems! posted Tue May 1 2007 15:44:36 by Lumberton
Spartan To Replace Australian Caribous? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 19:57:54 by DEVILFISH
Flying Into Air Force Bases posted Wed Mar 14 2007 21:10:08 by SuseJ772
The F 22 And The US Navy posted Fri Mar 9 2007 01:50:11 by Beta
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
F16's In The Navy? posted Mon Jan 15 2007 20:03:34 by Blackbird1331
Navy To Name Next Carrier After Ford! posted Thu Jan 4 2007 01:59:07 by BladeLWS
Air Force Or Navy Training At Fort Irwin? posted Tue Jan 2 2007 14:02:46 by STT757
Navy Stealth Fighter posted Thu Nov 30 2006 17:55:39 by EBJ1248650
Australian Blackhawk Down In Sea Near Fiji posted Wed Nov 29 2006 11:52:53 by Curmudgeon

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format