Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australian Defence Force

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Te Zorro View Post
    That's not Australian.
    No, but if you look very closely you will see a RAAF Adgie sweeping the hanger floor.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by gafkiwi View Post
      No, but if you look very closely
      super special force Adgie guards broom in moderately unsafe warehouse
      .
      :P

      fixed it for you mate

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Divingengineer View Post

        :P

        fixed it for you mate
        I was just trying to maintain OPSEC, but I guess your right, "The first rule of being an Adgie is, Tell everyone your an Adgie......... and pretty much SF"

        Comment


        • But by the end of 2016, all three were acutely aware that one SASR soldier was being whispered about more than most. He had deployed repeatedly to Afghanistan and formed impeccable connections up the chain of command. One SASR officer, to himself, called this man "Leonidas", after a fearsome warrior of ancient Sparta. Leonidas was part of the sweep through Darwan on September 11, 2012. And it was Leonidas who had allegedly led Ali Jan to the edge.
          The patrol Leonidas belonged to appeared unburdened by such introspection. In this group, sources say, junior members were pushed to kill rather than detain.In time, members of this patrol tacked a “kill board” to the wall of their patrol room. Members of another patrol heard Leonidas urging his fellow patrol members on – “only two more to go, boys” – a suspected reference to reaching a desired kill count to record on the board.
          By 2010, there were disparate rumblings about incidents involving Leonidas’ patrol on the battlefield. A prisoner of war was found dead in suspicious circumstances by a member of another patrol; an SASR soldier discovered the bodies of two farmers in a field without weapons; one of Leonidas’ patrol colleagues was quietly complaining about another shooting on patrol.In each case, Leonidas’ patrol had failed to conduct a proper “site sensitive exploration”, according to sources at the scenes.
          https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...07-p4zk38.html

          Comment


          • BAE systems Type 26 Frigate wins Australian frigate bid

            https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-...n-frigate-bid/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by merkwurdig View Post
              BAE systems Type 26 Frigate wins Australian frigate bid

              https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-...n-frigate-bid/
              Well holy fuck....allow me to pick my jaw up off the floor. From a technical POV, the T26 had long been heralded as the clear winner, but it's been so long since the UK had an independent export success (especially one of this magnitude) that i can scarcely believe it...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ~UNiOnJaCk~ View Post

                Well holy fuck....allow me to pick my jaw up off the floor. From a technical POV, the T26 had long been heralded as the clear winner, but it's been so long since the UK had an independent export success (especially one of this magnitude) that i can scarcely believe it...
                Lol, it should help keep Scotland in place for a little while. And in case there was any question...



                US State Department approves Aegis for Australian Future Frigates

                https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/28/us...ture-frigates/


                Comment


                • Originally posted by ~UNiOnJaCk~ View Post

                  Well holy fuck....allow me to pick my jaw up off the floor. From a technical POV, the T26 had long been heralded as the clear winner, but it's been so long since the UK had an independent export success (especially one of this magnitude) that i can scarcely believe it...
                  This decision is also the result of quite a bit of quid quo pro. Talks of a free trade deal, British Army ordering hundreds of Bushmasters etc - it is not only the result of the design and tech of the T-26 - much of which will differ from the British design... different radar, combat system, weapon systems etc.

                  The devil is in the detail with this selection. I am not yet convinced this was the best choice, particularly given our regions very different defence requirements. The lack of VLS cells on a ship measuring 150m long and displacing a full load displacement of 8800t has many wondering what the final design will look like. This is particularly important given the fact that the "Hunter class" will use the Aegis fire control and combat systems paired with a very powerful phased array radar, this is overkill for a ship whose supposed raison d'etre is for ASW. Those who have been watching this very carefully know full well this ship will be a multirole combatant, not an ASW focused unit, the inclusion of Aegis pretty much spells this out. If the "Hunter class" has anything less than 48 strike length VLS cells, then it will already be a lesser vessel then many other major surface combatants in the same size and weight class throughout the Pacific region. 24-32 cells is nowhere near enough.

                  Comment


                  • Are these replacing the ANZAC's or another ship class already in service and will they be able to crew for them?

                    Comment


                    • Replacement for the ANZACs over the next 20 or so years. The build will be slow. Build starts in 2020, first commission date will be 2027 - it's a snails pace.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ballistic View Post

                        This decision is also the result of quite a bit of quid quo pro. Talks of a free trade deal, British Army ordering hundreds of Bushmasters etc - it is not only the result of the design and tech of the T-26 - much of which will differ from the British design... different radar, combat system, weapon systems etc.

                        The devil is in the detail with this selection. I am not yet convinced this was the best choice, particularly given our regions very different defence requirements. The lack of VLS cells on a ship measuring 150m long and displacing a full load displacement of 8800t has many wondering what the final design will look like. This is particularly important given the fact that the "Hunter class" will use the Aegis fire control and combat systems paired with a very powerful phased array radar, this is overkill for a ship whose supposed raison d'etre is for ASW. Those who have been watching this very carefully know full well this ship will be a multirole combatant, not an ASW focused unit, the inclusion of Aegis pretty much spells this out. If the "Hunter class" has anything less than 48 strike length VLS cells, then it will already be a lesser vessel then many other major surface combatants in the same size and weight class throughout the Pacific region. 24-32 cells is nowhere near enough.
                        I've been following SEA5000 on and off on another forum so i have also come to hear of the potential tie ups that might come with the deal. Certainly regarding any reciprocal deal in terms of the British Army purchasing Bushmaster, it is worth noting that the MRV-P requirement (which the Bushmaster is competing to fulfil) will allow for only 300 vehicles at the absolute maximum - so i tend to think its potential influence on the final outcome of SEA5000 would have been fairly negligible. In terms of strengthening the bilateral relationship following the UK's departure from the EU, then yes, that might have held much more sway.

                        As i said however, it has long been maintained that from a purely technical POV, the T26 design is by far the best in terms of the ASW mission. It has been designed by a compnay with significant engineering expertise in the field, for a customer (the RN) which is considered by many to be the world's foremost experts in this aspect of naval warfare - it was always going to be a top class design. That said, of course, many things went against the T26 in the process. The fact that not even a single hull has yet been completed, let alone hit the water, was perhaps the biggest thing counting against it. Navantia's strong footprint in the country was another.

                        As for your concerns/criticisms of the RAN's specification, i too share some of your scepticism. As i say, for the ASW mission, i doubt there is a better design than the T26, but obviously Australia is asking much more of the GCS, seemingly wishing for it to become some sort of general purpose frigate. I fear this might end up detracting from its performance in its intended role somewhat if for no other reason than for the fact that more varied taskings that could be asked of it might end up proving a distraction.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ~UNiOnJaCk~ View Post
                          I fear this might end up detracting from its performance in its intended role.
                          That's something we like to call standard operating procedure.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ballistic View Post
                            Replacement for the ANZACs over the next 20 or so years. The build will be slow. Build starts in 2020, first commission date will be 2027 - it's a snails pace.
                            I can see our lot eventually following with it then, that or buying bits off the RAN ANZAC's as they get decommissioned.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ~UNiOnJaCk~ View Post

                              I've been following SEA5000 on and off on another forum so i have also come to hear of the potential tie ups that might come with the deal. Certainly regarding any reciprocal deal in terms of the British Army purchasing Bushmaster, it is worth noting that the MRV-P requirement (which the Bushmaster is competing to fulfil) will allow for only 300 vehicles at the absolute maximum - so i tend to think its potential influence on the final outcome of SEA5000 would have been fairly negligible. In terms of strengthening the bilateral relationship following the UK's departure from the EU, then yes, that might have held much more sway.

                              As i said however, it has long been maintained that from a purely technical POV, the T26 design is by far the best in terms of the ASW mission. It has been designed by a compnay with significant engineering expertise in the field, for a customer (the RN) which is considered by many to be the world's foremost experts in this aspect of naval warfare - it was always going to be a top class design. That said, of course, many things went against the T26 in the process. The fact that not even a single hull has yet been completed, let alone hit the water, was perhaps the biggest thing counting against it. Navantia's strong footprint in the country was another.

                              As for your concerns/criticisms of the RAN's specification, i too share some of your scepticism. As i say, for the ASW mission, i doubt there is a better design than the T26, but obviously Australia is asking much more of the GCS, seemingly wishing for it to become some sort of general purpose frigate. I fear this might end up detracting from its performance in its intended role somewhat if for no other reason than for the fact that more varied taskings that could be asked of it might end up proving a distraction.
                              With regards to the T-26 design not having any ships in the water... that particular issue didn't stop RAN/CoA choosing an in development/build diesel submarine based on a nuclear design that has been running late and over budget for years now. I don't think that matter played too much a role in any kind of negatives for the design. What this does state is that the RAN and Australian government are willing to hedge their bets on untested/developmental designs yet again... it's like the fiasco of the MRH-90 and Tiger ARH mean bugger all to these people and they are willing to spend almost $90 billion of Australian tax payers money on a wing and a prayer and hope for a good outcome. Using the past as a guide, this program and the submarine build will go billions over budget, but we "might" end up with a pretty good Navy on the other end of all that money.

                              From a purely design perspective, I have nothing against the T-26 as an ASW asset. Like you, I think it should prove to be an excellent ASW combatant, the question is whether it will prove an adequate platform for general purpose duties and ASuW as well as medium to high end anti air warfare - particularly given the expense of pairing this design with the AEGIS CMS. As the primary surface combatant of the RAN, our frigates have come to be a general purpose asset and not in anyway purely dedicated to a single mission, this is entirely impossible for the RAN given its small size, and no matter how much the official statements state otherwise, this class of ship was always going to be a multi-purpose surface combatant. It's just a pity that at $AU3.9 - 4 Billion per ship, it seems the best they can come up with for such a large and heavy "frigate" is a design a class below its actual size and displacement. For comparison, an Arleigh Burke destroyer is only 4 metres longer but has 64 more VLS cells and costs about a billion less. We are paying a premium for a lesser ship in a region where most major naval combatants are being armed with a minimum of 48-64 VLS cells.

                              Hopefully the final design is not actually nailed down yet and the built in growth margins (which are huge) play a role in allowing far more missile capability to be installed.
                              Last edited by Ballistic; 30-06-2018, 03:16 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gafkiwi View Post
                                I can see our lot eventually following with it then, that or buying bits off the RAN ANZAC's as they get decommissioned.
                                I actually wouldn't be surprised if the RNZN decided to go with a smaller frigate design, perhaps something like the RN's Type-31e (hopefully the Babcock Arrowhead 140 design - it looks very tidy). If they can keep costs to a minimum, it should provide a very capable frigate design and be much cheaper than the Type-26. Would come with a smaller crew requirement (100 personnel - but room for more), can take the same weapons fit as the T-26 (Mk 45 127mm gun, 32 VLS, CIWS etc.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X