Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Saab Combat Management System for Australian Amphibious Ships Saab AB | Jul 2, 2007The Australian Department of Defence has announced on 21 June the selection of the Tenix-Navantia offer for two amphibious ships for the AustralianDefence Force. As part of this selection, the Saab 9LV combat management system is the preferred system subject to successful negotiation. Merv Davis, Managing Director of Saab Systems said, "The Saab capability will be based on the technology already developed for the ANZAC classfrigates and this confirms Saab's leadership in naval combat systems in Australia since the 9LV is the only system to be fitted on two differentclasses of Australian ships. "Saab's unique offering for this project included the existing skills, experience and infrastructure that have been built up over Saab's 17 yearsof supporting naval combat systems in Australia." The 9LV combat management system has been extremely reliable and highly capable for the Royal Australian Navy for the eleven years that it hasalready been at sea with the ANZAC class frigates. At the same time, Saab has developed a specialised workforce who initially developed this systemand has since supported it through its life. The company is currently enhancing the system for the Navy's Anti-Ship Missile Defence upgrade of theANZAC class ships. The amphibious ship version of the system will be built from this most recently updated system. The scope of work for the amphibious ships has not been finalised yet but it can be expected that about 20 new personnel in a variety of engineeringareas are likely to be hired as a result of this contract and together with personnel who will be progressively transferred from other tasks within thecompany a total workforce of some 75 people will be engaged in the project. The selection of Saab as a contractor for this project ensures the longevity of support to the Royal Australia Navy with skilled capabilities based inSouth Australia. It also confirms the company's leading role in both naval and land force command and control systems and systems integration. "We are highly committed to the Australian Defence Force and pleased to be a part of this project to boost Australia's amphibious capabilities," Davisadded. Saab serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions ranging from military defence to civil security. Saab has operations and employees on all continents and constantly develops, adopts and improves new technology to meet customers' changing needs.
sunday Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 I take it that the Army guns are the Oerlikon KAA in 20x128 (as used in the RN's GAM-B01 mounting), or are they the Oerlikon KAD or Rh 202 in 20x139? Meroka uses 20x128 but with electric rather than percussion priming, so it's not interchangeable with the ammo for the Oe KAA. The 20x128 is substantially more powerful than the 20x102 used in Vulcan Phalanx (see pic), but I don't think they use APDS. Perhaps you should have a talk with the webmaster of this page: http://www.municion.org/20mm/20x129.htm There are three pics of APDS ordnance for Meroka.
Tony Williams Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Perhaps you should have a talk with the webmaster of this page: http://www.municion.org/20mm/20x129.htm There are three pics of APDS ordnance for Meroka.Excellent -thanks very much!
nigelfe Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Contrary to some of the rubbish that seems to have been appearing in some European media (yes I'm interpreting a bit here, relying on other posts), the Aust intention has always been 3 AWDs, not 2 not 4. The constraint was use to the Stabdard msl, that's what RAN uses now and has done for many years (moving throught the models. This mena that any consideration of Horizon or T45 was never going to happen, even if they are more capable ships in their role. As I've previously said, the ski jump is totally unnecessry for Aust, they have no VV/STOL aircraft and no plans to procure any (F35s will be conventional). Therefore by normal logic the ski jump is a white elephant feature and the deck space used for something more relevant, eg another heli spot. However, I still think the RAN's brass hacve been seduced into an unneessry and inappropriate ship because of the prospect of a change of role on change of govt (they hope). Canterbury raises the whole issue of appropriateness. Why does Aust need anything other than transports, with some capability to offload over the shore? The 2 new ships plus retention of one the the current LPDs has no real capability to put a landing force ashore in an actual hostile environment, start with the ship to shore capacity and hence the ability to rapidly concentrate the force ashore. This force would be a high risk operation even trying to land in Fiji never mind anywhere serious. Reality is a clutch of Canterburys would be better value for money and offer much more flexibility and be appropriate to any likely missions - Solomons (again), E Timor (again), Bouganville (again) - and all the other potential failed states around the SW Pacific. This is reality not some half arsed bs notion of landing in Indonesia. If Aust decides to make a significant land component contribution to future 'coalition of the willing' then again the need is not for amph assault but for putting a heavy force ashore in a secured facility. Best bet for this is something on the lines of UK's Point class Ro-Ros are under a PFI arangement from a German yard and UK merchant navy crews. 'Proper' grey funnel line is a gold plated, high cost, solution to this sort of task. Still admirals are not noted for brains (that's for soldiers and marines) but I'd have expected better of their political masters.
Chris Werb Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Best bet for this is something on the lines of UK's Point class Ro-Ros are under a PFI arangement from a German yard and UK merchant navy crews. 'Proper' grey funnel line is a gold plated, high cost, solution to this sort of task. Unless it's changed (and it probably has) I think the Points were to be manned by 'sponsored' reservists in wartime, ie the merchant navy crews would become servicemen as and when required.
Guest aevans Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 As I've previously said, the ski jump is totally unnecessry for Aust, they have no VV/STOL aircraft and no plans to procure any (F35s will be conventional). Therefore by normal logic the ski jump is a white elephant feature and the deck space used for something more relevant, eg another heli spot. However, I still think the RAN's brass hacve been seduced into an unneessry and inappropriate ship because of the prospect of a change of role on change of govt (they hope). Uhhh...the Australians have at least two Allies I know of that have now -- and plan to have in the future -- a/c that would benefit from a ski jump ramp. And so what if there's a little bit of wishful thinking in the specification. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. (And no, you can't make that argument for an extra helo spot; the ship already has six.) Canterbury raises the whole issue of appropriateness. Why does Aust need anything other than transports, with some capability to offload over the shore? The 2 new ships plus retention of one the the current LPDs has no real capability to put a landing force ashore in an actual hostile environment, start with the ship to shore capacity and hence the ability to rapidly concentrate the force ashore. This force would be a high risk operation even trying to land in Fiji never mind anywhere serious. Reality is a clutch of Canterburys would be better value for money and offer much more flexibility and be appropriate to any likely missions - Solomons (again), E Timor (again), Bouganville (again) - and all the other potential failed states around the SW Pacific. This is reality not some half arsed bs notion of landing in Indonesia. If Aust decides to make a significant land component contribution to future 'coalition of the willing' then again the need is not for amph assault but for putting a heavy force ashore in a secured facility. Best bet for this is something on the lines of UK's Point class Ro-Ros are under a PFI arangement from a German yard and UK merchant navy crews. 'Proper' grey funnel line is a gold plated, high cost, solution to this sort of task. Still admirals are not noted for brains (that's for soldiers and marines) but I'd have expected better of their political masters. The USN has for decades been able to put significant forces over the beach in a timely manner using vessels of capabilities similar to the BPE. Secured port facilities are not necessary and are unlikely to exist most places the RAN is likely to land troops and equipment, even against zero resistance. So you're simply talking out your ass there. Also, you can't support an expeditionary air component from LPDs. They don't have the aviation maintenace facilities that an LHD does.
swerve Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Unless it's changed (and it probably has) I think the Points were to be manned by 'sponsored' reservists in wartime, ie the merchant navy crews would become servicemen as and when required. IIRC the PFI A330 MRTTs will have a similar arrangement.
sunday Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Excellent -thanks very much! In fact, that gentleman knows of your site. See: http://www.municion.org/Dardick/Dardick.htm
Chris Werb Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 IIRC the PFI A330 MRTTs will have a similar arrangement. And the 'Pickfords' tank transporters. Apply below: http://www.ftxlog.com/jobs.html
Guest pfcem Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Uhhh...the Australians have at least two Allies I know of that have now -- and plan to have in the future -- a/c that would benefit from a ski jump ramp. And so what if there's a little bit of wishful thinking in the specification. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. (And no, you can't make that argument for an extra helo spot; the ship already has six.) The USN has for decades been able to put significant forces over the beach in a timely manner using vessels of capabilities similar to the BPE. Secured port facilities are not necessary and are unlikely to exist most places the RAN is likely to land troops and equipment, even against zero resistance. So you're simply talking out your ass there. Also, you can't support an expeditionary air component from LPDs. They don't have the aviation maintenace facilities that an LHD does.I agree with aevans here. Australia is revamping its entire military to meet POSSIBLE 21st century threats. The 2 new Canberra Class LHD amphibious operations vessels, and 3 new Hobart Class air warfare destroyers are a significant part of this. While I disagree with the waistful Super Hornet stop-gap nonsense, I think they made the correct choices with the Canberra & Hobart Classes. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aussie...ss-ships-03409/
FlyingCanOpener Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Guys, Thanks for the answer. I could have looked it up in my copy of Jane's, but I figured you guys talking it out would be more interesting!
nigelfe Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 (edited) Some of the small nation states in the SW Pacific are indeed limited in their port facilities, but they have sheltered water and normal cargo ships manage OK. I'm impressed by the notion that the Aust taxpayer should pay for features on a ship that will only benefit Aust's allies. This is obviously a public spirited gesture that other nations should emulate. However, since I don't believe in god or fairies I think its underinformed bs. I also wasted a bit of time today fact checking. Clearly some of the eulogies to Spanish naval expertise that have been tossed in here a tad short of reality! I found a most interesting article (Beedall - no surprise there) about HMS Ocean, it seems they dug out guys who had served on the original cdo ships (converted light carriers in the 60s), and picked their brains about how the ships worked and needed to work so that they could launch their weapon - the RM in artic gear and fully equipped - as efficiently as possible. Somehow I don't think the Spanish designers had access to that sort of user input. It's also fairly clear they did the same with the LPDs although in this case the experience was much more recent, reading between the lines they learnt a lot from the 60s generation LPDs (and these were the real thing not converted LSTs). It also seems that these ships can handle loading while alongside, none of this backing up to the quay stuff, although that is an option. Another little gem suggests arithmetic might not be the strongest part of Spanish marketing. According to all the self proclaimed experts here its 850 m of lane length able to take 150 vehicles. It appears (Beedall) that the Bay class has 1250 m and - 150 vehicles (plus 48 20ft TEUs that aren't counted against lane length). Of course Aust doesn't have any BVs which are on the long side. Incidentally Aust has/is about to release a defence paper. Reputedly it focusses on the 'arc of instability' in the SW Pacific. Eaxactly how this justifies AWDs and full blown amphibious ships should be interesting, clearly the Australian National Uni in Canberra is running a very good creative writing course. '21st C threats' - what a joke. Edited July 4, 2007 by nigelfe
swerve Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 (edited) ... Clearly some of the eulogies to Spanish naval expertise that have been tossed in here a tad short of reality! ... I haven't seen any eulogies to Spanish naval expertise here. What I have seen is one person claiming that Spaniards, because they're Spaniards, are therefore incompetent, & a host of others saying that it ain't necessarily so. I've also seen one person selectively picking figures in a way which I can only describe as dishonest. For example, claiming that since the number of lane metres of the heavy vehicles deck alone, excluding dock, of Juan Carlos is less than the number of lane metres (1200, per Royal Navy website) of a Bay-class, then the quoted figures for total vehicle carrying capacity of Juan Carlos must be false, although you've already been told, & would have seen on the Armada website if you'd bothered to look, that the quoted total vehicle carrying capacity of Juan Carlos includes the hangar & dock (much larger than a Bay-class dock) being used for vehicle transport, as well as the heavy vehicle deck. Look up the numbers (I've found them, but I'm damned if I'll tell you, the way you're behaving) & you will see your argument disappear completely, as the numbers fall into place. How many times have you done this now? Put forward an argument that depends on misrepresentation, & that collapses as soon as one examines it? Nigel, you're being an arse. You're making a bloody fool of yourself. I used to think better of you, but now you've turned into pfcem. Edited July 4, 2007 by swerve
Guest aevans Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 (edited) Some of the small nation states in the SW Pacific are indeed limited in their port facilities, but they have sheltered water and normal cargo ships manage OK. And what if the area of operations isn't in the vicinity of the capital or major trade center? Some of these "small nation states" occupy large islands. And before you go there, not all of the things worth fighting over or in need of protection is necessarily concentrated in one place near the port, nor are many other places of interest connected by adequate roads with port facilities. I'm impressed by the notion that the Aust taxpayer should pay for features on a ship that will only benefit Aust's allies. This is obviously a public spirited gesture that other nations should emulate. However, since I don't believe in god or fairies I think its underinformed bs.What a bunch of disingenuous horseraddish. The ship won't "only" benefit Australia's allies -- it will still be operated by the RAN, after all, with Australian a/c and troops. But it will also possess facilities to take the best advantage of allied capabilities, when available. This isn't a "gesture". It's prudential planning for the future. I also wasted a bit of time today fact checking. Clearly some of the eulogies to Spanish naval expertise...reading between the lines they learnt a lot from the 60s generation LPDs (and these were the real thing not converted LSTs). Gee -- you've determined that the British informed a design with a little research. All by yourself? That the British did so doesn't prove that the Spanish didn't, or that they didn't seek and obtain advice from those that had experience. It also seems that these ships can handle loading while alongside, none of this backing up to the quay stuff, although that is an option.It is an option sufficient for the purposes of the USN and USMC. I believe that was one of the standards you yourself set, wasn't it? Another little gem suggests arithmetic might not be the strongest part of Spanish marketing. According to all the self proclaimed experts here its 850 m of lane length able to take 150 vehicles. It appears (Beedall) that the Bay class has 1250 m and - 150 vehicles (plus 48 20ft TEUs that aren't counted against lane length). Of course Aust doesn't have any BVs which are on the long side. Once again, if the Australians find the cargo and vehicle capacity of the design sufficient, then who are you to kvetch? I'm just guessing, but I think they know more about their needs than some bookworm sitting on the other side of the planet, with his thumb up his butt, spinning in circles. Incidentally Aust has/is about to release a defence paper. Reputedly it focusses on the 'arc of instability' in the SW Pacific. Eaxactly how this justifies AWDs and full blown amphibious ships should be interesting, clearly the Australian National Uni in Canberra is running a very good creative writing course. '21st C threats' - what a joke. Since you have clearly demonstrated that you don't have a clue what "full blown amphibious ships" are useful for on a regular basis (perhaps you should google "Indian Ocean Tsunami" and "Hurrican Katrina"), the joke is obviously yourself, not the defense paper. Edited July 4, 2007 by aevans
RETAC21 Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 I also wasted a bit of time today fact checking. Clearly some of the eulogies to Spanish naval expertise that have been tossed in here a tad short of reality! I found a most interesting article (Beedall - no surprise there) about HMS Ocean, it seems they dug out guys who had served on the original cdo ships (converted light carriers in the 60s), and picked their brains about how the ships worked and needed to work so that they could launch their weapon - the RM in artic gear and fully equipped - as efficiently as possible. Somehow I don't think the Spanish designers had access to that sort of user input. This is so dumb that defies sense. Why is that exactly? Let's see, we used LSDs, LSTs APAs and AKAs for 30 years and the IM guys speak the same language of the designers, why is it that they cannot have access to that input exactly? Moreover, the predecessor of Ocean wasn't designed or built as an amphibious ship so while there are clearly plenty of lessons learned, it hardly can't be a linear development.
Guest pfcem Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 How many times have you done this now? Put forward an argument that depends on misrepresentation, & that collapses as soon as one examines it? Nigel, you're being an arse. You're making a bloody fool of yourself. I used to think better of you, but now you've turned into pfcem.I take GREAT ofense to that because in fact I have been one who has demonstated time & time again how OTHERS arguments "depend on misrepresentation, & collapse as soon as one examines them" - or are simply outright BS. And time & time again once I have bedunked their arguments & they have NOTHING to counter my statements they resort to personal attacks (like you have done here). IF you & so many others would grow up & actually read my posts with the intent of TRYING to comprehend what they actually say (I realize for some this may be impossible) instead of looking for ways to take what I have said out of context &/or twist it around into something else just so that you can argue with me in the hopes of discrediting me, you (& they) would probably realize this. But I will not hold my breath since you & they continue to demonstrate just how childish & disingenuous you & they are.
sunday Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 I take GREAT ofense to that because in fact I have been one who has demonstated time & time again how OTHERS arguments "depend on misrepresentation, & collapse as soon as one examines them" - or are simply outright BS. And time & time again once I have bedunked their arguments & they have NOTHING to counter my statements they resort to personal attacks (like you have done here). IF you & so many others would grow up & actually read my posts with the intent of TRYING to comprehend what they actually say (I realize for some this may be impossible) instead of looking for ways to take what I have said out of context &/or twist it around into something else just so that you can argue with me in the hopes of discrediting me, you (& they) would probably realize this. But I will not hold my breath since you & they continue to demonstrate just how childish & disingenuous you & they are. Cool down man! I undestand your outrage, as the quality of your posting has improved lately. But you should understand that it's going to be long and difficult to improve a quite tarnished posting reputation. And that tarnish is well deserved- observe how nobody dares to discuss NGFS, or naval eight-inchers anymore. No hard feelings. Jose
Guest pfcem Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Cool down man! I undestand your outrage, as the quality of your posting has improved lately. But you should understand that it's going to be long and difficult to improve a quite tarnished posting reputation. And that tarnish is well deserved- observe how nobody dares to discuss NGFS, or naval eight-inchers anymore. No hard feelings.No, my "tarnished posting reputation" IS NOT deserved! And, as I indicated, if those who think it is would actually take the time that they DO take twisting my words around in an attempt to discredit me would take that same time to actually ATTEMPT to comprehend what I ACTUALLY DO post, they would probably (I realize for some that would be near impossible) realize that. But instead they hold a grudge for me DARING to challenge them (I actually think it is that I dared to even challenge them that POs them more than having shown them to been wrong) & feel the need to "put me in my place" & discredit me as if that will somehow change the FACT that they were wrong & I showed them to be. So while YOU may not have any hard feelings, others DO & it shows (like with swerve's post). As for me, I am content to (more often than not) be secure in the fact that most of the time they are simply continuing to show just how childish (while claiming I am the childinsh one when they are the ones that have to resort to personall attacks) THEY are. Oh, & you mean since I have stopped "playing the game" of providing multiple multiple sources while "accepting" that they provide little or none that my posting has actually improved?
sunday Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Well, I think I have to use the Ayn Rand approach to netcitizenry, then. Good luck!
Guest aevans Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 (edited) No, my "tarnished posting reputation" IS NOT deserved! Remember when you were promoting SSTO spaceplane vapor...I mean "technology" in "Space Marines for real?"? Or all of the bloody shirt waving you did in "US Army weapons programs"? Edited July 5, 2007 by aevans
Guest pfcem Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Remember when you were promoting SSTO spaceplane vapor...I mean "technology" in "Space Marines for real?"?Just passing on the information from those who know A LOT more about it than you could ever dream of who say it WILL happen... Or all of the bloody shirt waving you did in "US Army weapons programs"?"bloody shirt waving"
Argus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 "bloody shirt waving" Apeals to the price in potential casualties if 'XYZ' is not implimented ,when used as the final straw to try and clinch a failing argument. And don't fool yourself sunshine, your reputation is what it is; and an extended series of posts protesting otherwise is probably the best way you could confirm it for good and all. shane
Guest aevans Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Just passing on the information from those who know A LOT more about it than you could ever dream of who say it WILL happen... And anybody who can master the rocket equation and plug in numbers that don't rely on unobtainium -- including myself, but apparently not yourself -- can know more than anybody you quoted. "bloody shirt waving" Argus hit the nail on the head -- when your very thin thread of reason unravelled, you started accusing everybody who didn't agree with you of willfully and criminally putting our service personnel in danger.
TDHM Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 I take GREAT ofense to that because in fact I have been one who has demonstated time & time again how OTHERS arguments "depend on misrepresentation, & collapse as soon as one examines them" - or are simply outright BS. Yes, Yes, Yes. It seems like you suffer from one or more of three problems. 1. Short Memory.2. Delusions.3. Lying If you actually believe any of the first sentence of yours that is. And time & time again once I have bedunked their arguments & they have NOTHING to counter my statements they resort to personal attacks (like you have done here). You're either delusional or lacking long term memory... Any 8" Thread, or even the Type 45 thread show consistently so how you debate, by simply repeating yourself until you're blue in the face, ignoring everything which counters your 'statements', and thinking that if you ONLY get the last word, and you can CAPITALISE and over EMPHASISE every SINGLE word, you'll WIN!!!!! The obligitory similies notwithstanding of course... IF you & so many others would grow up & actually read my posts with the intent of TRYING to comprehend what they actually say (I realize for some this may be impossible) instead of looking for ways to take what I have said out of context &/or twist it around into something else just so that you can argue with me in the hopes of discrediting me, you (& they) would probably realize this. Pcefm, have you noticed how people who replying to you are have dwindled to an all mighty low number. People got tired at your first hissy fit, and every subsquent screaming match, you've either been placed on ignore, or just regarded as an annoying teenage fan boy. But I will not hold my breath since you & they continue to demonstrate just how childish & disingenuous you & they are. Who cares Pcefm? Stop disrupting an interesting topic, YET AGAIN. Go a post a topic in FFZ about the injustice that the vast majority people on this forum don't think you're even worthwhile member of this forum if you really want to deal with your 'tarnished' (being polite) reputation. As it stands, you and every other reply to your Matyr type posts in this thread just waste bandwidth.
Argus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Argus hit the nail on the head -- when your very thin thread of reason unravelled, you started accusing everybody who didn't agree with you of willfully and criminally putting our service personnel in danger. It's hardly surprising Tony, I was applying your definition to a phrase I've only ever heard you use shane
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now