Search results

(In response to the second post above this) Totally agree, was thinking of that after my post. Thank you. 🍻

The reinforced hull to deal with the ice may have misled you. A typical non-Arctic of-shore patrol vessel of similar dimensions (length and beam) as the AOPS would displace half or even one third than the AOPS. Steel is cheap but its cost is weight, hence displacement to keep floating. The...

On one side, I would keep an eye also on Navantia's S-80. With 40+ berths, apparently designed for three 12-men guard shifts, 50 days endurance, US-based combat system and up-to-date sensors, 3x1.2 MW DGs for a fast charge of batteries and first unit already in the water (still being fitted but...

Assuming next submarines will not be nuclear, they would at least be AIP. Two technologies are available for long underwater patrols: Stirling engines (mainly Sweden, China & Japan under Swedish license) and fuel cells (Germany and their derivatives: Norway, Italy, South Korea). Battery systems...

Let me reply one point after another... Arafura class looks nice, however her short-legs (4000 nm, 21 days) and diesel propulsion do not tick the boxes. As far as it's based on Lurssen OPV-80, going one step beyond to OPV-85 would add hangar, electric drive and maybe higher endurance at the...

I would dare to add to that: Range: minimum 5000 nm Speed min. 18 kts. That is 20% above MCDV's 15 kts (wikip.). Complement: 40-60 Main Gun: minimum 40mm, best 57mm (anti-aerial role) Propulsion: electric motor for at least up to 12-15 kts. I think there is no agreement yet on wether hangar is...

Unless RCN thinks of using civilian ships for MCM (I guess that's not the case), the need for ships with a working area for UUVs and TEUs (TRAPS for instance) is still there. An hybrid OPV+working deck like Venari may be a good option, freeing AOPS to do her Arctic duties. Besides, the tonnage...

Back to mcm and unmanned tools, many of you must have seen this recent article, may be not... https://www.navylookout.com/autonomous-systems-the-future-of-royal-navy-mine-warfare/ ...and this, older one about Venari-85...

Fully agree, I wouldn't say you're biased. And yes... I meant both are still NATO members, what may have also prevented the conflict between them.

Indeed, submarines can't project a significant "amount" of power, but they might blockade a small fleet in port or at least set several surface units locked to an area trying to locate them. Regarding possible conflicts, considering the increasing assertiveness of Erdogan, I would also mention...

So... Uzlu guessed it! but not about modular design, which might have been a good option.

Let me bring in an article about nuclear boats from the aussies. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/nuclear-submarines-could-lead-to-nuclear-power-for-australia/ While it seems clear the purpose to "make a call" for the conference (at the very end of the article), it's also true that, as said...

A bit off-topic, but just read a story on Total Quality Management (which turns into a leadership story) in SRUA, later FMF Cape Scott in Halifax , MEJ spring 2021, pages 22-24. Wish you like it...

It's a non-sense for me that Navantia had to submit their offer based on F-105 (C. Colón), an AAW frigate, because the original request was for already built vessels. They had already designed the F-110 (just it was only a paper sheet, quite similar as it was the Type 26), a new ASW frigate...

Why having them refueled in French facilities? Australia needs that because they don't have inland nuclear plants, but Canada has a significant nuclear industry and expertise. Just need a bit of technology transfer and training to put hands on a submarine (at least I think so).

Everybody is now focused on CSC and PBO's report, ... meanwhile in Australia, another mega-project (aus$ 80 Billion for 12 submarines) is also under scrutiny: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/what-would-it-take-for-australia-to-walk-away-from-the-french-submarine-deal/ "And that’s where the...

I agree with your points. Myself was surprised about no cancellation costs were included, not to mention that in long building runs the latest ships are cheaper than the first ones. However take my points just as gross simplifications, based on PBO's report. They work in gross terms. My point...

According to PBO's numbers (including taxes and so) ... T26: $77 B / 15 hulls = 5.133 B / hull T31: $27 B / 15 hulls = 1.80 B / hull (50 B savings) ... seems like there are no cancellation costs or penalties, and this works with 3 T26 + 12 T31 = 3× 5.133 + 12× 1.80 = 37 B that is $40 B...

You are certainly right, however training costs may be offset by far by the reduced costs due to reduced crewing requirements. Looking to other navies around, most have (or point towards) two or three surface combatants: UK (3), France (3), Italy (3), Denmark (2), Holland (2), Spain (2)...

Basically that's the idea behind Type 31 frigate for the Royal Navy. A cheap platform, both to build and operate, with space for unmanned vehicles ( either air, surface or underwater) and future upgrades. It fills the gap between OPVs and Type 26 (city class), lower the crew requirements down to...