Видео

The machinery, the weapons and sensor fits get out of date, these days old ships and aircraft often run out of electical generation capacity (for upgrading to modern radars, and computers) and they eventually the hull runs out of spare space and displacement to upgrade them. In fact we already extended the hull on a few of ours to get more space for a better weapons fit - I think those ones were sold to another navy. This class of ship was not originally designed to be used the way the RAN used them. They were intended to be a low cost low peformance class, e.g. they were not as fast as most warships, only had a single screw, only had a single arm launcher and only had a single missile guidance radar (when launched). These ships were designed to be the low end of a "high/low" mix, but the RAN was essentially using them as the "high end".

@@1337flitenot as fast as most warships? The FFG’s were some of the fastest in their size and displacement in the world….

It was. That Sydney decommissioned in 1973. We're currently up to the 5th ship to carry the name of Sydney.

HMAS Melbourne was one who sank friendly ships

@@oceania_standard4707 to be fair: one was American and the other a RAN destroyer. So really only one friendly.

That was my first thought too lol

why? who's gonna attack australia and why?

@@tafana China. Australia has massive resources that are necessary for China to have a future. They also have millions of square miles of empty territory for China to grow and prosper. Gigantic continent. Tiny population. Australia is not capable of defending it's own territory. The Americans? Forget it. They are too far away. And they are terrified of the Chinese. There will be no help from the Americans this time.

Its okay because it's made in china

@@TheGreatSarastro The type 209 is German submarine. It is also licensed prouced in Korea. It is probably the best conventional sub in the world.

Is this a joke?

@@devonlord99 Nope. Our northern neighbour has 4 of them

The hull has a life span.. the forces the sea puts on these hulls is huge. Imagine a 3000 tonne ship in a 25 ft swell. They will break eventually. If its viable then sure. But these ships were designed in the 50s and 60s. Technology advancements in submarine radar, etc, make it necessary to make texhnology developments in quieter ship hull shapes etc. No good putting state of the art weapons and radar that cost hundreds of millions on a ship every sub in the ocean can hear. Im sure the sailors would prefer a quieter newer more capable comfortable ship too. The other reason is the government likes to look like its creating jobs.

Have you ever spent time on an old ship like that? It’s not enjoyable for sailors, newer ships have better living conditions and better overall technologies.

@Darren Walsh War ships today are quite comfortable with lots of amenities, compared to a warship from the early 1940-50's that has little to no ventilation, hammock style beds. etc

These hulls, the Oliver Hazard Perry class, don't do well with high sea states. They're fully clapped out. The other issue is space/displacement for modern systems. To fit a big vertical launch system box (VLS), modern radar (Like CEAFAR on the Anzacs) and modern sonar, you are going to stay having stability problems, power generation problems, and most likely physically fitting the bits in. They were about as good as the hull could be (reasonably) after the upgrade on the early 2000s. The whole front of this ship was a huge rotary magazine for the missile launch arm...

Can i Add that as Good as the OHP's were they were Relatively ( Too ) Small by Todays Standards plus Only Single Screw.Compare that to the Hunter Class,its the Difference Between Night and Day.

That would be HMAS Sydney II

Its docking brother