Hypohystericalhistory's guide to the Hobart Class Destroyer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 апр 2021
- The Hobart Class Destroyer is the centrepiece of the Royal Australian navy’s surface fleet. Borne amongst a troubled program which delivered the vessels several years late and billions of dollars over budget, the Air Warfare Destroyer program has spurred the largest reform in Australia’s naval industry since federation. Equipped with the AEGIS combat system, SPY-1D radar, an advanced sonar suite and a wide range of very capable weapons, the Hobart Class are the most capable major surface combatants the RAN has ever deployed. But what lessons have been learned from their troubled birth, and how will this affect the future of Australian naval power?
Seriously underrated channel.
Won't be underrated for long
if only he uploaded consistently
Definitely my favourite channel of 2021
Its great that they included a towed array, unlike the UK's Daring class. Australia needs its ships to be universally capable, there won't be a dedicated ASW escort available all the time. Same is true for the Hunter class, it includes decent air defence as well.
T45s are not intended to operate only, but rather as air cover for carrier group. Operating sonar close to the noise of an aircraft carrier or auxiliary would be of limited use.
Instead ASW frigates provide an anti submarine screen for the group.
The RAN presumably wanted to the Hobart’s to have more all round capability, but I doubt they are good sub hunters.
She's like a Swiss Army Knife, capable of multiple roles, with her only drawback being unable to sustain her position/role for lengthy periods, before having to resupply.
But in a way, it's highly unlikely they would be required to engage threats on their own or in a small group and would likely be part of say a US Carrier Battle Group, therefore their smaller armament capacity would largely be moot in a way.
Beautiful looking ship and another brilliant video.
They’re a bit slow for a US carrier group something the ANZAC class suffers from as well and something we should’ve learnt from
Well that's disappointing. All that capability, yet they chose a slow engine!
@@moe_1886 she’s also got too small of a crew for a destroyer, an air warfare platform that additionally conducts escorts, ASW, NGS you’re gonna want a larger complement to sustain a crew without making them fatigued additionally the Hobart class are intended to act as command ships and leaders of surface action groups ands other ships in the navy’s of the pacific tend to use a warship with 300 or more crew ( Japan, USN, Korea, Russia, PLAN, Taiwan )
The hobarts would be perfect FFGs for a fleet ( hence Navantia almost winning the contract for FFGX ) but as a destroyer and command ship they’re really lacking that capability and minimum manning ships always ends in disaster
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 Dose the crew up on high-grade Chinese or Nth Korean manufactured amphetamines and the minimal crew will surely suffice. Better still release Tony Mokbel and let him take care of supplying our undermanned military with supplements. Better warfare through chemistry! 💉💊👍🇦🇺
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 btw I think you've got the spelling of your name incorrect. Goldmountaindollarstone, the English version of your clearly "legitimate" family name, I would have thought to be spelled "stein" rather than "stien" and "stien" is a Norwegian namethat certainly doesn't fit with the rest. If you were Norsk, surely your name would be something along the lines of Gullfjellsekelstein.... What I'm getting at is fix your nom de plume, because it would hit harder if it had even the slightest possibility of being real.
Absolutely love every single one of your videos, incredibly comprehensive and far from boring, it's been helping me out a ton about information about the RAN specifically
Great work.
Another great video. Balanced and fair, with the strengths and limitations acknowledged. This is my favourite newly-discovered channel. Thank-you.
4:45 I worked at Osborne shipyard, I remember all that pipework getting scrapped. My understanding was it was lack of traceability, nobody recorded the heat numbers of the copper nickel pipe. The spools were all tested and made well by skilled tradesmen. The pencil pushers ducked up.
Discovered this channel recently and recommend it to anyone I can think of. I harboured dreams of being an avionic electronic engineer in the Airforce but an unfortunate accident changed that. Now with several inlaws retired from the armed services, the great information and stories from them along with the details you provide the only thing I really missed out on is the actual service.
Keep up the great work, the effort put in is obvious and clear.
Server on the old Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Darwin, Sydney and Canberra. Tech who worked on Mk92, SLQ-32, SPS-49, SQS 56 and 23 and a bunch of other stuff. Fun times. These new ships look very capable.
My pop was part of the crew to bring the previous Hobart back from the states, good to see the name on another capable ship
What a pleasure to listen to this knowledgeable and interesting commentary.
Well done mate, I'm enjoying every one of your videos.
Thanks for posting!
Should have built 4-6 of these ships, we are a two ocean navy
3 ocean navy
just dont have the man power.Why dont we lease nucke subs off the usa
Isn't there a plan to acquire 12 Barracuda subs, replacing the 6 troublesome Collins class boats? This will represent a tremendous leap in capabilities
@@falanglao01 they are taking the Barracuda Submarine but are removing the nuclear propulsion system and replacing it with a diesel electric one but this change is apparently causing headaches. The first boat may not enter service for 15 years
@@lindsaybaker9480 Yes, I know... For historical reasons they seem to have a problem with nuclear power, yet where does lots of uranium come from? Regardless, these will be very capable subs.
i do find it interesting how much of Australias new or modern ships are from Spanish designs.
The Hobart is from Navatia, the Amphibious assault carriers are from Navantia…
I mean it makes sense a bit, as Australia and Spain do phase simiar problems with costs and limited manpower/personal and other more specific details.
Who knows what might occur in the future, perhaps Australia buys or use the designs of Navantias F-110 class of frigates, or maybe they even do a joint program for a general purpose design, no one knows really but I have to say that I am quite interested to see how things play out.
Should have gone for the extra ship. Great vid as usual.
It’s such a shame that once the program matured the RAN / Australian Liberal Government cancelled the option of the 4th AWD. In fact, given the likely delays and blowouts in the Global Combat Ship / Type 26 / Hunter class, it would really have been a good idea to build another 3 to 6 Hobarts by 2030 - probably in conjunction with reskilling the Williamtown and Newcastle shipyards to take over the program by about 2022-23 (once Osborn became fully engaged with the Attack class subs and Hunter class frigates).
La F100 original de diseño español. Gracias a Australia por comprar diseño español. Que tengáis mucha suerte.
Quality channel mate, just found this. No doubt before long with the information you deliver, and the clarity with which you deliver it, it's destined to blow up -zero puns. I've found the Aussie Mark Felton - Happy days! Keep up the good work brother.
The Mark Felton Aussie? Pull the other one.
@@XxBloggs what's wrong with you?
Excellent review of the Hobart Class,& a timely reminder that we must always have the capability to manufacture our own Vessels! The same needs to occur for our Land based equipment including light amour ,perhaps we might even go back to manufacturing a cheap capable Fighter to supplement the Hornets & F35’s ? We have achieved all this and more in the past,time to do it again ! I think Major Units will come from our Allies however the lessons of Past Wars should not be forgotten .Great channel love your work keep them coming ! Regards FNQ AU
That's the purpose of the Boeing facility in Australia for the Loyal Wingman drones being locally built to supplement the high end F-35As.
Well said.
very impressive video, I served on the Hobart in the 80's for a RIMPAC it was a lot of fun, this new version sounds vary capable, it's also good to see us try to get back some of that lost expertise. If we could get back to the level we were at in the 80's that would be really good.
The world needs a strong AU, they are doing a good job of it that's for sure. Proud to have them as an Ally!
I love your content! Please keep it coming. Good luck on your PhD!
Just recently found this channel. Very interesting look at Australian Naval capabilities.
Another excellent review, thank you 🙏 Keep the videos coming 🇦🇺❤️
Great video as always 👍 Hopefully we get to see a Hobart class exercising with the HMS Queen Elizabeth strike group whilst she is visiting the Pacific region in the next couple of months!
Hopefully both of the kiwi fighting boats can go as well
@@davidbolton4930 unlikely given the way the current PM is behaving with regards to China.
@@gregs7562 Very likely considering Australia has already committed one ship for QEs Asia/Pacific cruise, so has the US and Neatherlands, all this is public already. Did you miss HMAS Ballarat making stories all month, even today China kicked up a stink about her exercising with the US 7th Fleet for a week and brought up the wine excise that the PM wants to take to the UN.
@@gregs7562 www.afr.com/politics/federal/australian-navy-to-join-uk-carrier-in-regional-show-of-strength-20210210-p57150
@@goodshipkaraboudjan my comment was to David Bolton about RNZN ships joining in. I fully expect a nice collection of RAN stuff to participate. Sorry for any confusion there.
Not every has to be good at building a destroyer. But, to be not failed to yourself, you neee to have the courage facing the reality, facing your own problems, have a clear vision of your own strength and weaknesses. And act cleverly inline with your true capacity.
I found you on tik tok, and now I can’t stop watching your channel. Keep it up 👍
Another excellent video.
Great video, really enjoy this one.
Happy to know it’s not just American production that goes to crap. Here from Tiktok. Loving the content thus far.
Great video mate
Awesome stuff. Are you looking to make videos about the LAND 400 vehicle acquisition programs or other similar projects.
I second this, I’d be keen to see a video on this topic
Yes please
Matsimus already does this
We need more! More and consistent military spending to ensure our defence and build up our capability to build defence hardware. I'm fearful we will need this hardware in the next few years.
Great work. Many thanks. Australian Naval ships should never trade Iron with Peer adversaries in theatre. And so it will be I suspect.
Brilliant analysis.
Thank you fantastic film
We need more of these ships now.
Nicely put together...
My new favourite channel 👍
looking forward to this one
Fascinating channel. I liked the F35 vid and this one is the same quality.
I really hope that when the QE comes to the Pacific a Hobart joins the Task Force for awhile.
Very informative, thanks
A very good guide!
Another excellent Video
great content mate keep it up
Excellent vid. You have my subscription.
Thanks for this man
Fantastic video! As a Canadian, I'm seeing a lot of the mistakes of the Hobart programme happening right now in our Combined Surface Combatant (Type-26-based platform) programme.
Don't worry, we're making all the same mistakes with out type 26 hunter class.
Good review. Your research is thorough and presentation is on point.
The Hobart are capable warships but we need more of them considering the higher intensity of any future conflict in the Indo-Pacific.
Re the Arleigh Burke’s, seems like Australia needs to heavily modify every procurement to “Australian specifications and conditions”. And time we modify an existing design, it ends up costing twice as much and taking three times longer to bring into service. The tiger helicopters for example.
I feel the new subs from France will be the biggest defence procurement disaster ever. We might get some great subs but they will cost an incredible sum of money for an unproven design.
100%agree with you, so many of our powerful allies building military assets, proving them in conflicts and peacetime training, only for our government to decline and build our own/purchase an untested design from country X at Tripple the cost (to us taxpayers) RAN staff and contractors are scouring the world looking for scrapped parts for the Collins, to keep them seaworthy, (when we can crew them) it's embarrassing and now the French get to take us down this rediculous road...buy off the shelf designs and stop dicking around with the designs please!
Too right on the French submarines, starting to go way of the Collins class..the Japanese were well pissed off as they were,more or less garented the tender
The Hobart class are a pile of shit that took way too long to build and was way over budget
10.5 billion for 3 outdated frigates ? A flight II Arleigh Burke takes 2 years to build and costs $2 billion , Australian tax payers got ripped off badly with these constantly broken pieces of crap
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 agreed. They are ultra expensive FFGs.
@roger that 60 crew on a boat built for 42. presumably the 60 includes 10 or so trainees that will be sleeping in the torpedo room. Still that thats gonna be way overcrowded. I cant fathom why a recruit would volunteer for the submarine service and work in those conditions.
Excellent analyses, both of the Hobart Class ships specifically and of Australia's broader aim to become a far more significant C21st naval power, including re the growth and maintenance of essential domestic infrastructures and skills bases.
The SM-6 can be used as a medium-long range surface to surface missile as well as for AWD purposes.
I have been binging your videos, and they all are objective and excellent (in my subjective view). It's also refreshing to se a non USA (and non PRC) point of view on the IndoPacific as well as modern weapon systems and countermeasures. I'm glad you are pointing out why we can't be totally eurocentric. You sucked me in with the New Guinea quad and I was hooked. I'm officially a fanboy!
Also love your video over all.
We definitely need to take up the option on the 4th AWD!
This is a good channel mate
enough motivation that ive subscribed
This was crazy good. Can’t wait for a vid on the new nuke subs.
Thanks to our brilliant ADF. It's comforting to know we are beefing up our forces in the North especially in the current political climate and foreign powers maneuvering in the seas to our north. Thanks for your service and for keeping me safe. 😉
Didn't know how much smaller than the Burke it is till I saw it parked side by side in Pearl harbour.🇭🇲
Love your videos bro keep it up 👌
Aegis is a hell of a thing. In a war with China, it might be decisive. The ability to not get your shit rocked by missiles is helpful in general.
I would love a video on the Ticonderoga class cruiser.
Great video, very informative. It's a shame the option for a fourth ship was not exercised.
Good content.
🇭🇲👍🏿
Great analysis of the Hobart-class destroyers was certainly a learning curve for Australia Shipbuilding Industry. Pitty they did not take the option for a 4th ship though however considering the Hunter-class frigates will be almost on par with the Hobart I don't think thr lost of one ship would have any long lasting effects.
Its a fantastic ship; 🇨🇦 Canada should have collaborated with 🇦🇺Australia to crank out more of these hulls. They forgot the hard lessons learned and got sold a bill of goods in the Type 26; which is also a fine product as originally configured. There needs to be a giant poster of the LCS, ZumW failed naval experiments and Tiger helicopters in any office that has to do with defence procurement.
How many rod holders does it have?
As an American, I believe the Hobart ships are the most beautiful ships out there.
Nice. How about a guide to the RAAF Growler or AEA/EW overall with slight bridging how the change from RF-111C happened? Quite current topic thanks to Finland and Germany potentially acquiring it. Yeah there was a 30 seconds of Growler content already in the Super Hornet video, but it pales in comparison to the F-35 video. With adding F-111 (history) and NGJ (future) and overall look into the function there could be another 10 minute video.
We this all the time - The only way around it is to allow the designer material support and supply rights. Then contract a separate builder who has further light and deep maintenance. That way the designer doesn't get a monopoly. Further to this, is our insistence on buying off the shelf, only to aussiefy it up.
Which means we must have designers linked to ADO as public/private, only seeking out others as co-designers to assist.
Future subs is the current example.
Very happy they decided to get Navantia from Spain involved to pull it all together and make it happen. Great vessel but 3 is not enough, need at least another 3 more. Type 26 not looking good at the moment, perhaps an alternative needs to be studied.
Navantia did offer Australian a deal to make them 3 more of the ships for a total estimated cost of 6 billon Australian dollars and to be delivered in 2030.
Although at that point it might be beast to go with Navantias new F-110 class frigates that are the successors of the Alvaro de Bazan class, and offer up improved capabilities. Not to mention that it might take around the same time or less, as Spain has laid down the first of the class in August of this year and are expected to be launched in 2025.
But I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.
@@javiermedina9080 Not much difference between the F100 and F110 except maybe range. Australia use a total different system in the ship itself anyway that why the 3 F100 class was built in Australia. The only thing that is originally spanish is the ship design itself the haul and motor ect. Everything else is customised to what RAN wanted. From computers electronic warfare combat system radar ect. Australian F100 class AWDs was the first ship outside the US with Aegis combat systems. The spanish ships may look the same But they are not the same. Australia ships use a complete different systems that makes them much more capable ship. The ship of choice will only depend if the other has greater range or not. But my guess the F110 would have probably better range. Not all new ships have better capabilities than the previous. If you look at the Alright Burk class neither the F100 or the F110 can compete with it its faster has more range and twice the armament. And it's been upgraded in its computer and weapons systems. The ship is an older design but still comes out on top
@@Nathan-ry3yu The F-100 class uses Aegis as well. Navantia also built the Fridtjof Nansen class which also carries the Aegis system. So before Australia had the Aegis system, Japan, Spain and Norway fielded it
@@Nathan-ry3yu What part of... "the same capabilities as" the Arleight Burke, but smaller, haven't you understood?
@@Nathan-ry3yuthe Australian ships derivates from de Spanish f105...
Any info on whether the VLS cells are tactical or strike length? The Arliegh Burkes have a mix.
Excellent, facts with no 'who would win' BS.
the hobarts will be better equipped when they receive the aegis version 9 with a optional bmd module which no doubt will be installed coupled to the sm6 missile
The Hobart class F100s can’t take on much more systems they’re very limited and if you were to ad SM6 it would only give it even less air warfare capability as they only have 48 VLS, it’s a very small crew size for a ‘destroyer’ as well you don’t want to turn these things into a futon
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 you may be right with what you say none the less that is what is going to happen the hobarts will be upgraded to aegis version 9 with the sm6 missile around 2024 i believe, the aegis system has been ordered with with sets for the first 3 hunters
@@rossboyle3017 well than it proves the RAN hasn’t learnt a thing from the mistakes they made with the ANZAC class, issues with the ANZACs was navy adding too many new systems which made them really top heavy and complex ships, it didn’t have the additional compartments or upper deck space for the more modern systems and eventually the ships had an identity crisis, they were supposed to be ASW ships but only had a crew of 160 and hangar space for 1 helo and flight crew but equipped with a powerful energy thirsty phased array radar but almost no air warfare capability with only 8 VLS and no CIWs
The USN flight IIA Arleigh Burke’s have 96 VLS but it’s a mixture of ARSOC, Tomahawks, ESSM and Standard missiles and for the USN that leaves no room for SM6 so they leave BMDS to the Ticonderoga class cruisers, we may see Flight III Arleigh Burke’s take up the role of ballistic missile defence but it’ll lower their air warfare and ground strike capability
You can imagine things will only get worse for the Hobart if they additionally want to add tomahawk missiles
@@rossboyle3017 so right now the hobarts have 48 VLS
8 cells dedicated to ESSM , 40 to SMs
If we were to add SM6 to hobarts how many would it be ? Let’s say 8 leaving 32 VLS to SMs, so I’m that case the Hobart class ‘destroyers’ would have the same air warfare capability in regards to missile count as the ageing Oliver hazard Perry’s they replaced
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 it all boils down as to what the configuration of the hobarts will be in the future once aegis version 9 is installed . at a guess i would say about 4 sm6 missiles & the rest between sm2 & essm , replace harpoon missile with nsm no asroc no tomahawk that's my guess anyway cheers
At least if and when an Australian defence contract blows out, the least we can do is see the money and skills stay in Australia. If Austal can export to the world then there is no excuse for not developing a competent shipbuilding industry in Australia.
Makes me wonder if austal could take over as. Austal are certainly switched on.
Can you do the type 45 destroyer?
Can you make a video about new weapon of ship programs that are delivered on time or on budget?
Hope you have "over the horizon" AEW ours is sadly lacking. Chrs
Great video.
What did the PM announce the other day? All I understood was that they were spending money in the north.
Better than the fleet being tied up in Sydney,for the top heavy admirals and wife's shopping and pink gins
There is a theme to Aussie's programme: troubled start turn out to great platforms
Very collins reminiscent
Do a video of that Australia navy speed patrol boat, the one on the TV show.
I keep wondering how long all these modern high-cost per unit (ships, tanks, planes) would actually last during a real war, by which I mean a war between equal-ish matched combatants. I think of the significant British naval losses during the Falklands War for instance.
Not long I suspect. Submariners say there are only submarines and targets in the world's navies. I suspect if enough 'ordinary' anti-ship missiles are launched then they will get through. Now that hypersonic anti-ship missiles and anti-ship ballistic missiles are possessed by Russia and China the odds are now poor for surface ship longevity especially near to their coasts. In this situation more smaller and simpler surface warships makes sense to complement the super expensive capable ships like the Hobart class AWD.
The RN was particularly inept at anti-ship missile defence as well as 1960's fighter aircraft with iron bomb defence during the Falklands War with ship radars not working near the coast due to excessive interference/clutter and even in the open ocean one frigate was lost as its radar was off during a satellite telephone call and another was lost because a second frigate just got in the way at the wrong time. Has this weakness been fixed with more modern technology? I doubt it.
The fact that the RN had no capable airborne warning and control aircraft screening the fleets and landing operations at all times during the Falklands War was also poor considering the old Fairey Gannet had that capability in the past. The stupid Conservatives - Secretary of State for Defence Sir John Nott and Margaret Thatcher had also made the decision to scrap the Hermes aircraft carrier, sell the Invincible aircraft carrier and scrap most of the amphibious warfare ships and at least nine frigates in the 1981 defence white paper - one year before the Falklands War. The Argentinians just had to wait another year or two and the UK would have been unable to send an adequate force to the Falklands.
well it depends on many factors as well as lessons learned. For example a few of the losses in the Falklands were due to the use of aluminium superstructure, which when on fire it just doesn’t stop and it can be a strugle to put out, which led to the ships loss. Now a days most ships are made with an all steel construction, so that problem shouldn’t be as significant.
Other things to take into consideration is in what way os the ship hit and with what weapon, in most cases navys train their crews rigorously to patch up any damage done and to mantain the shop afloat and operational.
Take the US destroyer that had a good chunk of its hull literally blown up from a boat packed to the brim with explosives, and although not in any form of combat conditions it still remained afloat and was able yo get repairs.
Ships now a days may seem like an easy kill, but they have proven to be rather resilient when it comes to survivability, all due to much more effective and modern designs, and highly trained/skilled repair and damage control parties.
Great. Just keep building and maintain the skill. Next up, the Hunter Class.
Don't know if they've fixed it but the RHIBs in service with the rest of the fleet couldn't be used on the Hobart class when they first went in to service. The deck where the davits are fitted wasn't thick enough and couldn't take the weight. Zodiac had to build a number of light weight 7.2m RHIBs at short notice in order for them to be able to go into active service.
The 5 inch gun now comes in a longer 62 caliber length barrel with greater velocity. I'm not sure if this Mk 45 is L54 or L62
Hobart class and Anzac class are both fitted with the newer mod4 62” caliber guns the flat panel gun turret is a dead give away the MK45 is the name used on all the versions of the gun
We did well with the Hobarts , going to need them with what a costly debacle the future submarine program is going to be . That's going to be so bad the Collins class will be fondly remembered
Apparently the 6 Collins class are going to be upgraded and kept for the gap period so Australia have nothing to worry about now.we won't be without submarines. The RAN have a plan to keep them till atleast 6 barracuda have been built. Due to the Ageing hauls of the collins clas can pass it's service life but they may decrease and limit the maximum depth dive they used to go. Example. 300 meters 980 feet to 275 metres 902 feet. The exact depth of the collins class is classified. But they will decrease it by a few meters due to the ageing hauls
Ngl I giggled when you said mentioned the attack class submarine at the end
48 VLS cells are plenty, especially as you can quad pack your ESSM's. Most countries can't even afford to fill their missile cells.
@roger that Australia will be using the ESSM quad pack SM2 and SM6. Australia is also developed our own hypersonic missile. And they could be used on our warships too.
The ESSM is great for short range anti aircraft they are supersonic mach 4 50km+ range and a decent warhead to knock down any aircraft.
SM2 is a medium range anti aircraft mulit purpose missile 200 nortical miles at mach 3.5.
SM6 is a long range multi purpose anti aircraft anti ship and land attack and anti ICBM missile for over the horizon
atmospheric interceptor, which uses a blast-fragmentation warhead to engage cruise missiles, aircraft, and ballistic missiles in the terminal phase..
And these missiles with new anti ship missiles including torpedoes and whatever else Australia build for its hypersonic missile program. And Australia have a very capable warship. With defensive and offensive capability
@@nathan-ck3je SM2 is 166 ish kms......thats 90nm.....a long way off the 200nm you stated
This type of ship with improved electronics, sensors and radars would be perfect for the JMSDF. They should complement the existing fleet with more ships like the Hobart class and Maya class guided missile destroyers. Maya class is more expensive and needs more staff to operate (around 310) which makes the Hobart class the perfect complementary ship.
Subbed!
Welcome my friend
Replace harpoon with NSM as well as having LRASM
It still comes down to it that the Hobarts could do with more missile capacity to ensure resilience in a high threat environment, especially in an era of swarm attacks by suicide drones and cruise missiles. Also it seems shame to use Stike Length VLS for ESSM, when the ship will need all it has for new types of strike missiles. Ideally during a major refit it would be excellent to add 8 VLS as on the FFGs or even better 16 Self Defense VLS, if space and weight permitted.
I would also say that the skill shortage wasn't created just because the anzac's and collins stopped being built. A lot of manufacturing and engineering was leaving Australia at that time resulting in less apprentices coming through as well. The education system is also to blame in this area. Kids used to come out of year 10 in to an apprenticeship but now they are forced to go to year 12 for no good reason.
these ships always give me a good sense of pride. Mostly cause Im Spanish and that the Spanish ships were chosen in the end. But that it shows that Spain is a major world power and capable of designing and producing very capable warships. As it was thanks to the Spanish design that required fewer changes to be done and still come out with a very capable and powerful that is compatible with standard NATO equipment and munitions. ( aka us equipment, munitions and eve some spare parts)
clearly we have very different understandings of what the term "major world power" means.
You got to do it to be good at it.
Australia should accept the bid to build an extra 3 destroyers due to the delay of the Hunter class (without reduction in the Hunter procurement), and as a stop gap before the neuclear submarine program is in effect
Can't wait to see these puppies operating with the Queen Elizabeth carrier strike group!
I wonder why Australia went with this design F100 class from the proposed sea 4000 Gibbs and cox F100 design destroyer.
Australia end up with a large single hanger instead of the double and left out the capability of more cell VLS that was centre of the double hanger. And only end up with one CIWS compared to 2 that was on each side of the ship. That was in the Gibbs and cox design. Australia could had a more variety matching configuration missile as the US Burk class destroyer with a mixture of ESSM SM2 SM6 tomahawk and ASROC. .
As I said in the video the main reason was risk. The Gibbs and Cox option was a whole new design, estimates were it would have taken 3 years longer to build.
In my opinion, the RAN will need 10 Hobart Class vessels for the next 30 years + 4 AOR Navantia vessels
what are the AOR Navatia vessels that you are referring ?
@@javiermedina9080 The RAN needs additional refueling capabilities. I am specifically referring to additional Cantabria Class AOR's. Saludos.
Here's a little known fact: The Kangaroo on the funnel of RAN vessels was copied from the Springbok used on WW2 ships of the South African Naval Forces, to distinguish them from RN ships, when operating under the White Ensign.