Big step up for the ADF. Now to retrofit a second 48 cell Mk41 VLS to the ships of the Hobart Class AWDs so that they can carry a decent load of the Tomahawks without reducing the number of air defence missiles.
where TF are we gonna install them? like, without adding a block (you even can), removing the 5 inch gun or remove the NSM capability for 8-16 vls, there aint any room. nor, is there any spare wieght, to which anything that is available would be for the sensors and existing equipment. you might be able to fit 8-16 cells (self-sefence length) around the aft funnel, so that you could use the foreward VLS for tomahawk, but i dont belive its possible
@@aussienscale The real question will be how many will they actually have at the ammo depots, haven't been in a while but went through plenty of VLS "pretty sure this canister will fire" issues or loading up the enviro harpoon fakes. Hell at that particular time if you needed a full HEIR loadout only one ship in the West could do so due to lack of supply. Capability and capacity might be there but if the ammo isn't - makes little difference heh.
No. we should have DDGs that have 100 to 120 VLS cells. Hobart Class has 48 cells. There is currently no ability (not Aust or USA) to reload those cells at sea.
@@s4ss.m8 Yes, it is the biggest issue, because those cells are all we have - it is an AWD, so having SM-2 (6 etc) missiles are its reason for existence - quad pack ESSMs are really only self defence missiles. Nobody can reload VLS at sea, so don't count on it happening during the life of the ship.
@@politenessman3901 Sailors aboard the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Chosin (CG 65) used the hydraulically-powered TRAM device to load an empty missile canister into the ship’s MK 41 vertical launching system (VLS) while off the coast of San Diego on Oct. 11. Not that I disagree with your sentiment though, cheers.
@@hdmccart6735 One. and it was an empty box, not a live missile - weighs a lot less and doesn't explode if you stuff up. and the cranes required to do it have been removed from the Ticos. the USN is trying to find a way to do it now. it isn't likely to happen in the life of the Hobarts, we need to seriously revise the Hobarts.
The 3 Hobart Class Destroyers (+3 more), 7 Mecco A Class, Frigates, 1 Hunter Class (+5 more)), 2 ( +4 more) New Arafura Class Corvettes, all 25 War Ships, can therefore all have Torpedoes, VCL, Harpoon and Cruise Missiles. Plus also the 6 Collins Class Sumbarines, all can have Torpedoes, Harpoon and Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. Carriing all a Large Number of thesr.
It's an offensive capability to attack remote adversary type targets, our capability is mainly for interdiction of enemy vessels and damaging temporary battlefield fortifications.
@@Inv1ns1blnot really, if we weren’t shipping off all our goods at a discount we could probably be the top 5 richest country since we sell of large amounts of exotic materials that go straight into funding private jet flights to the local maccas and back
The yanks were launching them in the 90’s. Good old Oz. 30 years behind. Still waiting for Apache, Himars, SPA, offensive drones, new frigates, new subs etc. We have been let down by politicians and yes men in charge of the ADF.
@@stvka Yeah where are they? Other countries have had offensive drones for years. Our subs are god knows how long off. We are 20 years behind where we should be. Australian companies giving Ukraine sucide drones but the ADF doesn't have them. We are useless mate.
@@stvka you did watch the senate meeting about the subs before AUKUS was a thing right? even when a plan is made there's always political roadblocks to slow down development.
@@skylarkeighley2369 not talking about the aukus subs because we clearly aren’t developing them, stop and read for a sec, political roadblocks have already been crossed.
@@shooterdownunder yes and no. If it's like red sea peace keeping operations, the US ran through tomahawks pretty quickly. But their foe couldn't really strike back properly. We have currently only three ships (the hobarts) than can fire these. They each have 48 VLS cells, not all of those cells will be filled with Tomahawks. That's a lot of trips back and forth and that's only assuming somehow, we win every engagements and our destroyers don't get destroyed.
@@dan7564 So is that like, "We can deliver 20 now, and 200 one day. Maybe 2030-ish." Or, do you mean the RAN has actually taken possession of 220 weapons?
But behind all this will be a "Sir, we can only give 1 ship in the fleet a *Full* loadout (if that)). Unless someone pulled their fingers out in the past few years since I left. Hopefully they still have "Yeah I give this VLS canister a 85% chance of working properly" or a "let X ship know they need to pull in and transfer off their HEIR rounds to go to X ship" because there is only enough around to give 1 in the area a full Loadout.
As part of the AUKUS package, 4 different types of missiles will be able to be made here in Oz (the information on their construction shared with us for this purpose), along with an Australian designed hypersonic missile and in a few years, Australian Nuclear submarines.
I have an easy way for the RAN to fill the ranks. Bring back compulsory service for 18-19yos (in aged care, military, community service). Anyone drafted to military gets to clean dunnies and man the galley lines. If you want to avoid this, sign up and get a proper job in the service and enjoy a nice career.
The labour defence execs seems to be blazing through the political, organisational and bureaucratic hurdles in upgrading our navy. They might just actually be able to pull off the AUKUS subs.
Albanese is waffling and we haven’t realised we are losing the arms race production capabilities. We have bought 200 tomahawks, sounds a lot but our adversaries have many tens of thousands of targets to hit if we are truly to deter we need more capabilities and more production facilities or we stand to be on our first losing side of war
@@winelive5500 We're opening production facilities. Relax. Also, we're never going to out produce China, we need to do our part without our pacific coalition.
Please actually run ads for your service because you are not going to become a serious threat to foreign countries if we can only operate at best a single rubber boat without missing half the crew
and despite DMO, with only 32 cells though you have no magazine depth, only 2 of 4 GS and if you had bought what RAN originally wanted in AB Flight III . . .
China has the capability to shoot down cruise missles using current fighter jets. Bang on about this all you like and listen to the hype but we are well behind in out ability to sustain a prolonged defence posture.
Learn to build them yourself… reverse engineer the thing and stop buying them . Tomahawks are outstanding weapons of War . Land sea or air .. You cant have to many of these .
What the hell is this comment. "You cant have too many of these". You think America just gives them for free? And we do build plenty of military equipment here.
Significantly uplifting....after killing off the F111 we get back a modest middle range strike capability. Yes, I agree "the pig" had reached the end of the line, but boy-o-boy, talk about lack of govt balls to get to get on the front foot!
Because we weren't even mediocre before. The ADF and all the western forces in general have critical lack of VLS and hull forms with the most important things for a navy deck space and a reserve of buoyancy, given use under powered under equipment dead end ship.
i like bagels
That’s Australia’s yearly stockpile exhausted.
Big step up for the ADF. Now to retrofit a second 48 cell Mk41 VLS to the ships of the Hobart Class AWDs so that they can carry a decent load of the Tomahawks without reducing the number of air defence missiles.
Short of removing the main gun, there no room
where TF are we gonna install them? like, without adding a block (you even can), removing the 5 inch gun or remove the NSM capability for 8-16 vls, there aint any room. nor, is there any spare wieght, to which anything that is available would be for the sensors and existing equipment.
you might be able to fit 8-16 cells (self-sefence length) around the aft funnel, so that you could use the foreward VLS for tomahawk, but i dont belive its possible
What do you mean by a second 42 cell Mk41 ?
@@aussienscale bit of a wierd number isn;t it? considering they come in a module of either 4 or 8.
@@Hierachy strange indeed considering the attempted authoritative statement he made !!
Now if only we had more than 32 cells to carry armourments.
Hobart Class have 48.
@@aussienscale The real question will be how many will they actually have at the ammo depots, haven't been in a while but went through plenty of VLS "pretty sure this canister will fire" issues or loading up the enviro harpoon fakes. Hell at that particular time if you needed a full HEIR loadout only one ship in the West could do so due to lack of supply. Capability and capacity might be there but if the ammo isn't - makes little difference heh.
Wellington isn't safe anymore
Outstanding .
Yeah, this is huge! Outstanding!
We should have more Hobart class!!!
No. we should have DDGs that have 100 to 120 VLS cells. Hobart Class has 48 cells. There is currently no ability (not Aust or USA) to reload those cells at sea.
@politenessman3901 the number of cells isn't the biggest issue. Reloading at Sea is what we need to figure out.
@@s4ss.m8 Yes, it is the biggest issue, because those cells are all we have - it is an AWD, so having SM-2 (6 etc) missiles are its reason for existence - quad pack ESSMs are really only self defence missiles.
Nobody can reload VLS at sea, so don't count on it happening during the life of the ship.
@@politenessman3901 Sailors aboard the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Chosin (CG 65) used the hydraulically-powered TRAM device to load an empty missile canister into the ship’s MK 41 vertical launching system (VLS) while off the coast of San Diego on Oct. 11. Not that I disagree with your sentiment though, cheers.
@@hdmccart6735 One. and it was an empty box, not a live missile - weighs a lot less and doesn't explode if you stuff up. and the cranes required to do it have been removed from the Ticos. the USN is trying to find a way to do it now. it isn't likely to happen in the life of the Hobarts, we need to seriously revise the Hobarts.
Can we not test missiles - that’s some expensive shit when we not even in a war lol
We will probably never have a carrier again, so to make our surface fleet as lethal and long ranged as possible is the best decision
The RAN can integrate weapons onto a platform already designed for those weapons……hmmm, this is what happens when public servants set their own KPI’s
Evidently the ADF hasn't tried to cut down a tree with a tomahawk.
Should have built the full size Hobarts instead of the short hull. Great missile but where are you going to put them without removing SM6s.
What are you on about ? The Hobarts are based on the F105 Hull designed by Navantia Spain. There is no short hull version of the ship.
The 3 Hobart Class Destroyers (+3 more), 7 Mecco A Class, Frigates, 1 Hunter Class (+5 more)), 2 ( +4 more) New Arafura Class Corvettes, all 25 War Ships, can therefore all have Torpedoes, VCL, Harpoon and Cruise Missiles.
Plus also the 6 Collins Class Sumbarines, all can have Torpedoes, Harpoon and Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. Carriing all a Large Number of thesr.
Collins cannot have Tomahawks.
I did not know that. Thanks.😀
why does oz not have an aircraft carrier?
It's an offensive capability to attack remote adversary type targets, our capability is mainly for interdiction of enemy vessels and damaging temporary battlefield fortifications.
because its too expensive
@@Inv1ns1blnot really, if we weren’t shipping off all our goods at a discount we could probably be the top 5 richest country since we sell of large amounts of exotic materials that go straight into funding private jet flights to the local maccas and back
@@Inv1ns1bl the ramps aren't strong enough for f35s from what I've heard
Too expensive, not enough pilots or planes.
The yanks were launching them in the 90’s. Good old Oz. 30 years behind. Still waiting for Apache, Himars, SPA, offensive drones, new frigates, new subs etc. We have been let down by politicians and yes men in charge of the ADF.
you do realize we are developing our own offensive drones and submarines right?
@@stvka Yeah where are they? Other countries have had offensive drones for years. Our subs are god knows how long off. We are 20 years behind where we should be. Australian companies giving Ukraine sucide drones but the ADF doesn't have them. We are useless mate.
Shit costs money bro, some tech also requires partner governments/parliament to approve
@@stvka you did watch the senate meeting about the subs before AUKUS was a thing right? even when a plan is made there's always political roadblocks to slow down development.
@@skylarkeighley2369 not talking about the aukus subs because we clearly aren’t developing them, stop and read for a sec, political roadblocks have already been crossed.
Short story - the RAN will be using these in the Middle East in 2025.
Long story short. You're full of shit.
Excellent ❤
How many of these do we have?
200 Block V, plus 20 Block IV for some reason.
@@dan7564that’s no where near enough for a war, let alone a prolonged war
@@dan7564 Thanks for that.
@@shooterdownunder yes and no. If it's like red sea peace keeping operations, the US ran through tomahawks pretty quickly. But their foe couldn't really strike back properly. We have currently only three ships (the hobarts) than can fire these. They each have 48 VLS cells, not all of those cells will be filled with Tomahawks. That's a lot of trips back and forth and that's only assuming somehow, we win every engagements and our destroyers don't get destroyed.
@@dan7564 So is that like, "We can deliver 20 now, and 200 one day. Maybe 2030-ish." Or, do you mean the RAN has actually taken possession of 220 weapons?
But behind all this will be a "Sir, we can only give 1 ship in the fleet a *Full* loadout (if that)). Unless someone pulled their fingers out in the past few years since I left. Hopefully they still have "Yeah I give this VLS canister a 85% chance of working properly" or a "let X ship know they need to pull in and transfer off their HEIR rounds to go to X ship" because there is only enough around to give 1 in the area a full Loadout.
Can I have a go next ?
Hauk Tuah Missiles?
Siiiiick. 1982 armaments.
A nasty, nasty weapon. Goody.
Cool, now we need hunrdeds of subs of some type
Need to make our own weapons then depend on other countries
We don't like weapons
NSM is supposedly going to be made here.
100% wasting money on buying weapons from overseas when we can spend money on Australian made things
we already do smh.
As part of the AUKUS package, 4 different types of missiles will be able to be made here in Oz (the information on their construction shared with us for this purpose), along with an Australian designed hypersonic missile and in a few years, Australian Nuclear submarines.
We should developed our very own
Geez it’s about time. Christ we are behind…..
I have an easy way for the RAN to fill the ranks. Bring back compulsory service for 18-19yos (in aged care, military, community service). Anyone drafted to military gets to clean dunnies and man the galley lines. If you want to avoid this, sign up and get a proper job in the service and enjoy a nice career.
The labour defence execs seems to be blazing through the political, organisational and bureaucratic hurdles in upgrading our navy. They might just actually be able to pull off the AUKUS subs.
Is that you Dan Andrews?
Albanese is waffling and we haven’t realised we are losing the arms race production capabilities. We have bought 200 tomahawks, sounds a lot but our adversaries have many tens of thousands of targets to hit if we are truly to deter we need more capabilities and more production facilities or we stand to be on our first losing side of war
@@winelive5500 We're opening production facilities. Relax. Also, we're never going to out produce China, we need to do our part without our pacific coalition.
@@winelive5500tens of thousands of targets? In Australia? I dont believe that
@@JohnLoogleman Sounds dumb enough to be Dan !!
Ooooooooooooo aren't we clever
Please actually run ads for your service because you are not going to become a serious threat to foreign countries if we can only operate at best a single rubber boat without missing half the crew
Good thing it's not given an Aussie name, like "boomerang". Last thing you want is it coming back at ya!
How can you say the RAN is ready when our subs are pretty much all in dry dock with problems 😂
Scheduled upgrades
and despite DMO, with only 32 cells though you have no magazine depth, only 2 of 4 GS and if you had bought what RAN originally wanted in AB Flight III . . .
They have 48 cells.
still no where near enough
@ we could not have manned the Burkes, so would have had less.
@@aussienscale clueless
we should have had this capability over 20 years ago.
SPOT ON!!!! The USA were firing these into the Taliban and Iraq, over 20 years ago.
Why do they wear those white head coverings?
Fire-resistant suits.
China has the capability to shoot down cruise missles using current fighter jets. Bang on about this all you like and listen to the hype but we are well behind in out ability to sustain a prolonged defence posture.
Learn to build them yourself… reverse engineer the thing and stop buying them . Tomahawks are outstanding weapons of War . Land sea or air .. You cant have to many of these .
We are building missile factories, no need to reverse engineer them though lol
What the hell is this comment. "You cant have too many of these". You think America just gives them for free? And we do build plenty of military equipment here.
Significantly uplifting....after killing off the F111 we get back a modest middle range strike capability. Yes, I agree "the pig" had reached the end of the line, but boy-o-boy, talk about lack of govt balls to get to get on the front foot!
I call your bullshit. I wouldn’t be surprised Aussie navy already had these
And?
This is 20 year old tech... Why are we celebrating mediocrity?
Not old tech these are new tech versions of the tomahawk missile. The USA fired them this year into Yemen
Because we weren't even mediocre before. The ADF and all the western forces in general have critical lack of VLS and hull forms with the most important things for a navy deck space and a reserve of buoyancy, given use under powered under equipment dead end ship.
They've been operational for over 40 years but are constantly being upgraded, as perhaps you should be.
Agree 100%
Tell us you don't know much about mil tech without telling us you don't know much about mil tech...