Hobart Class Destroyer: the Australian AEGIS
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 ноя 2024
- The Hobart class destroyer is built from the hull of the Spanish frigate the Alvaro de Bazan and mixed with America's AEGIS combat system. How is this going for Australia?
Please support the show:
www.buymeacoff...
/ eurasianavalinsight
Tags: DDG, ANZAC class frigate, Collins class submarine, Adelaide class frigate, Perth class destroyer, military, defence
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
Who says the design of the f100 is by Gibbs & Cox? The Americans told the Spaniards that it was impossible to put the Aegis radar on a 6,000-ton vessel without compromising its operation.
When Spain presented the f100 the boss of Gibbs & Cox fired their engineers for shame.
The Spanish design not only maintained the capabilities of the Arleigh Burque but were able to detect enemy missiles 5 seconds before the US destroyers by having the antennas a few meters higher than those of the US Navy. You can watch the videos on RUclips.
The f100 is a work of Spanish engineering
that has no comparison.
At the end of WWII, the US had 224 destroyers. Half of them (112) were the immortal Fletcher class DD's. Those were obviously very different times. The US currently has 72 destroyers, mostly the formidable Arleigh Burke class with a few soon to be decommissioned Zumwalts.
The US and UK giving Australia nuke boat tech was a stroke of genius. Australia with nuclear powered subs will become immensely more powerful, especially in the ability to project power for extended periods of time far from her shores. A strong Australia benefits, not only Australia, but the UK and US as well. It is a win-win situation. AUKUS, with our Japanese allies, will lead the way in defending the sea lanes and the rules based order in the Indo-Pacific.
Your sir, are a patriot, and as a fellow patriot i'd like to commend you. Something that the Australian people should be seeing is the rise of certain powers* to our north and the warning signs that come with it. Given that we're currently in an ecenomic headlock from said power it's surprising that more people in our nation don't seem to view it as a threat, militarily and ecenomically when it quite clearly is. Appeasement does not work, Chamberlain would reluctantly agree i'm sure. However one cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. One former twice-PM Gave a brilliant TED talk some years ago warning us of this, arguing that while this nation may be a 'paper tiger' it may very well pose a significant threat if allowed to surpass the US as the world's leading ecenomic power.
@@dylandettorre I agree with every single thing you said which is unusual for social media. And your knowledge of history is spot on. I particularly like your reference to Chamberlain.
I didn't understand the threat posed by Mao's boys until about 10 years ago when I caught an episode of China Uncensored. But I agree, there is no excuse for not comprehending the threat posed at this point.
@@jamesmasonaltair1062 thanks mate I appreciate that. Did modern history in high school and never lost the interest
@@jamesmasonaltair1062 I’m actually quite surprised Mao’s legacy is still relevant in modern communist China, considering to a degree how his Presidency ended
the US will expect that Australia does what they want not what Australia wants to deploy and operate the subs to do. Tell the Iranian airline innocents killed by the US Aegis computer controlled ship when it shot them down. We will not build those subs here that will all fo to the UK and US and their yards. The hunters are gone please. The earlier Hobart was a DDG from the US filled with cancer causing material Asbestos that killed massively. Spanish ships are rarely the answer as we are finding out and now the UK has disaster after disaster with ships and helicopters and the finally ended project wasting Billions for a maritime surveillance aircraft ala nimrod. The spanish cant be trusted to secure shared intell on ships and operations.
Totally agree the RAN should have the same number of Destroyer's as Frigate'd
Almost all navies under report top speed. With two LM2500's under the hood of a ship that's 3k tons lighter than an Arleigh Burke, I'd be surprised if a Hobart wasn't a 30+ knot ship... because the Arleigh Burke sure is!
For example, the UK will only admit that the QE carriers can do "in excess" of 25 knots. During early sea trials of QE, she had her AIS turned on and this showed her charging around Scotland at 32 knots and more. So, fully loaded, she is easily a 30 or 31 knot ship.
Don't take everything you see on the sales brochure too literally!
In the Hobart class Navantia had engineers and design, the construction was by BAE the same as the Hunter class, the delays in the first ship were the fault of BAE's purchase of Chinese steel which did not meet quality standards and Navantia was rusting, intervened to fix and change the steel, so before lying about Navantia and its good work, the same people who screwed up with the delays of the first Hobart are the same ones who designed the hunter class. In fact, it is Navantia who is going to design the ones. refueling ships for the British navy so please do not defame without knowing the truth
Also the schematics were all in Spanish and not translated to English. I was a very young green staffer when Howard caved to Treasury and Shackleton as he wanted a MOTS FMS Burke but Shackleton fretted over crewing and then Treasury saw their opportunity to go with the cheap F105. Please - the shit I was a witness to in the NSCC. But the original build module as you say was seriously fucked. RAND were brought in, the ANAO where I also worked [started as a Graduate] were also all over these massive problems and DoD's entrenched dysfunction which tragically, appallingly can NEVER be fixed.
Only a STRONG MinDef can remedy Russell's dysfunction which is deeply honeycombed. Yet we've not had one since 'Bomber'.
Dear Santa,
For Xmas I’d like
8 x Hobart Class Destroyers.
4 x HMAS Stirling (West Coast)
4 x Garden Island (East Coast)
12 x Frigates or even Corvettes (Aegis would be nice)
AUKUS submarines…yes I know they’re coming but Xmas 2030+ is too far away.
10,000 plus personnel to make sure all these new toys are fleet ready and in service.
Thanks Santa,
Royal Australian Navy
Need six AWD, not three.
Needed Destroyers not Frigates that Rudd decided to slap a new badge on.
@@goodshipkaraboudjan We need both. But we definately need more vessels with longer range air defense capability.
3 vessels probably means 1 available for operations, 1 available for training and rest and one on refit.
We really need 6 or more - especially given we don't have any long range ground based air defence and we have no intercepter/air defence fighters in the RAAF. If Australian territotory is ever threatened by air or missile attacks then essentially the Navy needs to stay home as they have the only weapons suitable to deal with those threats.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't serious. Better hope the yanks keep their B52s and Tindal - maybe they'll be nice enough to send a partiot battery or two to defend the north if they have assets they care about onshore.
The RAAF also lacks any real strike capabilites - the F/A-18Es don't really make up for the retirement of the F-111s - we should probably be looking at the F-15EX. Essentially the F-15EX and the B21 are the only real strike options with legs
@@jasont2610 If you want a good laugh look at the ALPs latest and greatest shipbuilding plan. Agree with the B-21 but ALP publicly scrapped plans to acquire them.
Just 6 eh? I would had thought Australia geographical area would require more like 12 AWDs and 24 frigates and around 16 submarines to actually have any real capable defence
Australia 🇦🇺 needs more destroyers how can you defend our country with 3 destroyers?
They’re betting on the USA probably, but we need them to be strong on their own considering their distance.
BAE offered to build 3 super destroyers for RAN with 110 cell VLS. including Navanti offered to build another 3 ships. But Richard Marles hasn't public responded to the recent RAN review that was handed to him last month that he said he will give details about before the AFL grand final. Labor needs to go. They incompetent stuffing up not only Australian economy but our entire defence. Theirs no telling what Richard Marles will decide to respond to the RAN review till 2024
Everyone is in a guessing game with this government
at least the hunter class could kind of fill the gap....
We have lots of deadly snakes and spiders.
I think that's why we are buying the subs lol
It’s too bad I couldn’t join the navy I would love to be a engine technician for these awesome ships
It looks like a nice boat.
48 cell vls its a light weight destroyer
Ship. 🌊🌊💙
laughed when read boat. you were corected quickly i see/
yes Very Pretty just what we need a nice looking boat
Yacht
Given the long defence procurement timelines and Government back flipping on policy, more should have been built to keep the navy modern.
With the naval review recently completed and handed over to government, there’s strong rumours circulating that there will be three more of these warships purchased as an interim measure while the cutting the expected order of Hunter class anti sub destroyers from 9 to 6.
That would not particularly make sense
@@kingdedede1066 Why not? Explain.
@@chrisdoulou8149 hunter class will have comparable air defence
@@kingdedede1066 Except it won’t. They will have different baseline AESA radars, the Hunter has less VLS tubes, and the fire control and C&C systems on the Hobart are tailored towards the AD mission. The Hobart is an AWD that can do ASW well, while the Hunter will be the worlds premier ASW vessel that can do AD well.
We can't crew properly what we have much less a larger navy, our navy is fit for purpose which is looking after our shores and maybe immediate region and thats it. In any large conflict in our region we won't be on the front line we will be assigned particular tasks in our north east and north west.
the evolved arleigh burke was also more human intensive then the hobarts.
Hobart Class. Huge delays and cost overruns.But good ships. We need 4.
AUKUS will allow Australian to buy Virginia SSNS. Personally I would have selected UK Astute as being available sooner at similar capability.
Australia struggled to build and man the relatively simple Collins SS. We currently only have crews for 4 of 6 (at 60 crew), mainly with UK, US or Canadian captains. Virginia requires 120 highly-specialised crew.
There is no way we can build or man (or afford) 8 locally built SSNs, We can only POSSIBLY man 4-5 SSNs (with twice the crew requirement of the Collins).
We totally lack the required labour skills to build SSNS, even with US provided reactors and technology.
We can buy 4 - 5 Block 4 Virginia at $4 billion each (as per current plans), with a 40 year remaining life. Plus spent $50 billion or so on new bases and SSN maintenance facilities.
And scrap the idea of local manufacture of new design SNS during the 2030s and 2040s
Building 8 NEW design SSNs for $300 billion in the 2030's (would be at least twice that cost, with inevitable substantial delays) simply makes no sense.
Australian DOD can't even build simple patrol boats on time and on cost. ANOA indicates the Hunter frigates will be an imminent nightmare with huge cost overruns. Building SSNs in Oz is impossible.
That means to maintain the boats you'd need to sent them to the other side of the pacfic or indian ocean.
Local build mean we can refit ourselves and we can if necesary build more.
US yards don't have capacity to build what the US navy wants, let alone excess capacity for us.
That's not what I meant. Virginia and Astute boats are fuelled for life (with plutonium), which is why Australia 'bit the bullet' and annoyed the French by not considering the nuclear Barracuda (requires refuelling every 7 years).
Australia will spend $3 billion to help in improving capacity of US (privately owned) sub shipyards to build new Virginias, largely to let us 'jump the queue' for building. Then spend probably $50 billion to buy around 4 used Virginias (Block 4?) as an 'interim measure', then $100 billion on new facilities at Osborn to BUILD and then MAINTAIN a planned 8 new SSNs OF A NEW CLASS (and both the large number of boats [the UK will only have 7 Astutes, France 6 nuclear Barracuda) and the new design are a concern, not so much the new facilities). And upgrade Sub base East and Sub base West. The potential for PRC Navy bases on Pacific Islands is concerning - that is exactly what Japan did after WW1, and we all know how that worked out.
We certainly need SSNs, and the capacity to maintain and refit them. Build them? Maybe, but building a nuclar sub is like putting a man on the moon. Very complex. And the capacity to crew them with very specialised crews is problematic. Had Astute been selected, we could have bought the entire manufacturing tooling for peanuts as the last of those boats is now being built, and been able to cheaply build at Osborn in a short(ish) time frame. Having selected the (more capable and more man-power intensive) Virginias is fine.
My contention is that we should just buy 5 ex-USN Block 4 Virginias and build the maintenance and refit capacity at Osborn (including for UK and US boats), at half the cost and with nil risk, and actually be able to find the submariners to crew them. Those boats will be available sooner than the vaguely promised 'the mid-2040's' for Osborn-built boats (with US-built reactors), and will then have a remaining life of 40 years (with periodic refits but no refuelling). Having two crews per boat (as the US does with its Boomers, and the ADF has just started with its patrol boats) is also a possibility (but again manpower restraints...).
Buy Astutes. Get brand new ships right off a production line that is still open.
With an Order from Australia and potentially Canada, BAE will certainly keep that Production line running.
@@sammydsouza4379 The Astute line is closed for further orders, the builders have moved on to the Dreadnought class SSBNs and will then start on the SSN-AUKUS for the RN. The last 2 Astute hulls are complete and consolidated, just fitting out left to do.
@@Harldin An order for 4 units from Australia and 4 Units from Canada BAE will have the Production line open in a hot minute. Do not kid yourself.
Dunno why but you sound really like Eurasia naval insight for some reason lol
I think it's the same person
The best example of what can be done when two allies like Spain and Australia join forces, a pity there's only 3, let's be honest, both the F100 and F110 designs are better than the British frigates you have bought, even the RAN agrees on that, they wanted more F100s but politics got in the way and now you have a ship that will be late and twice as expensive as planned. Lets hope that with the new programme your government will make the right choices.
🇪🇸🤝🇦🇺
That's a nice frigate.
So what has changed for the RAN - they are still in a pickle
Cheao choice. 3 destroyers lol. Reqire 12
should/ve stuck with Arleigh Boutke
More expensive with a significantly higher crew requirement with less digitization and automation than the Arleigh design. so that would have created additional issues.
ABurke is the best imo
Look like Alvaro de Bazaan.. Spain Frigate
Dear Santa,
I would like...
12 Type 26 Hunters 36 MK41 VLS
12 Type 83 AAW Destroyers with 2 X 48 MK41 VLS
12 Astutes. The first 3 direct purchase from the UK so we get them now, balance built in Australia
And if you could toss in 12 units if the new Japanese OPV , at $ 50 Million per unit, all delivered in 36 months, we would all be very happy.
Dear @sammydsouza4379
Sorry but the RAN has already forwarded their list and as it is far more realistic than yours and I can actually deliver it, unlike yours, I am afraid I am going to have to say no.
Santa
PLEASE don'\t make Australia LAUGH
The Hobart has some weakness the EGIS only has PESSA technology and I think only 2 fire control radars for terminal phase guidance of Missiles. It also has a limited number of mk 41 VLS. It is an inferior design to the Type 45 destroyer of the Uk that has AESA does not need to guide missiles in the terminal phase and carries 48 VLS with another 24 on the way for Sea Ceptor. The AEGIS is also built onto the superstructure and has a shorter radar horizon then a mast mounted radar.... the Auzis should have bought British...
Fligth III Navantia Australia 128 VLS
Should of bought the arleigh Burke
You mean built the upgraded Alright Burke like south Korea did
Only got 3 with only 48 cells each 🤦♂️
This narrator is murdering the English language.
He's destroyereriing it.
We have three of these. What a joke.
I am an aussie.. we have a piss weak.WOKE military...the labour government allways cuts budget on the military first.. we send 12 people to the red sea to stop houtis hijacking ships.. weak and embarresing...our F18,s were in iraq and afghanistan and took out nothing... even the british said the aussie RAAF wouldnt jump into the fight
I hope typing that out gave you the sugar hit you were after.
After watching this video Australia should not consider the Spanish option for a new frigate .
Why doesn’t Australia get american designed submarines seeing they are the best in the world and we are their allies?
Have you been in a coma for the last 3 years?
Because we are getting UK designed nuclear submarines.
@@brettmitchell6431 AS I understand it, the plan is to get some Virginia Class subs before we get the UK subs because the Collins will be redundant prior to the UK subs being available.
@@davidwild66
That’s the plan however it hasn’t passed Congress and the USN is understandably reluctant to take existing Virginia out of their order of battle and sell them to Australia. The USN attack submarine fleet is shrinking over the next ten years, as the LA class are hitting their end of life sooner than replacement Virginia can be commissioned.
The US relies on UK designed reactors. Australia relies on the US combat suite but weapon systems like the MK48 Gucci are joint between Australia and the US. Also Australia has different requirements and usages for subs. So best to pool thoughts together for different solutions.
Could the United States be given control of the planning and purchasing of the Australian navy's needs for ships because Australia governments pathetic reasoning for picking the inferior Spanish design for lower purchase prices and quicker arrival of a totally inferior ship just follows a pattern of bad design and inferior weapons on these ships. But this is the Australian government's way of purchasing Australian Navy ships and also submarines just following a decades long history of Australian government poor political decision making, that has eventually led us to a place of non-arrival submarines and ineffective ships that really make us a much easier target for unfriendly overseas navies, such as the Chinese navy, as was proven when 3 Australian navy ships on a friendly visit to Vietnam were pulled up and virtually for a time held captive by the PLA's navy until they decided to release them, fortunately for us. These ships are really mainly for patrolling they're just not competitive with modern foreign navy's much stronger weapon and anti-drone higher capacity foreign designs.
Defend against what? China? China can't/won't invade.
Australia is extremely difficult to approach, let alone invade.
We're fine 👍
Sure mate 🤠
@@highcountrydelatite They're doing it slowly without anyone noticing.. Why do think Scott Morrison lost the last election...
Don't need to invade us, they just need to cripple us which I expect will be easy. The subs should help there.
Looking at what's going on, I think the Philippines is going to be the hot spot that sparks. They are being bullied and provoked to make a mistake which gives ccp the excuse.
Need to be united.
No one is saying China is going to invade Australia, that’s not the point. The point is defending our links to the outside world for instance escorting container ships that bring in our imports for instance as well as to defend our allies.
If, for instance China thinks about invading Taiwan it has to consider the fact that Korea, Japan, Australia the US and others will get involved. That’s called deterrence. Much cheaper to do that than to skimp on having power projection capabilities and therefore have no deterrence and so increasing the chances of a war. Look at Ukraine and Russia. The Europeans tried to save money by cutting back on their military and now the cost of rebuilding Ukraine will be immense.
@@highcountrydelatiteyeah and it was impossible to march elephants across the alps 2500 years ago. But Hannibal did it, didn’t he. Never bank on something being to hard.