As a Yank, I love the Navantia’s. Finally weapons density needed for today’s environment!! And guns!! Love the designs, the US needs to order a bunch of them to weave into the fleets!! Love them!!
Australian here. Yeah, I appreciate all the folk, but I would stick mostly with Navantia for now, they have been good and reliable for us so far, and the ship designs seem sensible and in line with what can realistically be expected in the next generation. The Alpha 5000 reminds me slightly of the shape of Japan's Mogami, which of course is a good design.
Agreed, it's BY FAR the best looking ship. Interesting, that they have the same bow design as the French FDI frigate-which Greece has also bought. Another beauty. They look like Dreadnoughts again.
If nothing else it has the "look" of a French pre-dreadnought tumble hull battleship. it looks tough with a throwback to the late 19th to early 20th century. Beautiful yet imposing!
Navantia trying pretty hard at Indopac with a good mix of new + older proven designs on offer. Pretty impressive to be honest. Tasman corvette looks a good option, flight 3 DDG hits the aesthetic even if not yet a thing. Hunter AWD proposal from BAE is also welcome, but unfortunately the extra VLS come at the cost of ASW capability. Gibbs and Cox offer looks a bit half baked right now. Suggest reduce the ASM to 16 and bring back the deck gun. Better display model wouldnt hurt either. TKMS MEKO A210 is probably a very capable vessel, its sliced off the bow makes it a bit hard to love... What happened to Leurssen?
not seeing a platform for x 2 Seahawks. Given the tonnage of the so called 'Tier 1" platforms it to me is illogical an additional 'Romeo' cannot be accommodated - especially given the ASW capabilities. RAN imo does need x 2 help capability - for the above reasons + it just adds force projection and also over the horizon capabilities.
This seems a bit strange to me. The T1/T2 concept that is. Not the concept itself but its implementation. I really hope the RAN doesn't cut back on their already planned Hunter class, like they kind of did with the Hobart. Having only three Hobarts is honestly not enough.
The British had ship Rates, the Americans high low. Either you build a war fleet and a peace fleet, one is for warfighting the other for patrols, anti piracy, escort, intercpt, foreign port visits during peace time. Or you build the best ship you can and that is a 1st rate or high value asset, however they're expensive in money, material and manpower so you already can't built many and you already can't afford to lose one so you build a cheaper smaller version that you can afford to pay for, build, man, arm and possibly lose. Ford Class would be 1st Rate by Royal Navy rating and its a tier 1 high value asset by USN doctrine classification. The Nimitz would be 2nd Rate as its the last generation and if the USN builds fleet carriers or light carriers then they would be considered 3rd Rates or tier two high value assets. A new frigate designed to be truly competitive would be a 1st rate Frigate or tier 1 but if you built a light Frigate, Sloop or Corvette the that would be rated 3rd Rate and tier 2.
what we need to do is take the gloves off and start building purely war ships instead of multirole vessels comes a time when humanitarian modules will be a hinderance
I'm loving these designs but can you maybe talk about the crew sizes as well I mean they aren't exactly the Smart4000 or Smart8000 that can be crewed by significant lower core crew or can be uncrewed depending on the requirements from that country definitely interesting designs.
@gamingrex2930 I found it ironic - even though to be fair and objective the strategic circumstances we find ourselves in now vs the environment back in 2007 - but reading the opinion piece from the November 'Defence/Nval Litout' in The Australian which was in last weeks "Australian" newspaper on Cup Day - but previous Head of RAN, Admiral Shackleton penned a excellent piece about the appalling lack of VLS capabilities on the current RAN fleet vs two + decades ago when RAN's VLS Lannister was a LOT bigger. When the decision was made to select the DDG replacement the only options in the end were: 1. an 'evolved' Arleigh Burke called 'Baby Burke"; and 2. the Navantia designed 105 - the last of class from their F100 run Why Russell/RAN never bothered to push a straight up MOTS/FMS AB Flight 2 was due to fretting about crew size, with Shackleton as Head of Navy the main 'fretted', he was extremely worried we could not crew a Burke. It is arguably worth pointing out that then Prime Minister Howard wanted the Burke option, Howard was adamant that RAN should buy the Burke. However - and without sounding grandiose - many Australians do not know as they were not part of the process, and remember these discussions are carried out mostly by the National Security Committee of Cabinet - NSCC - other 'actors' are always involved when it comes to massive defence procurements, the Dept of Treasury is a critical actor in all these decisions - they are, as my late Father called them "the men in brown suits", but Treasury is one of the - what we refer to in Canberra - 'co-ordinating Depts' and they have enormous power. The problem at the time, once a Flight 2A was removed as an option, was you had what was as fact x1 mature design + in the water IOC. Against what was a 'orphan class' of ship that had not been built. So - Howard in hindsight should have just over-ridden EVERYONE involved and said "we are going with a straight Burke buy, end of story". The Spanish design, a imo/many also held the opinion, small 7,000 tonne ship with only x48 VLS with little if any room for growth VLS wise won by default - that is 'why' RAN has 3 Hobart Class ships. How do I know this? I entered the APS as a Graduate Administrative Assistant in 2000. The Statutory Authority I was trained at has a close relationship with all Commonwealth Department's and is responsible in holding them accountable and ensuring 'value for money' and best practice policies are followed. The Authority has different 2 sections and small teams are responsible for different Department's of the APS. One of the TL's of my section, in which DoD came under it's purview and responsibility told us exactly what went on in those TS+ discussions. We were all vetted to TS+ so this information was able to be discussed with us as a team. So - there are as you pointed out so many discussions and factors that never are made available to the media in general, the defence media specifically, or the general public. In hindsight imo the Burke 2A was always the best choice, the multiple problems with this program especially in the beginning could have been avoided [for example the original schematics had not even been translated into English] - even though Hobart finally was delivered. But RAND were bought it - it was for a period of time a FUBAR. Having strictly 48 VLS today simply is not enough. Crewing numbers thanks to technology have also been able to be reduced.
@@B.T.R.-sj4if wow, lovely write up thanks for the detailed breakdown, seems aussies just cant stop having politicking affect policy but in your opinion what would be an ideal VLS config or count for a DDG
Every ship designed today should be focused on a particular peer level threat. We all know what that is. Everything else could be considered a waste of time and money. We need destroyer overmatch with anti-swarm capability and large VLS magazines.
It would be good for a destroyer 96 cell. But I'd rather Navanti flight III destroyer offered with 128 cell VLS that also offers direct energy wepon system and Aegis combat systems and Australian CEFAR-2 electronic scan aray radar. With a 5 inch main gun. Although the upgunned hunter class would be a good size armament still. It will all depend on budget what we end up with But to replace the Anzac class for ASW. I think Navanti Alpha 3000 corvette tire 1 and Alpha 5000 frigate for tire 2 would be better for that role than the hunter class ASW ships..the hunter class too large. Should be a only built as destroyer 96 cell VLS option. But I'd still rather the Navanti flight III 128 cell option over it. RAN not going to be able to send large ASW hunter class ships to the south China sea it will become a sitting duck. Hunting submarines in a large ship. In a place full of man made military islands. And surrounded with 700+ China warships That be a job for only our nuclear powerd submarines and destroyers with some ASW capability. ASW ships is more for our own region and coastal protection. Hunting submarines in the indo and pacific region
Navantia and BAE obviously have the advantage here as builders of current or future RAN ships so TKMS and Gibbs & Cox are at a fundamental disadvantage especially as Gibbs and Cox are just a rehashed Constellation class and aren't a shipbuilder. So that leaves Navantia who I think will snatch up the tier 2 shipbuilding contract to replace the ANZAC class frigates while Australia may get a batch 2 of the BAE Hunter class frigates as their tier 1 combatants.
I really like the Meko A210 design but dear lord, it looks expensive. Two islands distributing the ships sensors obviously increases cost. And waterjets plus propellers; I can only imagine the lifetime maintenance for such a set up.
@@johngodden4363 Or Australia could reduce costs further by using a Navantia design that shares commonality with the Hobarts. I think they said it was something like 85%. If they placed an order for what is essentially a new Hobart they lower the costs not just for the new ships but the old Hobarts too. Not too mention it would save money on training sailors and mechanics for each class. But we'll see; giant defense procurements are always crazy.
Outstanding coverage Naval News👍even checkout your website for some ships details. Interesting that all shipbuilding companies are offering T1 n T2 designs, I reckon RAN should purchase 3 more Flight II destroyers then Hunters should 6 which give 12 T1 in the fleet. As for T2 I like Navantia Tasman corvettes but interesting if RAN should order some Gibbs n Cox light Frigates or DE for sailing in small heavy sea lanes?
To operate in the "Modern Naval Battle Space" is to successfully defend one's self from Supersonic Sea-skimming Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM). The only winning formula is to be able to counter "45 seconds to impact" from detection to destruction of these most dangerous ASCMs. A non-rotating radar is required to maximize detection, tracking, and fire control time increasing your likelihood of survival. As for NOT having a main gun . . . firing a missile across the bow as a warning shot seems to be an expensive option.
What you need is an airborne early warning capability with both radar and IR surveillance so you don't depend on being able to react in the last 45 seconds before impact.
@@Akm72 as long as all the superwizbang gadgets are available then you could be right. Otherwise always plan for the worse (your by yourself) and hope for the best.
@@MultiCconwaySure there are always edge case scenarios where elements of your defence are not available, however if you want a reliable defence then getting as early a warning as possible is obviously desirable and should be part of your plan to survive.
i love the flight 3 design SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now adays companies seem to be reducing the amount of armament on the vessals they produce. I dont understand why they do that because how are you supposed to have the multi mission and stand alone capabilities with reduced armament??? this is a beautifully designed concept, i wish the US would take notes for their future projects, hats off to Australia!
The RAN needs 2 additional AOR HMS Supply as the fleet increases. War is about logistics and not only about the number of embarked vertical launchers.. Cheers.
Well, they have at least one hostile heavy-hitter in their region. In the event of a large war, Austrailia's allies might be spread too thin to provide much support. Destroyers, large frigates, and nuclear attack subs are expensive, but make sense.
@@garry19681oranges are special because they are both a fruit and a colour. Mandarins are special because they are both a fruit and the language we will all be speaking if Australia doesn’t make firm investments in our national defence…
@@garry19681about 1.4 million Australians already know mandarin XD, all these fancy ships and the government flies in hundreds of thousands on people a year
I like the look of the Tasman Class Corvette. However surely you would need more than 16 VLS cells. If they could double that at a minimum then it looks like a great smaller platform.
Know some pussers who spent time on the Anzac / Meko 200. For the guys who job it was to keep them going them going as marine engineers and the likes, they really rate the A200, so much better and well designed compared to the stuff from Navantia, ie specifically the hobart. The australian anzacs have had a hard life and took anything that was thrown at them and are still in pretty decent nick overall
@@Peter-qt1ol8gi3h Wow, that is nice! Do you think the CEAFAR 2 radar is better than Americans SPY-7 radar? And can CEAFAR 2 radar be fit in a corvette class warship? Or should be another variant of radar?
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
I thought the delay was caused by upgrading the shipyard. And redesign for a better armament hunter class. The steel was supposed to come from the Australian steel company, not Chinese imports. I know Austral who's building some alloy boats for RAN and border patrol was delayed to get the aluminium from China. But not for the steel for the hunter class. It is supposed to be our own steel develop here in Australia. China is the most purchased steel for industrial use as it's cheaper. But Australia does manufacture steel here, too. You can tell the difference also. Australian made steel is more shiny smother and darker grey in colour than Chinese steel. I don't think RAN will accept Chinese made steel for its main warships. The durability alone isn't strong enough to be used for the ships plate armor. I've worked for a steel compan in Melbourne I have seen the difference between the two.
they are too poor to buy these ships, they can't even buy 6 HDC 3100 which only 14 billion pesos each, these ships cost 40 billions pesos to 80 billion pesos each
The Philippines just received two new South Korean frigates as their most capable ships- but they stripped all the weapons aside form the gun to save costs… Sooo- these options aren’t going to work for the Philippine navy unfortunately…
It looks like everyone agees upon an efficient hull and power system that can bolt on weapons systems that are locally produced. That sort of cookie cutter concept might be creating a broad spectrum vulnerability? Clipper bow, wave penetrator bow, and how many missile racks you can bolt on like anti-aircraft gun tubs on WW2 ships... This is interesting when everyone across the world starts rigging ships for engaging a much higher number of targets. I also noticed a bunch of small cannon mounted on some of the ships too to handle a possible boarding party/ speed boat threat?
The Arrowhead 140 would be a good choice for Australia, as a way to increase fleet numbers and compliment the higher end Hobart and Hunter. It's a proven design, highly adaptable and great value for money.
Cheaper then hunter class but I don't think will be good choice Australia better of building upgunned varent hunter class with 96 cell VLS for AWDs and build 16 Navanti corvettes for ASW. With smaller crew. To bring more surface combating for its crew size. I've looked at other options it won't give RAN enough firepower for offensive capability or defensive capability. And too few ships. Without adding large numbers of crew for that they have trouble getting. Look at the crew need for Anzac ASW class frigate 180 crew per ship. A total of 8 ships. Roughly the same for the 3 light F100 class AWDs. Around 60 crew for new Awafra class OPV that has no real armament other than added 25mm gun. So the crew for 8 Anzac class could easily man 8 upgunned hunter class for AWDs. Given RAN a total of 8 destroyers. The 3 curent crew for AWDs could easily man 6 corvettes the crew for OPV could easily man another 10 more corvettes with minimal crew left in requirements to train up to man all. For ASW. This option would give RAN a total 24 surface combating ships majority with its current crew numbers. A lot more ASW capability and offensive capability with good firpower options. Navanti corvettes have twice the firepower than our current Anzac class ships on equivalent size and weight. You don't need large ships for ASW. And 16 combatants would be a he'll of a lot better than 8 or 9. It will also give Australia 8 heavily armed AWDs instead of just 3. All other options leaves same size fleet. With limited stike capability of offensive roles. Corvettes can fill the role for both OPV and ASW. For a country island surrounded by ocean mile's away from allies. With a defence shortage. Medium size GDP. RAN can't choose to have too many different varent of ships for separate roles. It will be stupid to go for current size fleet leaving it undergunned they be stuck with the same box as before a navy with new ships but unfit for purpose to be able to defend.. At the moment RAN has only 11 surface combating ships the rest is OPV a few mine hunters and merchant navy vessels. And 6 conventional powerd submarines It make a big difference with 24 combating vessels. 5 at first eventually 8 nuclear powerd submarines. A few new mine hunter ships. And merchant navy vessels. Australia would had doubled the fleet size with minimal requirement for extra crew numbers and have 10 times the firepower of even a new vessel fleet of other varents giving smaller numbers of ships that will only offer a quter of firepower to defend
I am ex RAN and still have friends serving, they are not impressed with the Navantia ships due to the number of defects, but then they are only engineering sailors so what would they know, yet the Meko (ANZAC) are now being paid of due to them being close to 30 years old.
can Navantia make build a advance long guided warship class destroyer for the Philippines with coliborate to build with India for build inside of philippine🤔
Tier one are high end war fighting vessels such as Destroyers and Sub hunting frigates. Tier 2 are lower end, corvettes and general purpose/patrol frigates
@Peter-qt1ol8gi3h Tier 2 vessels aren't perfect, they lack range and endurance. Also by stuffing them with armament they lose out on other multi role abilities
@nimaiiikun 26 has numerous features for noise reduction, as well as a Towed array, and larger armament. Will escorts the carriers and Hunt subs. T31 will perform patrol duties, anti piracy etc. More basic propulsion, no ASW gear. They will be getting an armament upgrade though to launch the Fcasw missiles.
@@admiralmallard7500 awesome. im wondering which frigate Australia will go for. market is quite competitive! I think one of the issues nowadays is finding sufficient manpower, so a reduced crew/automation is important
Dual purpose rocket/grenade launcher, 2 front and rear rail guns- air ability, unflarable twin dual purpose air/surface missile, twin torps, 2 or more combat drones and a chopper, sigma and laser anti air... will be using less storage/weight, cover most battles and keep the crew healthy.
Id rather Australia build Navantia Alpha 3000 and Alpha 5000 for ASW and Navanti flight III destroyer and cancel the hunter class frigate. RAN not going to be able to send large undergunned frigate to south China sea with man made military islands patrolled with over 700+ PLN vessels with aircraft coverage. ASW ships more for our own regional areas coastal and hunt submarines in indo pacific region. Send nuclear powerd submarines and heavily armed destroyers with some ASW capability to south China sea will be a risk even. But atleast they be able to hit back
They should they only offer 32 cells VLS for ASW platform and the ship is too large. The Alpha 5000 has 32 cell VLS for half the tonnage and not as many men need to oporate the ship. Meaning they could build more for less $ offering the same capability. And why would you upgunned a frigate to 96 cell VLS when the Navantia flight III offers 128 cell VLS and direct energy weapon systems for AWDs that is more future tech proof. Keeping the hunter class is what is laughable. No brainer @LeonAust
@@Nathan-ry3yu Do you know the hunters are the quietest ships with the best sonar sensors, countermeasures, network and range compare that to a small GP frigate, and you lose against Chinese frigates! That the difference between a Tier 1 and tier 2 ship.
Annnnnd, New Zealand will choose the..... oh, wait a minute.......there will be an inevitable change of government, so they'll just kick it down the road and select the.......which one was the cheapest and least effective one again?......Yeah that one. And when I say one, I mean ONLY 1 😂
We should build the plan first 3 Hunter class frigates than replace our 8 ANZAC class frigates with 8 new teir 2 frigates so we have more warships defending Australia.
Eh- it might seem ridiculous to build 9 Anti Submarine Warfare frigates (hunter class) instead of more surface warfare ships- But keep in mind that in a major conflict, China/Russia/Iran won’t be sending surface ships to Australia, they will be busy fighting American ships. Our enemies are most likely to send Submarines to harass our trade. That’s why Australia is investing so heavily in Submarines, ASW frigates and Poseidon ASW aircraft…
So 11 tier 2 ships!! Medium ships! good sensors!......................where's the bloody armament! Most tier 2 ships have only 16 VLS, you got to be kidding me, these things will be up against the tier 1 Chinese fleet! Lets hope the winner can at least have 32 VLS. Richard Marles is setting us up for a loss against China! , 11 tier 2 ships and what he has done is reduced our tier 1 Hunters by 3 ships!!! and retiring 2 x ANZACs before their replacements are built!......this is disgusting, pathic and dangerous! The RAN will have up to the early 2030s just 3 x Hobarts and 6 x ANZACs as our main fleet ships!!!
Spanish submarines are the best but the Armada can't show all their technologies because of the world situation nor do the Americans own such good ships , even the Chinese wanted to snoop ....who invented the submarine with torpedoes? Isaac Peral who tried to steal the design and got it ? UK
pretty much all of these designs are boring to me, because none of them can withstand being hit...if the designers made the assumption that a warship must be able to withstand some kind of enormous battle damage, and still function...then, it is of great interest. at the very least, they should make the designs able to deflect an incoming missile's damage.
La France fais d’excellente frégate mais il faudrait les armer bien plus lourdement avec plus de système de lancement de missiles verticales la fda (plus grosse frégate française n’en a que 48) il en faudrait plus de 60 ou 80
*DISCLAIMER - I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT DOWN SOME POINTS I FIND EXTREMELY RELEVANT - SO APOLOGIES FOR THE LENGTH OF MY POST* "2023 Indo Pacific" was perfectly timed - especially given the leaks of the naval 'review' that has been already given to Marles. BAE presenting what should have been their first offer design reeks of desperation and catch up. Why RAN refuses to entertain a piggy back off the USN 'Constellation Class' is typical Russell. Especially as we now know Russell originally had the Italian design as their preferred ASW design. Russell just NEVER learns. A MOTS/FMS option should always be the first option when it comes to defence kit - yes the ADF does and should consider/select non US kit - the South Korean bi lateral relationship came under enormous pressure when Gillard/Smith cancelled the K9 self tracked decision over a decade ago - and with the Federal seat of Corio being 'marginal', and the need to repair the bi lateral relationship - combined with what was superior platforms - finally the ADF has selected x2 excellent options for Army. The Navantia 'Tier 1' offer is also a superb ship - it more than meets and exceeds what many previous respected defence/naval and former RAN commanders/officers have advocated. This is a seriously well armed ship, it is what RAN 'should' already have. The Corvette options are impressive - if there's a serious upside to the Hobart Class, after an appalling start [originally Navantia provided the ship schematics in f**king Spanish] - yes they had not been translated into English, and that's just one example I doubt many Australians know about - but Hobart's are maxed out at 7,000 tonnes with no room for additional VLS aft. If government is not going to buy into the USN run - and it seems a fait accompli, the Navantia 'Tier 1' and/or up-armed Hunter imo is the best platform hands down. Both are platforms that provides serious offensive punch - and commonality with the F100 design a huge plus. The key build mechanisms, SME supply chain mechanisms used in Hobart are still in place, de-risking the build process. And given the Armada has provided excellent ships, even if they've had problems - their LHD and Tanker/Fuel platforms have been excellent, so there is a high degree of established bi lateral upside in a naval design + build. But it is extremely rare for the most useless, inefficient, dysfunctional, wasteful, and culturally broken DoD to ever admit they screwed up - let lone will dump Hunter. The twin decisions to finally flick the 'Tiger' and 'Taipan' was a massive decision for Russell. Although Marles, who is more obsessed with ensuring Defence renames what are "un-manned drones" - and rename them something 'gender neutral' did deliver on that FUBAR - he still has to actually deliver on fixing what has been nearly two decades of 'both' sides of politics continual epic decisions, the French 'Suffren Class' and Christopher Pyne, arguably 'the' most detested MP in Australian political history, who selected and allowed Defence to deliver what are pathetic Pyne selected duds. For the most dysfunctional, arrogant, secretive, unaccountable Department you need a STRONG non nonsense MinDef. Shamefully we've had a revolving door of MinDef's. The big problem with Marles is he is also Deputyy Prim e Minister - this is important as given Albanese spends so much toimne travelling OS, Marles has to act as PM. Russell knows this and has, will continue to take full advantage of this Albanese 'gift' to Australians, of whom only one third actually voted for him. The inaction of the Morrison Government must NOT ever be stated, it is a fact Morrison and Turnbull, Pyne in particuklr wasted as much time as Rudd Gillard did - MinDef Dutton accepting Russell's killing off the Reaper Drone program after Australian taxpayers had spent millions training ADF personnel in the US in training, years of training was an appalling lack of judgement from Dutton - and MANY Australians have no idea how invaluable Senate Estimates are to holding the executive to account. Estimates is one of the 3 key checks on any government - but if given longer my subjective opinion was Dutton would, could have been an effective MinDef. But tat's history - the Defence Budget is a mess - RAN still refuses to up arm our LHD's or make what are minor changes to enable STOVL F35B's to operate off them [even if RAN removed these features before the Spanish build] - the Japan Self Defence Force are turning some of the flat top LHD's into carriers, which Russell and government refuse point blank to do. Why? Yes, the fear of 'upsetting/sending the wrong message to China'. As PM Tony Abbott ordered Russell to assess what LHD STOLV F35 changes were needed and Russell did everything to try and make the proposal un workable - when the finally costings to make the changes came in at [then] roughly half a billion, a small amount and given DoD still cannot spend their Budgeted Appropriations - now that's context. Abbott was rolled by Turnbull before he could actually take on Russell over this issue -and Turnbull had 0 interest in following this up. The problem is with Budget time - as we GAA ANAO trainee auditors were hammered - 'if' a Department/Statutory Authority does 'not' spend ALL of what they're appropriated Budget time - the government argues "ok then you do not need to same or an increase in funding next Budget". That is the reality of Canberra. That's the main reason why so many Department's towards the end of the financial year splurge spending on items they don't really need but need to spend the un used Appropriations on 'something' so as to avoid receiving less money next Budget. Defence will never change - and words don't have enough space to discuss the Collins LOTE - we are facing a strategic/defence mess. Hopefully these 'new' design options presented at 'Indo Pacific' from BAE + Navantia will be selected, 'or' Government decides to buy into the USN 'Constellation' build - something I personally doubt will happen. We are stuck with Hunter - and if so just commit to a small buy of 'Build One' - and then commit to 'Build Two - Tier 1' designs. But Australian voters are imo sick of the inaction - voters rate the threat of China as a top tier electoral issue - and in both SA + WA Federal electoral drivers are fast approaching red. Retaining the skilled indigenous workforce is a massive challenge and strategic importance - we have built up an impressive skilled workforce and also crucially key aSME's and supply chain mechanisms are established. Time is fast running out for Marles. Extending the 'second' naval review into February 2023 has domestic political considerations written all over it. You NEVER ever trust Labor on immigration, the border, or defence !!! The ALP can never remove the stain and shame of the 'Valley of naval Death' - Marles and Albanese will lose the next election if they do not get moving. Like it or not - the Liberal Party has always been trusted more on matters defence. That is the realpolitik. What is sickening to me as an aside is the most hated MP in the history of the Commonwealth Christopher Pyne - is now deeply financially set up in the defence sector after delivering nothing but disastrous defence and naval decisions. Now 'that' is a disgrace.
2000 men each for the carriers, multirole light carriers 800-1000 each, drone carriers probably 300-500, that's approximately 6200- 7000 men. 200-250 for the DDs and 150-200 for the frigates and between 100-150 per Sloop. That's 5600 7600. So Australia would rather be destoryed or conquered by China than provide between 11,800 and 14,600 men?
Using Navantia design capability with Austal & Civmec build facility provided such a great option for the commonwealth.
I love those little ship models.. just beautiful
Yep me too. What do mean models!? I thought they build thousands of them and send them remote controlled.
Navantia is the top, friends Australian people is for your defense ! It s very important in this moment in the world
The Tier 1 offered here needs a capacity for x2 Romeo's. Why there is only a single helo capability is bizarre.
As a Yank, I love the Navantia’s. Finally weapons density needed for today’s environment!! And guns!! Love the designs, the US needs to order a bunch of them to weave into the fleets!! Love them!!
Go with Navantia. Get those thinly welled cruisers
Amazing job! 👍
Thank you! Cheers!
Australia: more dakka
Companies: yes
Navantia : this destroyer has sharks with laser beams on their heads…
Australian here. Yeah, I appreciate all the folk, but I would stick mostly with Navantia for now, they have been good and reliable for us so far, and the ship designs seem sensible and in line with what can realistically be expected in the next generation. The Alpha 5000 reminds me slightly of the shape of Japan's Mogami, which of course is a good design.
Really hope to see concept for the type 83 destroyer eventually, so damn curious, even so these are some beautiful models!! Wish I could keep them 😂
7:51 it looks SOO GOOD, this has to be one of my favorite modern warship designs by far, wish we could replace all our LCS's with this.
We are going to replace the LCS with the new constellation class frigates.
Agreed, it's BY FAR the best looking ship. Interesting, that they have the same bow design as the French FDI frigate-which Greece has also bought. Another beauty. They look like Dreadnoughts again.
If nothing else it has the "look" of a French pre-dreadnought tumble hull battleship. it looks tough with a throwback to the late 19th to early 20th century. Beautiful yet imposing!
We already have a frigate. What we don't have is a Corvette
Yeah that Axe bow like the US Stealth destroyers looks so slick.
The Hunter class look like hms type26 class with more vls in the middle (94 missile slot are insane) , good job.
The Hunter Class is a type 26 essentially, we've just armed it with American systems
Personally I think navantia is the way to go
good luck...PH-SPAIN....god bless us all....👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Navantia trying pretty hard at Indopac with a good mix of new + older proven designs on offer. Pretty impressive to be honest. Tasman corvette looks a good option, flight 3 DDG hits the aesthetic even if not yet a thing. Hunter AWD proposal from BAE is also welcome, but unfortunately the extra VLS come at the cost of ASW capability. Gibbs and Cox offer looks a bit half baked right now. Suggest reduce the ASM to 16 and bring back the deck gun. Better display model wouldnt hurt either. TKMS MEKO A210 is probably a very capable vessel, its sliced off the bow makes it a bit hard to love... What happened to Leurssen?
not seeing a platform for x 2 Seahawks. Given the tonnage of the so called 'Tier 1" platforms it to me is illogical an additional 'Romeo' cannot be accommodated - especially given the ASW capabilities. RAN imo does need x 2 help capability - for the above reasons + it just adds force projection and also over the horizon capabilities.
The Austal Navantia partnership is a great venture proposal.
This seems a bit strange to me. The T1/T2 concept that is. Not the concept itself but its implementation. I really hope the RAN doesn't cut back on their already planned Hunter class, like they kind of did with the Hobart. Having only three Hobarts is honestly not enough.
The British had ship Rates, the Americans high low. Either you build a war fleet and a peace fleet, one is for warfighting the other for patrols, anti piracy, escort, intercpt, foreign port visits during peace time. Or you build the best ship you can and that is a 1st rate or high value asset, however they're expensive in money, material and manpower so you already can't built many and you already can't afford to lose one so you build a cheaper smaller version that you can afford to pay for, build, man, arm and possibly lose.
Ford Class would be 1st Rate by Royal Navy rating and its a tier 1 high value asset by USN doctrine classification. The Nimitz would be 2nd Rate as its the last generation and if the USN builds fleet carriers or light carriers then they would be considered 3rd Rates or tier two high value assets. A new frigate designed to be truly competitive would be a 1st rate Frigate or tier 1 but if you built a light Frigate, Sloop or Corvette the that would be rated 3rd Rate and tier 2.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 why are you replying this?
what we need to do is take the gloves off and start building purely war ships instead of multirole vessels comes a time when humanitarian modules will be a hinderance
@@AugmentedGravity To provide factual example of real uses of the tier systems in other nations.
@@soulsphere9242 they were cut back. They had the option to expand which they should, but didn’t.
I'm loving these designs but can you maybe talk about the crew sizes as well I mean they aren't exactly the Smart4000 or Smart8000 that can be crewed by significant lower core crew or can be uncrewed depending on the requirements from that country definitely interesting designs.
Me thinks required crew sizes are classified info or change a lot based on the customer and their preference of automation on whatever system.
@@gamingrex2930 possibly but I still think that Xavier from naval news should bring the topic up to get a rough estimate for each ship
@gamingrex2930 I found it ironic - even though to be fair and objective the strategic circumstances we find ourselves in now vs the environment back in 2007 - but reading the opinion piece from the November 'Defence/Nval Litout' in The Australian which was in last weeks "Australian" newspaper on Cup Day - but previous Head of RAN, Admiral Shackleton penned a excellent piece about the appalling lack of VLS capabilities on the current RAN fleet vs two + decades ago when RAN's VLS Lannister was a LOT bigger.
When the decision was made to select the DDG replacement the only options in the end were:
1. an 'evolved' Arleigh Burke called 'Baby Burke"; and
2. the Navantia designed 105 - the last of class from their F100 run
Why Russell/RAN never bothered to push a straight up MOTS/FMS AB Flight 2 was due to fretting about crew size, with Shackleton as Head of Navy the main 'fretted', he was extremely worried we could not crew a Burke.
It is arguably worth pointing out that then Prime Minister Howard wanted the Burke option, Howard was adamant that RAN should buy the Burke.
However - and without sounding grandiose - many Australians do not know as they were not part of the process, and remember these discussions are carried out mostly by the National Security Committee of Cabinet - NSCC - other 'actors' are always involved when it comes to massive defence procurements, the Dept of Treasury is a critical actor in all these decisions - they are, as my late Father called them "the men in brown suits", but Treasury is one of the - what we refer to in Canberra - 'co-ordinating Depts' and they have enormous power.
The problem at the time, once a Flight 2A was removed as an option, was you had what was as fact x1 mature design + in the water IOC.
Against what was a 'orphan class' of ship that had not been built.
So - Howard in hindsight should have just over-ridden EVERYONE involved and said "we are going with a straight Burke buy, end of story".
The Spanish design, a imo/many also held the opinion, small 7,000 tonne ship with only x48 VLS with little if any room for growth VLS wise won by default - that is 'why' RAN has 3 Hobart Class ships.
How do I know this? I entered the APS as a Graduate Administrative Assistant in 2000. The Statutory Authority I was trained at has a close relationship with all Commonwealth Department's and is responsible in holding them accountable and ensuring 'value for money' and best practice policies are followed. The Authority has different 2 sections and small teams are responsible for different Department's of the APS.
One of the TL's of my section, in which DoD came under it's purview and responsibility told us exactly what went on in those TS+ discussions. We were all vetted to TS+ so this information was able to be discussed with us as a team.
So - there are as you pointed out so many discussions and factors that never are made available to the media in general, the defence media specifically, or the general public.
In hindsight imo the Burke 2A was always the best choice, the multiple problems with this program especially in the beginning could have been avoided [for example the original schematics had not even been translated into English] - even though Hobart finally was delivered. But RAND were bought it - it was for a period of time a FUBAR. Having strictly 48 VLS today simply is not enough. Crewing numbers thanks to technology have also been able to be reduced.
@@B.T.R.-sj4if wow, lovely write up thanks for the detailed breakdown, seems aussies just cant stop having politicking affect policy
but in your opinion what would be an ideal VLS config or count for a DDG
Navantia is number one in the world in construction of 🚢
Every ship designed today should be focused on a particular peer level threat. We all know what that is. Everything else could be considered a waste of time and money. We need destroyer overmatch with anti-swarm capability and large VLS magazines.
So true
As always tho it the budgets that dictates what ship to get tho..
@@Dinbatu62 Not when we spent tens of billions and years building useless littoral vessels. The Navy needs to get their shit together fast.
@@Dinbatu62exactly
The 96 VLS version of the hunter should be the automatic solution.
It would certainly make sense.
Given that the current Hunter class are years behind schedule and blown
Over budget BAE should be barred from offering a ship
The extra vls means no ASW gear. It's not as easy as just adding it
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 The delays are not entirely down to BAE
It would be good for a destroyer 96 cell. But I'd rather Navanti flight III destroyer offered with 128 cell VLS that also offers direct energy wepon system and Aegis combat systems and Australian CEFAR-2 electronic scan aray radar. With a 5 inch main gun. Although the upgunned hunter class would be a good size armament still. It will all depend on budget what we end up with
But to replace the Anzac class for ASW. I think Navanti Alpha 3000 corvette tire 1 and Alpha 5000 frigate for tire 2 would be better for that role than the hunter class ASW ships..the hunter class too large. Should be a only built as destroyer 96 cell VLS option. But I'd still rather the Navanti flight III 128 cell option over it.
RAN not going to be able to send large ASW hunter class ships to the south China sea it will become a sitting duck. Hunting submarines in a large ship. In a place full of man made military islands. And surrounded with 700+ China warships That be a job for only our nuclear powerd submarines and destroyers with some ASW capability.
ASW ships is more for our own region and coastal protection. Hunting submarines in the indo and pacific region
Navantia and BAE obviously have the advantage here as builders of current or future RAN ships so TKMS and Gibbs & Cox are at a fundamental disadvantage especially as Gibbs and Cox are just a rehashed Constellation class and aren't a shipbuilder.
So that leaves Navantia who I think will snatch up the tier 2 shipbuilding contract to replace the ANZAC class frigates while Australia may get a batch 2 of the BAE Hunter class frigates as their tier 1 combatants.
What all the naval ships need now, is more CIWS and RIM 116 missle systems.
I really like the Meko A210 design but dear lord, it looks expensive. Two islands distributing the ships sensors obviously increases cost. And waterjets plus propellers; I can only imagine the lifetime maintenance for such a set up.
German engineering design philosophy on perfection
I tend to agree, but the unit cost can be reduced substantially if NZ & Australia place a combined order for 10 vessels ( 6&4 ).
@@johngodden4363 Or Australia could reduce costs further by using a Navantia design that shares commonality with the Hobarts. I think they said it was something like 85%. If they placed an order for what is essentially a new Hobart they lower the costs not just for the new ships but the old Hobarts too. Not too mention it would save money on training sailors and mechanics for each class.
But we'll see; giant defense procurements are always crazy.
I wonder what they do with these models after the convention is over. They would make cool mantle pieces.
Outstanding coverage Naval News👍even checkout your website for some ships details. Interesting that all shipbuilding companies are offering T1 n T2 designs, I reckon RAN should purchase 3 more Flight II destroyers then Hunters should 6 which give 12 T1 in the fleet. As for T2 I like Navantia Tasman corvettes but interesting if RAN should order some Gibbs n Cox light Frigates or DE for sailing in small heavy sea lanes?
Navantia 🇪🇦👌🏻
8:27 good to see 2 aft ciws both in centerline positions. But better retain Sachsen's forward ciws position between maingun and VL
To operate in the "Modern Naval Battle Space" is to successfully defend one's self from Supersonic Sea-skimming Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM). The only winning formula is to be able to counter "45 seconds to impact" from detection to destruction of these most dangerous ASCMs. A non-rotating radar is required to maximize detection, tracking, and fire control time increasing your likelihood of survival.
As for NOT having a main gun . . . firing a missile across the bow as a warning shot seems to be an expensive option.
What you need is an airborne early warning capability with both radar and IR surveillance so you don't depend on being able to react in the last 45 seconds before impact.
@@Akm72 as long as all the superwizbang gadgets are available then you could be right. Otherwise always plan for the worse (your by yourself) and hope for the best.
@@MultiCconwaySure there are always edge case scenarios where elements of your defence are not available, however if you want a reliable defence then getting as early a warning as possible is obviously desirable and should be part of your plan to survive.
Navantia 🇪🇦💪💪💪
Hope India can collaborate with Australian Navy so that latest ship design can be inducted quickly in Indian Navy.
01:40 i don't know why, but it looks similiar with damen sigma corvette from the visual appearance.
Is there a reason the CEAFAR radars panels are rotated like instead of being just a square? If it’s just to look cool, I am onboard with that.
two fighting island vs. single command tower. Interesting ideas.
My money's on the MEKO design tbh. And i'm as unbiased as can be lol.
i love the flight 3 design SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now adays companies seem to be reducing the amount of armament on the vessals they produce. I dont understand why they do that because how are you supposed to have the multi mission and stand alone capabilities with reduced armament??? this is a beautifully designed concept, i wish the US would take notes for their future projects, hats off to Australia!
nice
Tôi đang chờ đợi New FFM !
This hogarth destroyer is perfect to the AFP navy marines for advances strategical component ship
Hovart destroyer correction
The RAN needs 2 additional AOR HMS Supply as the fleet increases. War is about logistics and not only about the number of embarked vertical launchers.. Cheers.
Wow, Australia wants a lot of throw weight in their future surface combatants...
Well, they have at least one hostile heavy-hitter in their region. In the event of a large war, Austrailia's allies might be spread too thin to provide much support. Destroyers, large frigates, and nuclear attack subs are expensive, but make sense.
@@L.J.Kommermight be expensive, but certainly cheaper than everyone in Australia having to learn Cantonese and mandarin.
@@garry19681oranges are special because they are both a fruit and a colour. Mandarins are special because they are both a fruit and the language we will all be speaking if Australia doesn’t make firm investments in our national defence…
@@garry19681about 1.4 million Australians already know mandarin XD, all these fancy ships and the government flies in hundreds of thousands on people a year
Australia should go with the hunter class since the other major commonwealth navies will be using it too.
What does tier 1, tier 2 refer to?
I like the look of the Tasman Class Corvette. However surely you would need more than 16 VLS cells. If they could double that at a minimum then it looks like a great smaller platform.
ESSM mk2. X64 or x48 + 4 cells for ASROC.
Its a corvette. 16 cells are enough.
For example spanish F110 frigates will only have 16 cells (indeed, they are ASW frigates)
Know some pussers who spent time on the Anzac / Meko 200. For the guys who job it was to keep them going them going as marine engineers and the likes, they really rate the A200, so much better and well designed compared to the stuff from Navantia, ie specifically the hobart. The australian anzacs have had a hard life and took anything that was thrown at them and are still in pretty decent nick overall
What is the name of radar? Seems there are many tapes on top of the radar's four or six faces? What can they do? Can anyone to explain? thanks
@@Peter-qt1ol8gi3h Wow, that is nice! Do you think the CEAFAR 2 radar is better than Americans SPY-7 radar? And can CEAFAR 2 radar be fit in a corvette class warship? Or should be another variant of radar?
Alpha 5000 looks the go.
Glanced at the thumbnail, the foremost model reminds me of the USS Liberty from ARMA 3
No Babcock?
who makes all the models? does each company have a model making division?
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
I thought the delay was caused by upgrading the shipyard. And redesign for a better armament hunter class. The steel was supposed to come from the Australian steel company, not Chinese imports. I know Austral who's building some alloy boats for RAN and border patrol was delayed to get the aluminium from China. But not for the steel for the hunter class. It is supposed to be our own steel develop here in Australia.
China is the most purchased steel for industrial use as it's cheaper. But Australia does manufacture steel here, too. You can tell the difference also. Australian made steel is more shiny smother and darker grey in colour than Chinese steel. I don't think RAN will accept Chinese made steel for its main warships. The durability alone isn't strong enough to be used for the ships plate armor.
I've worked for a steel compan in Melbourne I have seen the difference between the two.
I like 5" guns.
Navantia F-110 offered to Indonesia ?..
Eyes here Philippine Navy
I ain't sure if someone from the Philippines Navy or Coast Guard attend this critical battleships Showcase hope they do.
Philippines? FILIPINAS Spanish origin fot King FELIPE
they are too poor to buy these ships, they can't even buy 6 HDC 3100 which only 14 billion pesos each, these ships cost 40 billions pesos to 80 billion pesos each
The Philippines just received two new South Korean frigates as their most capable ships- but they stripped all the weapons aside form the gun to save costs…
Sooo- these options aren’t going to work for the Philippine navy unfortunately…
@@chrysllerryu4171 hahah i know but Marcos can buy even your life
12:14 He meant Taiwanese Navy
It looks like everyone agees upon an efficient hull and power system that can bolt on weapons systems that are locally produced. That sort of cookie cutter concept might be creating a broad spectrum vulnerability? Clipper bow, wave penetrator bow, and how many missile racks you can bolt on like anti-aircraft gun tubs on WW2 ships... This is interesting when everyone across the world starts rigging ships for engaging a much higher number of targets. I also noticed a bunch of small cannon mounted on some of the ships too to handle a possible boarding party/ speed boat threat?
Proven designs is what every other country has, a NEW option that is AHEAD is needed, not more of the same! Maybe a completely new idea?
The Arrowhead 140 would be a good choice for Australia, as a way to increase fleet numbers and compliment the higher end Hobart and Hunter.
It's a proven design, highly adaptable and great value for money.
Cheaper then hunter class but I don't think will be good choice
Australia better of building upgunned varent hunter class with 96 cell VLS for AWDs and build 16 Navanti corvettes for ASW. With smaller crew. To bring more surface combating for its crew size. I've looked at other options it won't give RAN enough firepower for offensive capability or defensive capability. And too few ships. Without adding large numbers of crew for that they have trouble getting.
Look at the crew need for Anzac ASW class frigate 180 crew per ship. A total of 8 ships.
Roughly the same for the 3 light F100 class AWDs.
Around 60 crew for new Awafra class OPV that has no real armament other than added 25mm gun.
So the crew for 8 Anzac class could easily man 8 upgunned hunter class for AWDs. Given RAN a total of 8 destroyers.
The 3 curent crew for AWDs could easily man 6 corvettes the crew for OPV could easily man another 10 more corvettes with minimal crew left in requirements to train up to man all. For ASW.
This option would give RAN a total 24 surface combating ships majority with its current crew numbers. A lot more ASW capability and offensive capability with good firpower options.
Navanti corvettes have twice the firepower than our current Anzac class ships on equivalent size and weight. You don't need large ships for ASW. And 16 combatants would be a he'll of a lot better than 8 or 9. It will also give Australia 8 heavily armed AWDs instead of just 3.
All other options leaves same size fleet. With limited stike capability of offensive roles.
Corvettes can fill the role for both OPV and ASW. For a country island surrounded by ocean mile's away from allies. With a defence shortage. Medium size GDP. RAN can't choose to have too many different varent of ships for separate roles. It will be stupid to go for current size fleet leaving it undergunned they be stuck with the same box as before a navy with new ships but unfit for purpose to be able to defend..
At the moment RAN has only 11 surface combating ships the rest is OPV a few mine hunters and merchant navy vessels. And 6 conventional powerd submarines
It make a big difference with 24 combating vessels. 5 at first eventually 8 nuclear powerd submarines. A few new mine hunter ships. And merchant navy vessels. Australia would had doubled the fleet size with minimal requirement for extra crew numbers and have 10 times the firepower of even a new vessel fleet of other varents giving smaller numbers of ships that will only offer a quter of firepower to defend
when will they start building them
I am ex RAN and still have friends serving, they are not impressed with the Navantia ships due to the number of defects, but then they are only engineering sailors so what would they know, yet the Meko (ANZAC) are now being paid of due to them being close to 30 years old.
can Navantia make build a advance long guided warship class destroyer for the Philippines with coliborate to build with India for build inside of philippine🤔
Sara McLeod: "there can be only one... ship"
ok 6 months have we started to build any of these i bet not
Why is Navantia again pitching the F110 design?
Isn't it the first time? The former unsolicited proposal was for evolved Hobart class, something like the exposed Flight II, not the F-110 with CEAFAR
@@user-yd9rm4ds8c it isn’t is it? They pitched the F110 i think back when the competition which resulted in the Hunter class was about
Maybe because Hunter class is a mess
@@drows76 no?
😂😂😂mess? @@drows76 you are a mess
A nice war ship 🎉
Those bulbous bow designers have obviously never ridden a vessel in giant seas with these protuberances.
What's tier 1 and 2?
Tier one are high end war fighting vessels such as Destroyers and Sub hunting frigates. Tier 2 are lower end, corvettes and general purpose/patrol frigates
@Peter-qt1ol8gi3h Tier 2 vessels aren't perfect, they lack range and endurance. Also by stuffing them with armament they lose out on other multi role abilities
FDI vs Type 26 and 31?
FDI is more comparable to T31. T26 is pretty high end
@@admiralmallard7500 thanks for the reply. what's the primary difference between the 26 and 31?
@nimaiiikun 26 has numerous features for noise reduction, as well as a Towed array, and larger armament. Will escorts the carriers and Hunt subs.
T31 will perform patrol duties, anti piracy etc. More basic propulsion, no ASW gear. They will be getting an armament upgrade though to launch the Fcasw missiles.
@@admiralmallard7500 awesome. im wondering which frigate Australia will go for. market is quite competitive! I think one of the issues nowadays is finding sufficient manpower, so a reduced crew/automation is important
Won't be a Tasman class corvette because HMAS Tasman will be a Hunter class vessel.
That isn't the lead vessel though so im pretty sure they can still name it that
Models vs reality is way different and these ships aren't cheap. These folks sound just like a car salesmen.
Someone send this to the US Navy and Congress. Australia isn't the only country that needs a bigger navy pronto
👍
Dual purpose rocket/grenade launcher, 2 front and rear rail guns- air ability, unflarable twin dual purpose air/surface missile, twin torps, 2 or more combat drones and a chopper, sigma and laser anti air... will be using less storage/weight, cover most battles and keep the crew healthy.
nobody doing cruisers?
Id rather Australia build Navantia Alpha 3000 and Alpha 5000 for ASW and Navanti flight III destroyer and cancel the hunter class frigate. RAN not going to be able to send large undergunned frigate to south China sea with man made military islands patrolled with over 700+ PLN vessels with aircraft coverage. ASW ships more for our own regional areas coastal and hunt submarines in indo pacific region.
Send nuclear powerd submarines and heavily armed destroyers with some ASW capability to south China sea will be a risk even. But atleast they be able to hit back
cancel hunter lmao
They should they only offer 32 cells VLS for ASW platform and the ship is too large. The Alpha 5000 has 32 cell VLS for half the tonnage and not as many men need to oporate the ship. Meaning they could build more for less $ offering the same capability. And why would you upgunned a frigate to 96 cell VLS when the Navantia flight III offers 128 cell VLS and direct energy weapon systems for AWDs that is more future tech proof. Keeping the hunter class is what is laughable. No brainer @LeonAust
@@Nathan-ry3yu Do you know the hunters are the quietest ships with the best sonar sensors, countermeasures, network and range compare that to a small GP frigate, and you lose against Chinese frigates! That the difference between a Tier 1 and tier 2 ship.
Kapal apek iki😂😂😂wes pernah di tawarke neng indonesia👍
I can 3d print a boat too, how do I get the contract?
Where is New FFM ? Why do you do it ?
We covered it in our day 2 video. Please stay tuned and watch tomorrow 🙏
No Bobcock offers for RAN?
@@NavalNewsyou didn't keep your promise
@trongchau6887 our day 2 video hasn't been published published yet
Navantia's ALFA 3000 frigate at IODS 2024 in Perth, Australia
th-cam.com/video/MgMSRtkT6Kg/w-d-xo.html
Frigate with No gun, what is that ?
It's been done before
any of them
That last ship remove 2 sets of missiles replace with MLRS w/ gps.
Annnnnd, New Zealand will choose the..... oh, wait a minute.......there will be an inevitable change of government, so they'll just kick it down the road and select the.......which one was the cheapest and least effective one again?......Yeah that one. And when I say one, I mean ONLY 1 😂
Naval doesn't deliver a good enough product. They also need to be faster, much faster.
i ❤ u sarah
We should build the plan first 3 Hunter class frigates than replace our 8 ANZAC class frigates with 8 new teir 2 frigates so we have more warships defending Australia.
Building more ships isn't always the solution, especially when they're less capable than they need to be
Defend Autralia from what? Nuke?
@user-yt5xc2sn3d No ones going to shoot nukes first. But ships can do that too
Eh- it might seem ridiculous to build 9 Anti Submarine Warfare frigates (hunter class) instead of more surface warfare ships-
But keep in mind that in a major conflict, China/Russia/Iran won’t be sending surface ships to Australia, they will be busy fighting American ships. Our enemies are most likely to send Submarines to harass our trade. That’s why Australia is investing so heavily in Submarines, ASW frigates and Poseidon ASW aircraft…
Greek sub's please ❤🎉❤
Thanks to China, the development of warships in each country is lively.
Ur the best he suits francais Audi. American. I d luv 2 hear prices... how much these ships things cost X..
Last one is missing a gun, no good. Learn from the Air Force in the 1960/70s……. You need a gun…..
So 11 tier 2 ships!!
Medium ships! good sensors!......................where's the bloody armament!
Most tier 2 ships have only 16 VLS, you got to be kidding me, these things will be up against the tier 1 Chinese fleet!
Lets hope the winner can at least have 32 VLS.
Richard Marles is setting us up for a loss against China! , 11 tier 2 ships and what he has done is reduced our tier 1 Hunters by 3 ships!!! and retiring 2 x ANZACs before their replacements are built!......this is disgusting, pathic and dangerous!
The RAN will have up to the early 2030s just 3 x Hobarts and 6 x ANZACs as our main fleet ships!!!
build so many duds in fact after promising much dont deliver
Spanish submarines are the best but the Armada can't show all their technologies because of the world situation nor do the Americans own such good ships , even the Chinese wanted to snoop ....who invented the submarine with torpedoes? Isaac Peral who tried to steal the design and got it ? UK
It's battle proved with Taliban😊
He......!!!!!!!!!!!! ha......!!!!!!!!!!
pretty much all of these designs are boring to me, because none of them can withstand being hit...if the designers made the assumption that a warship must be able to withstand some kind of enormous battle damage, and still function...then, it is of great interest. at the very least, they should make the designs able to deflect an incoming missile's damage.
The amount of armour required would be ludicrous, and massively drive up costs in construction and propulsion
La France fais d’excellente frégate mais il faudrait les armer bien plus lourdement avec plus de système de lancement de missiles verticales la fda (plus grosse frégate française n’en a que 48) il en faudrait plus de 60 ou 80
*DISCLAIMER - I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT DOWN SOME POINTS I FIND EXTREMELY RELEVANT - SO APOLOGIES FOR THE LENGTH OF MY POST*
"2023 Indo Pacific" was perfectly timed - especially given the leaks of the naval 'review' that has been already given to Marles. BAE presenting what should have been their first offer design reeks of desperation and catch up. Why RAN refuses to entertain a piggy back off the USN 'Constellation Class' is typical Russell. Especially as we now know Russell originally had the Italian design as their preferred ASW design.
Russell just NEVER learns. A MOTS/FMS option should always be the first option when it comes to defence kit - yes the ADF does and should consider/select non US kit - the South Korean bi lateral relationship came under enormous pressure when Gillard/Smith cancelled the K9 self tracked decision over a decade ago - and with the Federal seat of Corio being 'marginal', and the need to repair the bi lateral relationship - combined with what was superior platforms - finally the ADF has selected x2 excellent options for Army.
The Navantia 'Tier 1' offer is also a superb ship - it more than meets and exceeds what many previous respected defence/naval and former RAN commanders/officers have advocated.
This is a seriously well armed ship, it is what RAN 'should' already have.
The Corvette options are impressive - if there's a serious upside to the Hobart Class, after an appalling start [originally Navantia provided the ship schematics in f**king Spanish] - yes they had not been translated into English, and that's just one example I doubt many Australians know about - but Hobart's are maxed out at 7,000 tonnes with no room for additional VLS aft.
If government is not going to buy into the USN run - and it seems a fait accompli, the Navantia 'Tier 1' and/or up-armed Hunter imo is the best platform hands down. Both are platforms that provides serious offensive punch - and commonality with the F100 design a huge plus. The key build mechanisms, SME supply chain mechanisms used in Hobart are still in place, de-risking the build process. And given the Armada has provided excellent ships, even if they've had problems - their LHD and Tanker/Fuel platforms have been excellent, so there is a high degree of established bi lateral upside in a naval design + build.
But it is extremely rare for the most useless, inefficient, dysfunctional, wasteful, and culturally broken DoD to ever admit they screwed up - let lone will dump Hunter.
The twin decisions to finally flick the 'Tiger' and 'Taipan' was a massive decision for Russell. Although Marles, who is more obsessed with ensuring Defence renames what are "un-manned drones" - and rename them something 'gender neutral' did deliver on that FUBAR - he still has to actually deliver on fixing what has been nearly two decades of 'both' sides of politics continual epic decisions, the French 'Suffren Class' and Christopher Pyne, arguably 'the' most detested MP in Australian political history, who selected and allowed Defence to deliver what are pathetic Pyne selected duds.
For the most dysfunctional, arrogant, secretive, unaccountable Department you need a STRONG non nonsense MinDef. Shamefully we've had a revolving door of MinDef's. The big problem with Marles is he is also Deputyy Prim e Minister - this is important as given Albanese spends so much toimne travelling OS, Marles has to act as PM.
Russell knows this and has, will continue to take full advantage of this Albanese 'gift' to Australians, of whom only one third actually voted for him. The inaction of the Morrison Government must NOT ever be stated, it is a fact Morrison and Turnbull, Pyne in particuklr wasted as much time as Rudd Gillard did - MinDef Dutton accepting Russell's killing off the Reaper Drone program after Australian taxpayers had spent millions training ADF personnel in the US in training, years of training was an appalling lack of judgement from Dutton - and MANY Australians have no idea how invaluable Senate Estimates are to holding the executive to account.
Estimates is one of the 3 key checks on any government - but if given longer my subjective opinion was Dutton would, could have been an effective MinDef. But tat's history - the Defence Budget is a mess - RAN still refuses to up arm our LHD's or make what are minor changes to enable STOVL F35B's to operate off them [even if RAN removed these features before the Spanish build] - the Japan Self Defence Force are turning some of the flat top LHD's into carriers, which Russell and government refuse point blank to do. Why? Yes, the fear of 'upsetting/sending the wrong message to China'.
As PM Tony Abbott ordered Russell to assess what LHD STOLV F35 changes were needed and Russell did everything to try and make the proposal un workable - when the finally costings to make the changes came in at [then] roughly half a billion, a small amount and given DoD still cannot spend their Budgeted Appropriations - now that's context. Abbott was rolled by Turnbull before he could actually take on Russell over this issue -and Turnbull had 0 interest in following this up.
The problem is with Budget time - as we GAA ANAO trainee auditors were hammered - 'if' a Department/Statutory Authority does 'not' spend ALL of what they're appropriated Budget time - the government argues "ok then you do not need to same or an increase in funding next Budget". That is the reality of Canberra.
That's the main reason why so many Department's towards the end of the financial year splurge spending on items they don't really need but need to spend the un used Appropriations on 'something' so as to avoid receiving less money next Budget.
Defence will never change - and words don't have enough space to discuss the Collins LOTE - we are facing a strategic/defence mess. Hopefully these 'new' design options presented at 'Indo Pacific' from BAE + Navantia will be selected, 'or' Government decides to buy into the USN 'Constellation' build - something I personally doubt will happen.
We are stuck with Hunter - and if so just commit to a small buy of 'Build One' - and then commit to 'Build Two - Tier 1' designs. But Australian voters are imo sick of the inaction - voters rate the threat of China as a top tier electoral issue - and in both SA + WA Federal electoral drivers are fast approaching red.
Retaining the skilled indigenous workforce is a massive challenge and strategic importance - we have built up an impressive skilled workforce and also crucially key aSME's and supply chain mechanisms are established. Time is fast running out for Marles. Extending the 'second' naval review into February 2023 has domestic political considerations written all over it. You NEVER ever trust Labor on immigration, the border, or defence !!!
The ALP can never remove the stain and shame of the 'Valley of naval Death' - Marles and Albanese will lose the next election if they do not get moving. Like it or not - the Liberal Party has always been trusted more on matters defence. That is the realpolitik.
What is sickening to me as an aside is the most hated MP in the history of the Commonwealth Christopher Pyne - is now deeply financially set up in the defence sector after delivering nothing but disastrous defence and naval decisions. Now 'that' is a disgrace.
Chinese type 055 !!!
RAN needs two carriers, 2 multirole flat tops, 2 drone carriers, 8 general purpose destoryers, 8 ASW frigates, 8 AAW frigates and 16 Sloop/Corvettes.
yeah, you paying for all that and crewing it yourself?
yeah and a space based super laser, weres the funding from all this going to come from
2000 men each for the carriers, multirole light carriers 800-1000 each, drone carriers probably 300-500, that's approximately 6200- 7000 men.
200-250 for the DDs and 150-200 for the frigates and between 100-150 per Sloop. That's 5600 7600.
So Australia would rather be destoryed or conquered by China than provide between 11,800 and 14,600 men?
Navy struggles to recruit now.
That is definitely NOT what we need
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 lmao the delusion
easy 16x hunter class with 96 vls an additional 6 destroyers with upgrades and further 16 corvets and 12 nuke subs would make us naval power