It's not bad. But I wished they added a few heavily armed Destroyers in with this fleet earlier rather than wait till after the hunter class get built before deciding to replace the F100 class destroyers. I have a inside information that RAN is looking at the Navantia flight III 128 cell VLS destroyers as a future vessel replacement for the F100 class. But at this stage, it only still remains on paper as a prototypes. The announcement of the F100 class replacement will be sometime in 2035.. there be grey hairs on my head by then too
Back before the white paper surface review, contractors were throwing large vls cell ships at the wall hoping Australian would bite, including navantia. There was also a modified hunter class with the missile bay taken out. Its possible that the second batch of hunters will take this route rather than balancing the hunters mission set with patrols now that we will have far more hulls. But also, the drop vls ships are basically to turn the accompanying ships into destroyers. But I agreen in spirit. When Australia replaces the Hobart's, they should replace it with a proper destroyer with vls north of 100 like a proper Pacific navy should have.
About time the government is spending money on defence. We have one of the largest coastlines in the world which is woefully under protected. It will greatly enhance our patrolling capabilities and defence. We will be able to protect OUR fisheries from poachers which are stripping our reefs of seafood and stop illegal immigrants from entering our waters. Just wish it had happened sooner than later .........
This British/Australian AUKUS submarine currently being developed to add our Virginia class nuclear submarines order, I hope is to have the capability to increase the VLS count during mid contract improvements, similar to the Virginia block V modules VPM) Richard Marles is denuding the Nuclear submarine land attack capability refusing the new Virginia Bloc V. Instead he orders new built Bloc VII as they will have minimal VLS capability thus cheaper! One of the reasons we went nuclear is that of the land attack capability and he removes it!
So now Marles, who also is Deputy PM - another Albanese FUBAR - has waited and waited for the 'second' Naval Review. And what does it tell Australians? - a significant number of Tier 2 FFG's are to be acquired. Ok - given the stated options Defence/Russell should have a selected option by the end of this year - but just watch how Russell mismanage this process - and slow walk it. We have several options 'green to go' - yet Marles' made 0 effort to put his boot up Russell and to get a fast tracked decision. Benchmark Australian defence processes against Korea, Japan, Germany and Spain - we are a total disgrace. And just when even I thought Russell could not f#ck up even more - we learn, not via a Ministerial Statement - that the NH90's are being buried? China is looking on and laughing. Even the woke Biden administration must also be scratching their collective heads. And the reality is despite a change of government - nothing ever changes. Peter Dutton as Min Def made a 'small' headway - but just prior to the last election Senate Estimates uncovered that the MQ Reaper acquisition was to be canceled - wasting years of ADF personnel being trained in the US. Housed, salaries paid, allowances - you just cannot make this s#it up.
Marles is a joke, he removes a VLS capability on our Virginias by not ordering the Block V, he orders a new built so called Block VII with no VPM thus minimum VLS capability. Second hand Virginias are a given probably block IV but he should have ordered the Block V for our new built Virginias. How many VLS cells will the AUKUS submarines have?
Will the Australian Navy be able to compete with the Bangladesh Navy is more the question.... This is all hypothetical, what Australia needs is 12 Hunters, 12 Type 83's and 12 Astutes. By this coming Friday. Or , everyone should start learning Cantonese.
Be good if the Government for once sticks with the plan but they need to do something about manpower levels urgently. Start looking at immigrants from india and other supportive countries and allow them to serve.
bwahahahahahahahahaha stralya cant even put half its old junkers to sea and the "new" ships are 40 years away and will be redundant before they are even made. But will never get made anyway.
This excludes 350 billion on nuke subs + the subs themselves ( 9) makes 35 combat vessels but excludes patrol boats and other vessels. 25 of these make it 60 plus Auxilliary. vessels and , if as one would anticipate some life extension of current vessels is also taken into account then maybe around 70/80 excluding supply , landing, etc., It would be nice if they spent an extra 50 billion - which is affordable - and acquired 3 real sircraft carriers , 3 extra ( only better) Juan Carlos class as well and an exra 5 or 6 frigates/missile destroyers. THEN i would be a respected Navy......AS LONG AS IT HAS TIME TO DO IT!...it needs to do it, because it may RUN OUT OF TIME!
It's not bad. But I wished they added a few heavily armed Destroyers in with this fleet earlier rather than wait till after the hunter class get built before deciding to replace the F100 class destroyers. I have a inside information that RAN is looking at the Navantia flight III 128 cell VLS destroyers as a future vessel replacement for the F100 class. But at this stage, it only still remains on paper as a prototypes. The announcement of the F100 class replacement will be sometime in 2035.. there be grey hairs on my head by then too
Back before the white paper surface review, contractors were throwing large vls cell ships at the wall hoping Australian would bite, including navantia. There was also a modified hunter class with the missile bay taken out. Its possible that the second batch of hunters will take this route rather than balancing the hunters mission set with patrols now that we will have far more hulls.
But also, the drop vls ships are basically to turn the accompanying ships into destroyers.
But I agreen in spirit. When Australia replaces the Hobart's, they should replace it with a proper destroyer with vls north of 100 like a proper Pacific navy should have.
How many VLS cells will the Australian version of the AUKUS nuclear submarines have?
About time the government is spending money on defence. We have one of the largest coastlines in the world which is woefully under protected. It will greatly enhance our patrolling capabilities and defence. We will be able to protect OUR fisheries from poachers which are stripping our reefs of seafood and stop illegal immigrants from entering our waters. Just wish it had happened sooner than later .........
A very slow upgrade the submarine fleet is U/S and no real date for upgrade total joke.
If the past is any guide procrastination will be the order of the day/ year/ decades.
Why did the goverment not send a ship to the Red Sea....
This British/Australian AUKUS submarine currently being developed to add our Virginia class nuclear submarines order, I hope is to have the capability to increase the VLS count during mid contract improvements, similar to the Virginia block V modules VPM)
Richard Marles is denuding the Nuclear submarine land attack capability refusing the new Virginia Bloc V.
Instead he orders new built Bloc VII as they will have minimal VLS capability thus cheaper!
One of the reasons we went nuclear is that of the land attack capability and he removes it!
So now Marles, who also is Deputy PM - another Albanese FUBAR - has waited and waited for the 'second' Naval Review.
And what does it tell Australians? - a significant number of Tier 2 FFG's are to be acquired. Ok - given the stated options Defence/Russell should have a selected option by the end of this year - but just watch how Russell mismanage this process - and slow walk it.
We have several options 'green to go' - yet Marles' made 0 effort to put his boot up Russell and to get a fast tracked decision.
Benchmark Australian defence processes against Korea, Japan, Germany and Spain - we are a total disgrace.
And just when even I thought Russell could not f#ck up even more - we learn, not via a Ministerial Statement - that the NH90's are being buried?
China is looking on and laughing. Even the woke Biden administration must also be scratching their collective heads.
And the reality is despite a change of government - nothing ever changes.
Peter Dutton as Min Def made a 'small' headway - but just prior to the last election Senate Estimates uncovered that the MQ Reaper acquisition was to be canceled - wasting years of ADF personnel being trained in the US. Housed, salaries paid, allowances - you just cannot make this s#it up.
Marles is a joke, he removes a VLS capability on our Virginias by not ordering the Block V, he orders a new built so called Block VII with no VPM thus minimum VLS capability.
Second hand Virginias are a given probably block IV but he should have ordered the Block V for our new built Virginias.
How many VLS cells will the AUKUS submarines have?
Will the Australian Navy be able to compete with the Bangladesh Navy is more the question....
This is all hypothetical, what Australia needs is 12 Hunters, 12 Type 83's and 12 Astutes. By this coming Friday.
Or , everyone should start learning Cantonese.
A small population west (Hong Kong)Canton. Mainly speak Mandarin, also call “Putonghua. At least land rights will get thrown out the door.
@@gregcooks-qr9wk Right then mate, learn it.
I know it
@@gregcooks-qr9wk In the words of Marie Antoinette; Then eat some Dimsum!
Or build a Navy
Be good if the Government for once sticks with the plan but they need to do something about manpower levels urgently. Start looking at immigrants from india and other supportive countries and allow them to serve.
Australian Navy must have three times stronger protecting people in Australia very strong defence against terrisom allover the world
Yes, Labour will destroy British defence
bwahahahahahahahahaha
stralya cant even put half its old junkers to sea and the "new" ships are 40 years away and will be redundant before they are even made. But will never get made anyway.
Looks like we'll get a bunch of nuclear subs too.
This excludes 350 billion on nuke subs + the subs themselves ( 9) makes 35 combat vessels but excludes patrol boats and other vessels. 25 of these make it 60 plus Auxilliary. vessels and , if as one would anticipate some life extension of current vessels is also taken into account then maybe around 70/80 excluding supply , landing, etc., It would be nice if they spent an extra 50 billion - which is affordable - and acquired 3 real sircraft carriers , 3 extra ( only better) Juan Carlos class as well and an exra 5 or 6 frigates/missile destroyers. THEN i would be a respected Navy......AS LONG AS IT HAS TIME TO DO IT!...it needs to do it, because it may RUN OUT OF TIME!
Personally i have always respected the Royal Australian Navy.
So its taken us 80 years to become a stronger force
4th biggest airforce in the world late 1945
Once a jolly swagman…….
What does ‘optionally crewed’ mean?
Can operate without crew.
It means they have the option to crew it, but they don't have to crew it if they don't want to
Means they will have a mobile missile laden platform floating offshore relaying on AI.
Sounds good.
As little as possible thus over working the crew. Just like the USN.