Next version Mogami, 32cell vls, huge well deck for, rib, usv anti sea mine warfare, xluuv anti submarine warfare and can also deploy sea mines…..why would you waste money on the alpha 3000
While true, the Australian labour party for some reason (possibly because of Chinese political influence) don't want to buy Japanese equipment. Therefore the likelihood of Australia actually buying Japanese ships or Japanese missiles like the enhanced range type 12 SSM is very unlikely. Last time Japan offered the sale of Soryu submarines, many strange people in Australia's government and mainstream labour affiliated media argued that Australia shouldn't buy them, and they did this by bringing up how Japan back in WW2 was an adversary, which is really strange rhetoric quite frankly, and it made me realise that there is likely a lot of Chinese political influence within the labour party and their affiliated media. Therefore, expect Australia's next ships to come from Navantia. This is the most likely situation.
@ziongite You're spot on.Same reason they won't put a few f35s on our assault ships.Cant upset poo bear.We could add a few f35s with new mako hypersonic missile making our navy really powerful.Amazing how they always go for a ship with the very least amount of firepower and cheapest option.Never worry about survivability or winning a battle.
@@ziongite Where's the evidence that the ALP is under the influence of the CCP ? From memory it was the LNP who cancelled the Soryu class so your claims appear rather baseless
@@stevethomas7273 No he's not. And as for chucking a few F-35b's onto our LHD's do some research first. This isn't feasible without major engineering and structural work being done. It would probably be quicker and cheaper to buy a dedicated platform from scratch
What I don't understand is why Navantia chose this ship, because both Avante 2200 and 3000 were design as Corvettes or big OPVs such as Spanish BAM class and the Saudi Al-Jubail class. I think it would have been better to have presented the F110 and this Avante 3000 as a Corvette. Greetings from Spain btw😅✌
El proyecto australiano es sustituir las ANZAC con "fragatas" de nivel corveta, además que si lo piensas ellos llaman a nuestras fragatas destructores, entonces nuestras corvetas serán sus fragatas. Si comparas tonelaje, dimensiones y el personal requerido para operarlas las fragatas ANZAC y las corvetas A2000/A3000 son muy similares.
@@oriolguerrero1702 True, the main problem with our current ships is we tend to classify them somewhat optimistically, our Air Warfare Destroyers should be Air warfare Frigates, the Type 26 Frigates should be Antisubmarine Destroyers and something like this should be called what it is a corvette. The improved Mogami would be a far better choice for a frigate replacement given all the things we will eventually want it to do but this design would be a good replacement for the stupid OPV fiasco. Our patrol vessels should all be transferred to Border patrol as Coast Guard vessels and the Navy should operate corvettes armed like this instead of patrol vessels.
The Japanese offer is a big ship with 32 VLS and 16 SSM, towed array ect for just over 5000 tons very favoured by it growth size. Let's hope Marles sees the growth factor and capability instead of only budget!
Type 26 more then 4 billion a ship,Cant believe we bought a 10,000 ton ship with the firepower of a corvet.Bourke flight 3 would have been cheaper.I don't think the government wants their pants pulled down again with sneaky blowouts with Arrowhead.
Ship is too small for blue water operations. The Saudis have these ships for coastal defence and not for operations in the South China Sea and Pacific. Australia should look elsewhere or at larger vessels like the F110 frigate.
Seems Alfa3000 is 2nd best choice for Aussie if weight is a nonissue. If weight is an issue, upsizing a proven platform is low risk by maintaining design proportions, if not, then FFM remains the best choice. Belharra and Fremm are also apt but wondering if they'll be included in the choices
Will the FMM integrate the CEAFAR radar? If this is chosen, won't the RAN be left with too many types of combat systems in service? Logistical and interoperability pain or am I wrong?
@@halfonso_0871the previous video focused on FFM, and Mitsubishi said FFM is of modular design and can be made to accommodate other radars for export. But if we assume FFM radar is retained, then Aussie will have a dedicated X-band radar which will complement its CEAFAR which is of L and S bands
Based on my personal obervation, Tasman class corvette (3,600 tonne), proposed by Navantia Australia in last year is much more better than Alfa-3000. The smoothness of design & armament package is much more better & suit to face the threat, especially in Asia Pacific.
@@halfonso_0871 previous video focused on FFM, and Mitsubishi said FFM is modular to accommodate other radars. Even if FFM radar is retained, then Aussie would have a dedicated 4-panel X-band radar to complement CEAFAR which is of L and S bands
You know what. That ship may be okay for a country like Saudi Arabia who are unlikely to have to operate in blue water oceans but not for an island nation like Australia. Tier 2 or whatever Tier, the surface assets have to be as well armed and defended as possible and 16 VLS doesn’t cut it against a top tier adversary like the PLAN a who has a much larger navy with modern frigates (e.g. type 054 frigate) sporting 32 VLS and other weapons, and Type 055 Destroyers sporting 24 VLS a surface to air missile launchers and 112 VLS for anti ship missiles. We need as many silos as you can afford and fit and not just one CIWS or equivalent.
From logistical view point having commonality with Hobart class means it’s maintenance will be cost saving. However a Meko based design could leverage maintenance of our current ANZAC fleet. People rattle on here about Mogami but for Australia there isn’t any commonality or existing infrastructure familiar with its design. As a tier 2 does it need more VLS cells? It would be desirable for sure. One wishes we had just kept building more hulls based on the Hobart class with modifications and we wouldn’t be having this discussion or gap in capabilities
Based on the design & 'armament package', Tasmanian class corvette (3,600 tonne) proposed by Navantia Australia 🇦🇺 on 2023 is much more better than Alfa-3000 (Navantia Spain 🇪🇦) I would say Tasman class corvette is 'mini frigate' & suit to patrol & to protect Asia Pacific maritime. * Regards from Malaysia 🇲🇾
Good looking but dated design with limited future upgrade potential. It is also likely a bit small for the RAN's Indo-Pacific operating theatre. I am not a naval architect, but could see a possible/probable top-weight problem with this design. The phased-array radar looks massive & heavy compared with the hull. Would there be a mismatch given the capability of the radar with the small number of SAM VLS? Mounting the 2 triple Light-Weight ASW Torpedo Tubes above the hangar is interesting; but is it the result of not having enough space in the hull for them?
I'm sure it's a capable little ship, but it's already maxed out, it has virtually no growth potential, I would go with a larger design that offers more growth potential.
Is the choice of fixed-array radars really the best choice for a low-cost frigate? What is its instrumented range? How does it compare overall to say, the 400km-range NS200? I suspect we've gone for fixed arrays as we do not have the CAMM, which pairs favourably with rotating arrays.
La matrices giratorias son inferiores en todos los aspectos escepto en la generación eléctrica. De hecho es un sistema que solo mira en una dirección y necesita refrescarse en el giro. Y si se avería el sistema de giro mecánico, te has quedado sin radar. Es un concepto obsoleto.
@@JesusSanchez-ij5denot correct. Beam steering eliminates the blindspots on rotating arrays. Study the Sampson array and the proposed single faxe sampson.
@@lukedogwalker Entonces... ¿ me estás diciendo que el radar giratorio, gira por estética?. ¿O que me estás diciendo?. Me parece absurdo el comentario.
@@robertaustin6940 You're right but the Mk-110 is far less effective than the OM 76mm super rapid gun. The FREMM design that the Constellation is based on is equipped with a 5in. gun. Have a look at the 76 SR; what do you think? The fight in the Red Sea proves that the USN can't afford to use multi million dollar missiles to combat cheap drones. With a 120 rounds per minute, a 40KM range and guided projectiles, it should be the USN's choice.
They might get them in the water faster, but the ships will last 30 years and this ship class would have a minimum growth factor and with only 16 cell Mk 41 VLS and 8 SSM missiles this will be an insufficient weapon capability. ANZAC class were criticized for being a ship with limited growth factors in her mid life upgrade thus basically they are under armed for their given sensors fit and capability .......let's not make the same mistake again !
Too small and not enough room for future growth and systems. The S. Korean and Japanese ships have gross weights close to 6000kg. Plus if commonality/familiarity were the main advantages of this boat the RAN would be best of with a MEKO 200 design like the already in service ANZAC class. Im guessing that the RAN will end going with one of the S. Korean/Japanese ships as they have power house ship building industries and the Australian government would love for them to make an Australian onshore presence with there capabilities. Navantia already has an Australian presence and footprint. Plus it will help with the RAN being more interoperable with Japan and S. Korea. After all the RAN is much more likely to be operating with other Japanese and Koreans.
More like Japan since Sokor's Chungnam frigate is only at 4300t full and is outmatched by FFM in almost all or all specs, except maybe on price (but more like price a nonissue for Aussie). But since FFM is series-produced at 12 units + 12 upcoming, so the price difference significantly narrows down
My money would be on the Japanese upgraded Mogami for a few reasons, 1. It has Cooperative Engagement Capability which is only used by Australia, Japan and the US and allows each platform to see what any other platform with CEC can see as well as fire at it if it's in range, all without having to turn on their own radar. 2. It has mine warfare capability which none of the other designs do 3. It has a bay under the flightdeck to launch and recover underwater drones. 4. Requires a crew of only 90 5. The Japanese are going to integrate NSMs on to it which gives it commonality with the new ASM for the RAN 6. With 12 orders on the book and 12 of the original design to be completed in the next few years it's not a custom design and there is a benefit in numbers as far as cost goes, the more your build the cheaper they become, add 11 more and that brings the total class to 23 ships of the upgrade design making them very competitive price wise 7. Speed, range and future growth of the platform is the best of the offerings (in my opinion) I could probably think of a few more if I tried but those are some off the top of my head
@@bjones5240 ships to small for future upgrades like lasers and more powerful sensors and doesn't have room to expand up from 16 VLS cells. The new Mogami will have 32 VLS and the Korean Ghungnam class has room for the going fro 16 to 32 cells and both those ships have extra room for ballast and extra generators (for possible future direct energy weapons lasers/microwaves) Japan has also built 6 Mogami class in the last 2 years (1 every 4 months). Japan and Korea also are the 2nd and 3rd largest and most productive shipbuilding industries (both civilian and defence) after China. Both those countries shipyards can also pump out submarines at a fast rate while Navantia takes what 25+ years to build 1 modified Scorpene class (S80). I could kick the boot in further with the bow thrusters failing on the Canberra class and the issues with the Hobart class build at ASC. Or the troubles with the AOR's (Supply class).
@@chrisrabbitt Agreed 100%. If i had to bet money i would choose the updated Mogami class. It's basically a mini AEGIS frigate with multi role capabilities. I'm also sure Australia would welcome a Japanese defence footprint in Australia. Especially there massive shipbuilding giant conglomerate company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). Hanwha Defence is already here with the Hanwha centre of excellence. Navantia is already here and will still get future possible contracts for the Hobart class mid life upgrades and then get a shot at it's replacement in the late 30's. Japan and MHI are also great contenders for helping Australia's missile manufacturing industry through the GWEO program...then there's possible collaboration on the Japanese/UK/Italian 6 gen fighter jet program.
I really worry about Australia’s naval future… with the new emphasis on small corvettes with very limited capabilities, we are literally shooting ourselves in the foot… A corvette is literally little more than an uparmed patrol ship…
What emphasis on small Corvettes? Even the Alpha 3000 would be considered a large Corvette at worst and the other contenders are all as big or bigger than the Anzac. The evolved Mogami which could be a contender in this project is closer in size 142m and 6000t to a Hobart, 147m and 7000t, then an Alpha 3000.
@@Harldin The Japanese MSDF considers a total length of 140m and a width of 17m to be the limit for operating in the open ocean. The Mogami-class is a grade that operates in the boundary area between coastal waters and the open ocean. The upgraded Mogami-class is a grade that can operate in the open ocean.
People don't understand that names are just names. A "corvette" with a 32 misile cell and with 127 mm. guns is not a corvette, and this class of vessels are configurable. You don't need a 200 m. vessel to pretend you are strong.
The plan was always selection 2025, 2026 steel cutting, 2029 delivery, 2030 in service, 2 more in service before the first Hunter in 2034. All 3 built overseas, A further 8 built in australia.
@@lancebond2338 Yes that is the plan but until the libs come in, I don't think anything will happen. I hope it does work out the way you are saying but I have little hope
Part of me also agrees, but from what I have read online the USN is having their own issues with the Constellation program. Its something like 3 years behind schedule and still not fully designed.
The Constellation is way more expensive than these proposals, these are "Tier 2" vessels for Austrlia, the Constellation meanwhile costs something like a Billion per
@@Erik_Wulf Because is small. What they don't realize is that it is a frigate, and not a destroyer, it is probably also cheaper and I think they are the only ones who have bothered to put Australian systems like the CEAFAR radar on it.
@@Erik_Wulf The frigate is too small and im not saying it should be a F126 or Type 31 class size but it lacks future growth. The Korean and Japanese solution in my own opinion and like many others are some of the best contenders and its also equipped with right amount of weapon suite optimal for long range engagements in a hypothetical war with China.
By far the least capable of all the options available. Something like this is what the Arafura class should have been. This has neither the range nor the firepower to meet the requirements of a frigate. Utterly clueless choice.
02:00 "compact" and "small". Words which the RAN will regret in years to come if they go with a platform like this. What are the upgrade margins? Bad weather endurance on a small hull? Unrefueled range across Pacific and Southern ocean distances? Are they also buying half a dozen tankers to follow these things around? If they hadn't pork barrelled the Hunter class into a top heavy, unaffordable white elephant, they could have stuck with the original, sensible, plan. As it is, sticking with Type 26 and just building 9 basic, fitted for but not with, T26 hulls in addition to the 6 Hunters would give the RAN ships that could be upgraded in the future and adapt to new technologies, and which could be built on the same production line as the Hunters.
@@felixmunozcalvet7672 it meets the requirement of being an existing design, but doesn't offer anything mich more than the Korean submission. If they want cheap(er) than a Hunter, and already in build, Arrowhead 140 is an obvious candidate. It has the hull volume and upgrade potential without being as expensive as the Type 26, and is already sold to three nations, and has a spiral development plan for in-service upgrades put together by the Brits. No brainer, really.
the design isn't smooth enough, look like early 2000 design. the real problem with navantia's ship are they are too SPECIALIZE, means not enough space for upgrades. They should really learn from south koreans and dutch, they use a single key design like incheon of korea and sigma by dutch, yet they can change specifications of weapons, number of vls, types of sensors without compromising the design of the ship. another flaw of navantia design is its PAGODA like radar towers, its just not sleek enough, and partnering it with ,90 degree angle bridge is a nah.
Based on my personal obervation, Tasman class corvette (3,600 tonne), proposed by Navantia Australia on last year is much more better than Alfa-3000. The smoothness of design & armament package set is much more better & suitable to neutralize the threat, especially in Asia Pacific.
NO offense but I’d expect a design like this to come from some 3rd world country, a country that has little to no military, or maybe some mercenary force…but not this… I may be new to Spanish ships but aren’t these the same guys who made the SMART 7000(?) and 8000 designs?!
This project is. Navantia v Australian Government. TKMS v Australian Government Korean Government v Australian Government Japanese Government v Australian Government Navantia and TKMS are outsiders, there is little political advantage for the Euros as compared to the 2 Asian Governments.
The RAN has proven to be quite inefficient designing a fleet. Starting with its AUKUS alliance and following with the Hunter Class FIASCO. The best units the RAN has are those designed by NAVANTIA. Australia does not have the money ot the power to be a first blue ocean navy while they can not protect their waters first. So, Australia must built an effective self protecting navy before sailing to conquer the world. You do not have enough sailors, population or money to do it. Any Navantia advice must be thankfully taken. Cheers.
That project is delayed and has gone over budget. It is a FREMM with the systems of a Hobart, to buy that you buy more Hobarts, which are and will continue to be the best anti-aircraft destroyers in the region for years.
@@AlFreeman-xy4jy Exactly, it has lost all communality with the FREMM, the weight has been increased to fit AEGIS, among other reasons (and for which I do not understand why the Navantia F100 was not chosen, which it already had equipped, since it is an Arleight Burke light).
There isn't a US Fremm to be bought! The design hasn't even been finalised. There are no complete builders plans! The whole project is US internal politics - the USN clearly does not want it and wants more destroyer class vessels, instead, so Constellation is being sabotaged while they work on getting Congress to authorise more Arleigh Burkes, and release money to develop whatever comes next.
its actually a larger Avente 2200 used by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The Antiship missiles were placed farther at the back while Type054 is just behind the superstructure. CWIS is also on a different location. The Mast is also different.
I am shocked by the high number of Military Naval Engineers and Chief Admirals commenting. And, of course, the marketing boys from some shipbuilders.
Stick with the Mogami ! Not enough VLS
Next version Mogami, 32cell vls, huge well deck for, rib, usv anti sea mine warfare, xluuv anti submarine warfare and can also deploy sea mines…..why would you waste money on the alpha 3000
Is the upgraded Morgami on the governments list?,they seem to be hell bent on old hulls already in the water?
Upgraded Mogani Like it👍
New Morgami with 32 VLS looks to be a better option, or the meko 300 better fire power.16 VLS is not enough for high intensity warfare
While true, the Australian labour party for some reason (possibly because of Chinese political influence) don't want to buy Japanese equipment. Therefore the likelihood of Australia actually buying Japanese ships or Japanese missiles like the enhanced range type 12 SSM is very unlikely. Last time Japan offered the sale of Soryu submarines, many strange people in Australia's government and mainstream labour affiliated media argued that Australia shouldn't buy them, and they did this by bringing up how Japan back in WW2 was an adversary, which is really strange rhetoric quite frankly, and it made me realise that there is likely a lot of Chinese political influence within the labour party and their affiliated media.
Therefore, expect Australia's next ships to come from Navantia. This is the most likely situation.
@ziongite You're spot on.Same reason they won't put a few f35s on our assault ships.Cant upset poo bear.We could add a few f35s with new mako hypersonic missile making our navy really powerful.Amazing how they always go for a ship with the very least amount of firepower and cheapest option.Never worry about survivability or winning a battle.
@@ziongite Where's the evidence that the ALP is under the influence of the CCP ? From memory it was the LNP who cancelled the Soryu class so your claims appear rather baseless
@@stevethomas7273 No he's not. And as for chucking a few F-35b's onto our LHD's do some research first. This isn't feasible without major engineering and structural work being done. It would probably be quicker and cheaper to buy a dedicated platform from scratch
Spain flies harriers off the same ship.Adding jet fuel tanks is not hard to do.
And they say the Hunter class has too few VLS. Once all fired has to return to port to reload.
What I don't understand is why Navantia chose this ship, because both Avante 2200 and 3000 were design as Corvettes or big OPVs such as Spanish BAM class and the Saudi Al-Jubail class.
I think it would have been better to have presented the F110 and this Avante 3000 as a Corvette.
Greetings from Spain btw😅✌
It's depend on the user's budget & threat level, especially in Asia Pacific.
El proyecto australiano es sustituir las ANZAC con "fragatas" de nivel corveta, además que si lo piensas ellos llaman a nuestras fragatas destructores, entonces nuestras corvetas serán sus fragatas.
Si comparas tonelaje, dimensiones y el personal requerido para operarlas las fragatas ANZAC y las corvetas A2000/A3000 son muy similares.
@@oriolguerrero1702 True, the main problem with our current ships is we tend to classify them somewhat optimistically, our Air Warfare Destroyers should be Air warfare Frigates, the Type 26 Frigates should be Antisubmarine Destroyers and something like this should be called what it is a corvette.
The improved Mogami would be a far better choice for a frigate replacement given all the things we will eventually want it to do but this design would be a good replacement for the stupid OPV fiasco.
Our patrol vessels should all be transferred to Border patrol as Coast Guard vessels and the Navy should operate corvettes armed like this instead of patrol vessels.
Because it depends on the requirements of the client. The client dont want F110. It is easy to understand.
@@oriolguerrero1702 16 VLS and 8 SSM are insufficient for a ship fitted with that kind of sensor pack.
this guy answered every question without actually answering it xD
felt like myself back in school
Arrowhead 140 is what Australia needs. Out performs this ship but also everything else being looked at and offered by Australia.
The Japanese offer is a big ship with 32 VLS and 16 SSM, towed array ect for just over 5000 tons
very favoured by it growth size.
Let's hope Marles sees the growth factor and capability instead of only budget!
Type 26 more then 4 billion a ship,Cant believe we bought a 10,000 ton ship with the firepower of a corvet.Bourke flight 3 would have been cheaper.I don't think the government wants their pants pulled down again with sneaky blowouts with Arrowhead.
Ship is too small for blue water operations. The Saudis have these ships for coastal defence and not for operations in the South China Sea and Pacific. Australia should look elsewhere or at larger vessels like the F110 frigate.
The point is that australian Government dont want what you imagine they need.
the ship is underarmed, my thoughts are to just pick the upgraded Mogami class from Japan
Seems Alfa3000 is 2nd best choice for Aussie if weight is a nonissue. If weight is an issue, upsizing a proven platform is low risk by maintaining design proportions, if not, then FFM remains the best choice. Belharra and Fremm are also apt but wondering if they'll be included in the choices
Will the FMM integrate the CEAFAR radar? If this is chosen, won't the RAN be left with too many types of combat systems in service? Logistical and interoperability pain or am I wrong?
@@halfonso_0871the previous video focused on FFM, and Mitsubishi said FFM is of modular design and can be made to accommodate other radars for export. But if we assume FFM radar is retained, then Aussie will have a dedicated X-band radar which will complement its CEAFAR which is of L and S bands
Based on my personal obervation, Tasman class corvette (3,600 tonne), proposed by Navantia Australia in last year is much more better than Alfa-3000.
The smoothness of design & armament package is much more better & suit to face the threat, especially in Asia Pacific.
Belharra is French, after the Subs deal went South, I doubt they would have any interest in bidding anyway.
@@halfonso_0871 previous video focused on FFM, and Mitsubishi said FFM is modular to accommodate other radars. Even if FFM radar is retained, then Aussie would have a dedicated 4-panel X-band radar to complement CEAFAR which is of L and S bands
You know what. That ship may be okay for a country like Saudi Arabia who are unlikely to have to operate in blue water oceans but not for an island nation like Australia. Tier 2 or whatever Tier, the surface assets have to be as well armed and defended as possible and 16 VLS doesn’t cut it against a top tier adversary like the PLAN a who has a much larger navy with modern frigates (e.g. type 054 frigate) sporting 32 VLS and other weapons, and Type 055 Destroyers sporting 24 VLS a surface to air missile launchers and 112 VLS for anti ship missiles. We need as many silos as you can afford and fit and not just one CIWS or equivalent.
From logistical view point having commonality with Hobart class means it’s maintenance will be cost saving. However a Meko based design could leverage maintenance of our current ANZAC fleet. People rattle on here about Mogami but for Australia there isn’t any commonality or existing infrastructure familiar with its design. As a tier 2 does it need more VLS cells? It would be desirable for sure. One wishes we had just kept building more hulls based on the Hobart class with modifications and we wouldn’t be having this discussion or gap in capabilities
Should be offering the Alpha 5000 instead.
Paper design, no chance of being ready to build in 2026 and designs are supposed to be already in construction.
Well one thing is for sure, and it’s that if this is selected, it won’t be using a Millennium gun lol
Why’s that?
@@bjones5240 RAN is already pretty tied to Phalanx CIWS.(Already own the mounts, have the ammunition stocks and have the maintainers trained)
Phalanx 20mm, Milenium 30 mm
We prefer Sokor design,state of the art, and sophistikated
Based on the design & 'armament package', Tasmanian class corvette (3,600 tonne) proposed by Navantia Australia 🇦🇺 on 2023 is much more better than Alfa-3000 (Navantia Spain 🇪🇦)
I would say Tasman class corvette is 'mini frigate' & suit to patrol & to protect Asia Pacific maritime.
* Regards from Malaysia 🇲🇾
Good looking but dated design with limited future upgrade potential. It is also likely a bit small for the RAN's Indo-Pacific operating theatre. I am not a naval architect, but could see a possible/probable top-weight problem with this design. The phased-array radar looks massive & heavy compared with the hull. Would there be a mismatch given the capability of the radar with the small number of SAM VLS? Mounting the 2 triple Light-Weight ASW Torpedo Tubes above the hangar is interesting; but is it the result of not having enough space in the hull for them?
The Tasman Class model had 4 quadruple ashm launchers 🤔
It was a lengthened variant 109+m, this is 104m-the same as the Saudi corvette.
We need the Meko 210. The ANZAC is a good ship and we know how to run it. This thing will be to small and way under gunned for our needs.
Meko didn't even show up at the event though, not a good start
@@Caine1277 absolutely
I'm sure it's a capable little ship, but it's already maxed out, it has virtually no growth potential, I would go with a larger design that offers more growth potential.
Is the choice of fixed-array radars really the best choice for a low-cost frigate? What is its instrumented range? How does it compare overall to say, the 400km-range NS200?
I suspect we've gone for fixed arrays as we do not have the CAMM, which pairs favourably with rotating arrays.
La matrices giratorias son inferiores en todos los aspectos escepto en la generación eléctrica.
De hecho es un sistema que solo mira en una dirección y necesita refrescarse en el giro. Y si se avería el sistema de giro mecánico, te has quedado sin radar.
Es un concepto obsoleto.
@@JesusSanchez-ij5denot correct. Beam steering eliminates the blindspots on rotating arrays. Study the Sampson array and the proposed single faxe sampson.
@@lukedogwalker Entonces... ¿ me estás diciendo que el radar giratorio, gira por estética?. ¿O que me estás diciendo?.
Me parece absurdo el comentario.
@@JesusSanchez-ij5de sorry, the translator is not working on your last comment.
@@lukedogwalker Charge the video. Look for the coment velow.
Sorry for my bad english. I am spaniard.
At least it has a gun as compared to the Constellation Class.
The Constellation Class does have a gun.
@@robertaustin6940 You're right but the Mk-110 is far less effective than the OM 76mm super rapid gun. The FREMM design that the Constellation is based on is equipped with a 5in. gun. Have a look at the 76 SR; what do you think? The fight in the Red Sea proves that the USN can't afford to use multi million dollar missiles to combat cheap drones. With a 120 rounds per minute, a 40KM range and guided projectiles, it should be the USN's choice.
@@paladin0654 You're right about the 76 SR.
Bring back the girl Navantia, she was much better
The last 2 supply vessels are broken big repairs.
They might get them in the water faster, but the ships will last 30 years and this ship class would have a minimum growth factor and with only 16 cell Mk 41 VLS and 8 SSM missiles this will be an insufficient weapon capability.
ANZAC class were criticized for being a ship with limited growth factors in her mid life upgrade thus basically they are under armed for their given sensors fit and capability .......let's not make the same mistake again !
Too small and not enough room for future growth and systems.
The S. Korean and Japanese ships have gross weights close to 6000kg.
Plus if commonality/familiarity were the main advantages of this boat the RAN would be best of with a MEKO 200 design like the already in service ANZAC class.
Im guessing that the RAN will end going with one of the S. Korean/Japanese ships as they have power house ship building industries and the Australian government would love for them to make an Australian onshore presence with there capabilities. Navantia already has an Australian presence and footprint.
Plus it will help with the RAN being more interoperable with Japan and S. Korea. After all the RAN is much more likely to be operating with other Japanese and Koreans.
More like Japan since Sokor's Chungnam frigate is only at 4300t full and is outmatched by FFM in almost all or all specs, except maybe on price (but more like price a nonissue for Aussie). But since FFM is series-produced at 12 units + 12 upcoming, so the price difference significantly narrows down
My money would be on the Japanese upgraded Mogami for a few reasons,
1. It has Cooperative Engagement Capability which is only used by Australia, Japan and the US and allows each platform to see what any other platform with CEC can see as well as fire at it if it's in range, all without having to turn on their own radar.
2. It has mine warfare capability which none of the other designs do
3. It has a bay under the flightdeck to launch and recover underwater drones.
4. Requires a crew of only 90
5. The Japanese are going to integrate NSMs on to it which gives it commonality with the new ASM for the RAN
6. With 12 orders on the book and 12 of the original design to be completed in the next few years it's not a custom design and there is a benefit in numbers as far as cost goes, the more your build the cheaper they become, add 11 more and that brings the total class to 23 ships of the upgrade design making them very competitive price wise
7. Speed, range and future growth of the platform is the best of the offerings (in my opinion)
I could probably think of a few more if I tried but those are some off the top of my head
The Saudi program was delivered new ship every 4 months. This is quicker than the Japanese and Koreans
@@bjones5240 ships to small for future upgrades like lasers and more powerful sensors and doesn't have room to expand up from 16 VLS cells. The new Mogami will have 32 VLS and the Korean Ghungnam class has room for the going fro 16 to 32 cells and both those ships have extra room for ballast and extra generators (for possible future direct energy weapons lasers/microwaves) Japan has also built 6 Mogami class in the last 2 years (1 every 4 months).
Japan and Korea also are the 2nd and 3rd largest and most productive shipbuilding industries (both civilian and defence) after China. Both those countries shipyards can also pump out submarines at a fast rate while Navantia takes what 25+ years to build 1 modified Scorpene class (S80).
I could kick the boot in further with the bow thrusters failing on the Canberra class and the issues with the Hobart class build at ASC. Or the troubles with the AOR's (Supply class).
@@chrisrabbitt Agreed 100%. If i had to bet money i would choose the updated Mogami class. It's basically a mini AEGIS frigate with multi role capabilities.
I'm also sure Australia would welcome a Japanese defence footprint in Australia. Especially there massive shipbuilding giant conglomerate company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). Hanwha Defence is already here with the Hanwha centre of excellence. Navantia is already here and will still get future possible contracts for the Hobart class mid life upgrades and then get a shot at it's replacement in the late 30's. Japan and MHI are also great contenders for helping Australia's missile manufacturing industry through the GWEO program...then there's possible collaboration on the Japanese/UK/Italian 6 gen fighter jet program.
I really worry about Australia’s naval future… with the new emphasis on small corvettes with very limited capabilities, we are literally shooting ourselves in the foot… A corvette is literally little more than an uparmed patrol ship…
What emphasis on small Corvettes? Even the Alpha 3000 would be considered a large Corvette at worst and the other contenders are all as big or bigger than the Anzac. The evolved Mogami which could be a contender in this project is closer in size 142m and 6000t to a Hobart, 147m and 7000t, then an Alpha 3000.
@@Harldin
The Japanese MSDF considers a total length of 140m and a width of 17m to be the limit for operating in the open ocean.
The Mogami-class is a grade that operates in the boundary area between coastal waters and the open ocean.
The upgraded Mogami-class is a grade that can operate in the open ocean.
People don't understand that names are just names. A "corvette" with a 32 misile cell and with 127 mm. guns is not a corvette, and this class of vessels are configurable. You don't need a 200 m. vessel to pretend you are strong.
a year ago they were going to build these ships so what happened
The plan was always selection 2025, 2026 steel cutting, 2029 delivery, 2030 in service, 2 more in service before the first Hunter in 2034. All 3 built overseas, A further 8 built in australia.
@@lancebond2338 sorry mate but the commie labor gov is all smoke and mirrors
@@lancebond2338 Nothing will happen labor is gutting the Navy right now and cos they are commies no one wants to join
@@lancebond2338 Yes that is the plan but until the libs come in, I don't think anything will happen. I hope it does work out the way you are saying but I have little hope
Australia should go for the Constellation Class frigate from the US.
Part of me also agrees, but from what I have read online the USN is having their own issues with the Constellation program. Its something like 3 years behind schedule and still not fully designed.
The Constellation is way more expensive than these proposals, these are "Tier 2" vessels for Austrlia, the Constellation meanwhile costs something like a Billion per
Crew twice that of the upgraded Mogami.
80% commonality with the DDG, 😂😂 full of crap, absolutely disgraceful
Oh Hell no, the worst design out of the 5 exemplars.
I am not that deep into the matter. I am curious, why is everyone disliking the vessel?
@@Erik_Wulf Because is small. What they don't realize is that it is a frigate, and not a destroyer, it is probably also cheaper and I think they are the only ones who have bothered to put Australian systems like the CEAFAR radar on it.
@@Erik_Wulf The frigate is too small and im not saying it should be a F126 or Type 31 class size but it lacks future growth. The Korean and Japanese solution in my own opinion and like many others are some of the best contenders and its also equipped with right amount of weapon suite optimal for long range engagements in a hypothetical war with China.
@@halfonso_0871 Thanks:)
@@orangecat3021 thanks:) I understand now more clearly.
By far the least capable of all the options available. Something like this is what the Arafura class should have been. This has neither the range nor the firepower to meet the requirements of a frigate. Utterly clueless choice.
02:00 "compact" and "small". Words which the RAN will regret in years to come if they go with a platform like this. What are the upgrade margins? Bad weather endurance on a small hull? Unrefueled range across Pacific and Southern ocean distances? Are they also buying half a dozen tankers to follow these things around?
If they hadn't pork barrelled the Hunter class into a top heavy, unaffordable white elephant, they could have stuck with the original, sensible, plan.
As it is, sticking with Type 26 and just building 9 basic, fitted for but not with, T26 hulls in addition to the 6 Hunters would give the RAN ships that could be upgraded in the future and adapt to new technologies, and which could be built on the same production line as the Hunters.
Navantia F110 for RAN?
@@felixmunozcalvet7672 it meets the requirement of being an existing design, but doesn't offer anything mich more than the Korean submission. If they want cheap(er) than a Hunter, and already in build, Arrowhead 140 is an obvious candidate. It has the hull volume and upgrade potential without being as expensive as the Type 26, and is already sold to three nations, and has a spiral development plan for in-service upgrades put together by the Brits.
No brainer, really.
the design isn't smooth enough, look like early 2000 design. the real problem with navantia's ship are they are too SPECIALIZE, means not enough space for upgrades. They should really learn from south koreans and dutch, they use a single key design like incheon of korea and sigma by dutch, yet they can change specifications of weapons, number of vls, types of sensors without compromising the design of the ship. another flaw of navantia design is its PAGODA like radar towers, its just not sleek enough, and partnering it with ,90 degree angle bridge is a nah.
Based on my personal obervation, Tasman class corvette (3,600 tonne), proposed by Navantia Australia on last year is much more better than Alfa-3000.
The smoothness of design & armament package set is much more better & suitable to neutralize the threat, especially in Asia Pacific.
NO offense but I’d expect a design like this to come from some 3rd world country, a country that has little to no military, or maybe some mercenary force…but not this…
I may be new to Spanish ships but aren’t these the same guys who made the SMART 7000(?) and 8000 designs?!
Paper designs, a massive amount of work would still be required.
This project is.
Navantia v Australian Government.
TKMS v Australian Government
Korean Government v Australian Government
Japanese Government v Australian Government
Navantia and TKMS are outsiders, there is little political advantage for the Euros as compared to the 2 Asian Governments.
The RAN has proven to be quite inefficient designing a fleet. Starting with its AUKUS alliance and following with the Hunter Class FIASCO. The best units the RAN has are those designed by NAVANTIA. Australia does not have the money ot the power to be a first blue ocean navy while they can not protect their waters first. So, Australia must built an effective self protecting navy before sailing to conquer the world. You do not have enough sailors, population or money to do it. Any Navantia advice must be thankfully taken. Cheers.
the labor government needs to be sacked
Should just buy US FREMM Frigate.
That project is delayed and has gone over budget. It is a FREMM with the systems of a Hobart, to buy that you buy more Hobarts, which are and will continue to be the best anti-aircraft destroyers in the region for years.
@halfonso_0871 It's late because they always ask for changes, now it doesn't look like a FREMM anymore
@@AlFreeman-xy4jy Exactly, it has lost all communality with the FREMM, the weight has been increased to fit AEGIS, among other reasons (and for which I do not understand why the Navantia F100 was not chosen, which it already had equipped, since it is an Arleight Burke light).
There isn't a US Fremm to be bought! The design hasn't even been finalised. There are no complete builders plans! The whole project is US internal politics - the USN clearly does not want it and wants more destroyer class vessels, instead, so Constellation is being sabotaged while they work on getting Congress to authorise more Arleigh Burkes, and release money to develop whatever comes next.
Look like copy cat of China Type056+Type054😅
And 056 is a copy of SIGMA 9113. So it's crazy china and Spain copied Netherlands design.😂😂😂
its actually a larger Avente 2200 used by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The Antiship missiles were placed farther at the back while Type054 is just behind the superstructure. CWIS is also on a different location. The Mast is also different.
Yeah I don't think Chinese can comment on copying. It's literally the only thing they do.
Type054 a miserable trying hard copy of Lafayette 😅. Type056 a watered down version of Type054 😅
Isn't it the biggest joke of 2024 for a Chinese person to talk about copying?