Well it seems we need to accept it will be the 2030s. Sooner we get use to that idea the better. If all the stars align we might get a General Purpose Frigate before then and it might in part, be able to fulfil our needs.
@@JimmyShields-z2h I don’t think the English, Canadian and Australian vessels are much like each other. The best we can be is happy that we finally have something started. It’s a bit like the rest of the defence procurement stuff it might not be what was planned. But at least it’s ordered and some stuff is started. Let’s hope the next government doesn’t try and reinvent the wheel again and just sees some of these plans through to completion.
@@dan7564when you look at how long it will take to build the Hunter and the cost it looks like a complete rip off when compared to the Mogami that can also perform anti sea mine with crew of only 90.
BAE keep updating the Frigates as you increase manufacturing! clear need to improve weapons manufacturing here in Australia starting with 40mm for patrol ships and ahead ammo together with ADI!
I agree. However, I understand that they will be built in two different groups. The first 3 with 32 and the following ships with many more cells. Our government needs to get its a-se into gear and build all the vessels recommended by the R A Navy review. THEN, where will we get enough sailors to man them?
@@ianrobinson8974 Now that we have the general purpose frigates to boost hull numbers, you'd hope that the second batch trio could swap out the mission bay for more VLS cells and focus on high intensity war fighting. But that would also require a delay and more money. Maybe, that money would be better spent on the LOSV program to boost the hunter's/ Hobart's cells by another 32. It might just be a more efficient way of doing it. And also, if you're part of a larger fleet, they essentially need to sink both the hunter and the LOSV to destroy that large VLS capability otherwise if the hunter is destroyed, the LOSV can just redirect onto another Aegis platform and keep firing.
I still maintain we should be buying some second hand British and American ship that were retired early. As a stop gap until ours were built. Also the US just retired 2 Los Angeles class nuclear powered subs 10 years early, which we could have had nuclear subs now! But with this pathetic government our military is actually going backwards in both manpower and equipment!
@elaynewhite069 , governments of all persuasion in Oz since mid 2000 have been good on announcements and weak on delivery but it really doesn't matter what equipment we get if we don't have the personel to command and crew them.
Ships need to have multiple circuits active simultaneously depending on the operational requirement. Therefore, separate transmitters/receivers/transceivers (depending on the frequency - HF/VHF/UHF), which are then connected to a dedicated antenna are needed for each circuit - you can only actively utilise one antenna for each circuit at any one time. Each antenna would also need to be separated physically from each other to prevent generation of electromagnetic interference. There are also Radiation Hazard (RADHAZ) considerations that need to be taken into account for certain antennas (particularly in the case of HF antennas) that mean that these antennas should be located away from areas regularly required to be occupied by sailors while these antennas are transmitting. One also needs to consider that these are warships, so redundancy of systems is essential for the inevitable moment that an antenna is damaged in battle, or fails to operate when required (often in time/safety critical evolutions), therefore multiple individual antennas for each frequency range, with dedicated and interchangeable connected subsystems is essential for a robust communications suite capabilty.
How many years away? Australian navy is very weak now only 3 destroyers 2 new supply ships that don't go 2 carriers no aircraft no weapons new patrol boat with no weapons half this new hunter ships won't be built.
Might have thebtrendy video and a great philosophy but over 10 years for the first frigate is a joke, they will be outdated before they finish them. Forget sovereign capability, we have proven with Hobart and Adelaide class we are to expensive and slow, build overseas, quicker and cheaper.
Why are units assembled into blocks and then installed into the ship? Could that not exacerbate quality control issues if certain units are below tolerance and this is not identified until after assembly into blocks or even until after the block is installed on the ship? Wouldn’t eliminating the block step in the process reduce the need for heavier equipment like cranes and help speed up the process? If anyone has any information on this or can direct me to said information that would be appreciated.
That’s the way ships have been built for decades. It’s considerably faster and more efficient and there’s no issues with tolerance especially when parts are cut my computerized manufacturing. Even cruise ship staterooms are built individually and then slid into place as the ship is built, this also means these blocks can be built elsewhere then transported to the ship yard allowing a single yard to produce more ships in a year than it otherwise could on its own.
Now that we will have nuclear attack class submarines why are we building this? Hobart and Mogami is a better design for the navy when complimented with the Virginia. Mogami can perform both anti submarine and sea mine warfare……it’s a lot less expensive and can be built a lot quicker. This is a waste of money.
These will replace the Anzac class which will be nearly 40 years old by the time these are commissioned, these are not replacing the Hobart class and the Mogami is being procured along side the Hunter. Both hunter and Mogami can perform ASW while Mogami can deploy sea mines, the Hunter has double the VLS cells for air defence, really not a waste of money
Not a waste of money at all. Surface ships conduct roles that submarines either cannot or would be wasted doing. Things like surface air defence, anti-piracy, protection of shipping and can operate helicopters and drones for surface strike and anti submarine warfare. The surface fleet is extremely important in controlling naval choke points and in supporting marine operations. While submarines will always have an advantage in combat, their limited number and stealth suits them to particular roles. A good mix of both is what our navy needs. I believe the current force plan for the RAN will suit the nation, making us one of the most powerful naval powers in the world, but as everyone already knows, this should have started a decade earlier. But we have to make do with what we have. More submarines will be great, but they only fill one niche. A force balanced for not only China but unpredictable low intensity operations that could suddenly happen (like the East Timor crisis) where Australia has to go it alone is what our Navy needs to be.
I agree. 32 Cell VLS for a destroyer (8000 tons, not a small ship) is obsolete. Needs to be at least twice that. Missiles will be burned through like mad once the shooting starts.
@@gibbo_303every ship has the same basic capabilities of the Anzac, so it’s a question of their specialisation. Hobart = air defence Hunter = anti submarine Mogami = anti submarine and anti sea mine Mogami has less than half the crew requirement and the next version will have 32 cell vls. Hunter looks like a very expensive duplication of Mogami capability that can’t perform anti sea mine warfare. When you add the sensors of the Virginia you have to ask if the additional cost of the Hunter provides a needed capability in fighting Chinese submarines. I would suggest a larger Hobart with more vls cells + lots of Mogami + Virginia, against China this will be more than adequate close to our mainland.
We need these ships now, not in the 2030's.
Well it seems we need to accept it will be the 2030s. Sooner we get use to that idea the better. If all the stars align we might get a General Purpose Frigate before then and it might in part, be able to fulfil our needs.
true but not much we can do now
Yep. The globalist war between globalist usa/aussie/uk and globalist china/RF is nearly ready to kick off. Definitely before 2030
Bugger if I know why Australia taking so long as UK might have 5 of their T26 to our 1 for RAN, UK onto their 3 T26.
@@JimmyShields-z2h I don’t think the English, Canadian and Australian vessels are much like each other. The best we can be is happy that we finally have something started. It’s a bit like the rest of the defence procurement stuff it might not be what was planned. But at least it’s ordered and some stuff is started.
Let’s hope the next government doesn’t try and reinvent the wheel again and just sees some of these plans through to completion.
Need the ships now, not when its too late. And definitely need more than 6!
The Hobart replacement follows the Hunter build.
You say that like they are just sitting around the shipyard doing nothing waiting for the 2030's to arrive.
Almost 3,5 billions a ship could have bought you another 8 ships at least with similar systems and firepower
@@dan7564when you look at how long it will take to build the Hunter and the cost it looks like a complete rip off when compared to the Mogami that can also perform anti sea mine with crew of only 90.
BAE keep updating the Frigates as you increase manufacturing! clear need to improve weapons manufacturing here in Australia starting with 40mm for patrol ships and ahead ammo together with ADI!
Steel in, 10 years to build a ship that should take 2 years.
I think a lot of the is working out a lot of the redesign of the frigate and working on the infrastructure to build it, such as, this shipyard.
Looks fantastic, just get on with it asap. RAN is desperate for these vessels
Hunters need more vls 32 I's to low 64 would be a huge advantage to anti air capabilities
I agree. However, I understand that they will be built in two different groups. The first 3 with 32 and the following ships with many more cells. Our government needs to get its a-se into gear and build all the vessels recommended by the R A Navy review. THEN, where will we get enough sailors to man them?
@@ianrobinson8974 Now that we have the general purpose frigates to boost hull numbers, you'd hope that the second batch trio could swap out the mission bay for more VLS cells and focus on high intensity war fighting. But that would also require a delay and more money. Maybe, that money would be better spent on the LOSV program to boost the hunter's/ Hobart's cells by another 32. It might just be a more efficient way of doing it. And also, if you're part of a larger fleet, they essentially need to sink both the hunter and the LOSV to destroy that large VLS capability otherwise if the hunter is destroyed, the LOSV can just redirect onto another Aegis platform and keep firing.
I still maintain we should be buying some second hand British and American ship that were retired early. As a stop gap until ours were built. Also the US just retired 2 Los Angeles class nuclear powered subs 10 years early, which we could have had nuclear subs now! But with this pathetic government our military is actually going backwards in both manpower and equipment!
Still leaves us with the crewing issues. Low recruiting and retention.
Just as the last who had 8 years to do things.
@elaynewhite069 , governments of all persuasion in Oz since mid 2000 have been good on announcements and weak on delivery but it really doesn't matter what equipment we get if we don't have the personel to command and crew them.
@@stephenwilson-nv1kmcouldn’t have said it better myself.
Still wondering why there are so many antennas on a ship when electronics can run a single active antenna in any frequency.
Ships need to have multiple circuits active simultaneously depending on the operational requirement. Therefore, separate transmitters/receivers/transceivers (depending on the frequency - HF/VHF/UHF), which are then connected to a dedicated antenna are needed for each circuit - you can only actively utilise one antenna for each circuit at any one time. Each antenna would also need to be separated physically from each other to prevent generation of electromagnetic interference. There are also Radiation Hazard (RADHAZ) considerations that need to be taken into account for certain antennas (particularly in the case of HF antennas) that mean that these antennas should be located away from areas regularly required to be occupied by sailors while these antennas are transmitting. One also needs to consider that these are warships, so redundancy of systems is essential for the inevitable moment that an antenna is damaged in battle, or fails to operate when required (often in time/safety critical evolutions), therefore multiple individual antennas for each frequency range, with dedicated and interchangeable connected subsystems is essential for a robust communications suite capabilty.
What Steel? Chinese Steel? 😅
Australia doesn't have a Steel industry anymore despite having the largest reserves of Iron Ore in the world.
Where do they cop the steel from?
The other thing to consider is they are going to wear with pride the MADE IN AUSTRALIA brand. 😍😍😍😍
Low quality stuff
How many years away? Australian navy is very weak now only 3 destroyers 2 new supply ships that don't go 2 carriers no aircraft no weapons new patrol boat with no weapons half this new hunter ships won't be built.
Realy I like this powerful warships
Believe it when I see it.
hows australia have shipyards that look this nice but america's look like an abandoned factory from the first industrial revolution lmao
Can we make flying awrships already?
6 ? it should be at least 60.
Honestly way too slow even though I believe this is the best option….it will absolutely soon be cut back to only 3 ships or perhaps even less
We don’t want this build rushed , we want it done right the first time around not like the Collins subs.
Building warships in Australia has never gone fast, and never will.
Lucky you dont want it fast because it isn't happening.
drone bait
Just a joke ! Nice cartoon ! South Korea build 25 % of the world’s shipping , perhaps they could give us a ‘ six pack ‘ prior to war .
Might have thebtrendy video and a great philosophy but over 10 years for the first frigate is a joke, they will be outdated before they finish them. Forget sovereign capability, we have proven with Hobart and Adelaide class we are to expensive and slow, build overseas, quicker and cheaper.
Why are units assembled into blocks and then installed into the ship? Could that not exacerbate quality control issues if certain units are below tolerance and this is not identified until after assembly into blocks or even until after the block is installed on the ship? Wouldn’t eliminating the block step in the process reduce the need for heavier equipment like cranes and help speed up the process? If anyone has any information on this or can direct me to said information that would be appreciated.
That’s the way ships have been built for decades. It’s considerably faster and more efficient and there’s no issues with tolerance especially when parts are cut my computerized manufacturing. Even cruise ship staterooms are built individually and then slid into place as the ship is built, this also means these blocks can be built elsewhere then transported to the ship yard allowing a single yard to produce more ships in a year than it otherwise could on its own.
Everything is pre-cast now. Some of them are modular too.
Now that we will have nuclear attack class submarines why are we building this? Hobart and Mogami is a better design for the navy when complimented with the Virginia. Mogami can perform both anti submarine and sea mine warfare……it’s a lot less expensive and can be built a lot quicker.
This is a waste of money.
Australia is copying the High - Low Mix of the US.
These will replace the Anzac class which will be nearly 40 years old by the time these are commissioned, these are not replacing the Hobart class and the Mogami is being procured along side the Hunter. Both hunter and Mogami can perform ASW while Mogami can deploy sea mines, the Hunter has double the VLS cells for air defence, really not a waste of money
Not a waste of money at all. Surface ships conduct roles that submarines either cannot or would be wasted doing.
Things like surface air defence, anti-piracy, protection of shipping and can operate helicopters and drones for surface strike and anti submarine warfare.
The surface fleet is extremely important in controlling naval choke points and in supporting marine operations.
While submarines will always have an advantage in combat, their limited number and stealth suits them to particular roles.
A good mix of both is what our navy needs. I believe the current force plan for the RAN will suit the nation, making us one of the most powerful naval powers in the world, but as everyone already knows, this should have started a decade earlier.
But we have to make do with what we have. More submarines will be great, but they only fill one niche. A force balanced for not only China but unpredictable low intensity operations that could suddenly happen (like the East Timor crisis) where Australia has to go it alone is what our Navy needs to be.
I agree. 32 Cell VLS for a destroyer (8000 tons, not a small ship) is obsolete. Needs to be at least twice that. Missiles will be burned through like mad once the shooting starts.
@@gibbo_303every ship has the same basic capabilities of the Anzac, so it’s a question of their specialisation.
Hobart = air defence
Hunter = anti submarine
Mogami = anti submarine and anti sea mine
Mogami has less than half the crew requirement and the next version will have 32 cell vls. Hunter looks like a very expensive duplication of Mogami capability that can’t perform anti sea mine warfare. When you add the sensors of the Virginia you have to ask if the additional cost of the Hunter provides a needed capability in fighting Chinese submarines.
I would suggest a larger Hobart with more vls cells + lots of Mogami + Virginia, against China this will be more than adequate close to our mainland.