Hobart Class Destroyer Air Warfare Capability Royal Australian Navy 

We need at least 3 per fleet for them to be effective. Let alone an actually carrier or two for air superiority.

@@TheGypsyTurtle Generally agree with you, but: the new Type 26 "frigates" will be close to the same size as the Hobart class (which is itself technically derived from a Spanish Navy frigate). The T-26 ships are large and capable enough to function as destroyers in a pinch. I know the Navy League of Australia was advocating for a fourth Hobart ship to be built, and in my view, this would have been a good idea. Again, though, the T-26's will be a significant upgrade over your current Anzac class ships, so the trend is still upward overall. What you really need to do it arm your large LHD's with F-35s. Put a dozen of those on each of those flattops and you're in business.

Maybe they don't have enough money. That's usually the reason.

We need a Government to stop buying votes with tax cuts then. I’m happy to pay a bit of extra tax to fund the purchase of more defence equipment, and enough to pay to operate them.

Yes please..

a copycat of Spanish frigate

@@Emilechen not a frigate Spain Germany Norway and the Dutch all have destroyers with the same capabilities as France and the Uk yet there left wing governments want to call them frigates as they are not military countries and only spend 1-1.5% on defence in all 4 countries. No frigate in the world has sm2 and even the Anzac cant use that even with the best frigate radar in the world or most modern

They have a long and proud tradition of running over other ships. Which is cooler than any weapons system. 😂

A D C god bless New Zealand from Australia

What a Beatiful Ship

A D C your navy consists of a row boat for patrolling!

Airsoft Wars thank you mate.

What a load of crap ,you have never served in the forces so keep your mouth shut.

and beer

The Hobart class is based on the Navantia design, but built in Australia.

Australia doesn't have a crappy navy. Australia doesn't actually have a navy. It's more like a coast guard.

They are very skilled though. But still, TINY.

Its not the Sailors, its the pathetic politicians like Pyne (now X) who as Ministers and other decision makers. plus the marxist public servants aiding, never quite get it right. The Hobart Destroyers are a converted Spanish Frigate hence lack of enough armament to fight. Subs another example. Will probably be a great boat but its lead time is pathetic that it has to act as a Frigate and get out before the fight really starts. As said, not the Aussie sailors fault that they end up with the worst side of compromise over time almost all the time and then not enough to really do the job.

You need only little modifications. Juan Carlos I class can operate 15 Harrier ll plus or in the future14 f35b

And Australia have two

Nope. Subs are better for Aussies. Trust me. I'm not even from Australia. But Australian navy has more talent in operating submarines than surface ships. Kind of like the Russian navy. It's pretty well known. Although, a few more of these (at least 2 more) wouldn't hurt.

@picatostes Bjd y tu que me lees…

Qrido amigo ese' es el mejor barco de gerra que surcan los mares echo en España. La f100 y ya estamos con la f110 una maravilla" y me alegro que australia y España. Cooperen en la industria militar haora podiamos ccoperar con los sucmarinos que estamos haciendo en nuestro pais que son una maravilla.

Cor Sijtsma There are lots of differences between Spanish design and American's ones. Spanish one need much less crew. Their radars are placed higher (longer range) Design is much more modern and so on... Only there is one thing in common, the AEGIS system.

Cor sijtsma I don’t think it looks like one at all.

Paul Gallant we have two carriers, well LHD’s

@@brentoninsertname5948 They can't operate fixed wings. They're not carriers, they're amphibious assault ships - like the USS Guam which was here for the recent exercises.

and the guam broke down and had to be replaced with an aussie version..lol....these LHD's r pretty but useless ships.

Dmenace The Canberra LHDs have the capability to operate fixed-wing aircraft, but the RAN doesn’t operate them.

@@rohanahern5053 No, Camberra class is not prepare for fixed wing planes. It is different than the spanish Juan Carlos I. Australia didn't want this capability.

its not based on the Burke at all not one single bit. The burke was the 2nd best choice in the comp. Its nearly exactly the same as the spanish ship with a few tiny mods. The spanish ship was already optimized with US weapons, the hobart have almost half the crew of the burke

four! shit thats a good idea... quick email that to the government they probably never thought of that

They usually get our hand me downs???? Australia looks like its taking its defense initiatives very very seriously....

caitgems1 Like, what? The only major ships we have of US origin are the Adelaide Class. The ANZAC, Collins, Canberra, all new build European. In fact, I don't think the Navy has ever operated an ex USN ship, so no we've never had a "hand me down".

Tim Blizzard He is talking about about the UK. That is correct, he is from England.

Robert Brockway The last British ship we bought were the oberons, in like 1960. Apart from HMS Largs Bay, which we bought at a steal.

Tim Blizzard Don't talk to me, I never made any statement about that.

The Spanish are great allies of Australia. Us Aussies are glad to have Spain on our side

Great Navy Projection and Cheap

no one to sail them lmao

montsouthern 4 more minimum. Theres a lot of coast and there’s any number of places in the Indo Pacific region that would require a couple of these at a time, along with other ships.

Spain is a poor country and have 5

@@jccalvente tus cuernos españa pobre jajajajaaj anda vete a plantar platanos.

And the fourth largest Air Force in the World

@@charlieroberts7775 for about a 18 month period correct, if you check the military budget in 1960 Australia defence budget was actually higher than both India and China for the only time in history. No i should say economy GDP china and india were probably spending 15% GDP on defence then which is why they both went broke fighting wars and draining there resources in that period

No. Is F100 spanish class, but australian.

Hobart class and F100 seems to Arleigh Burke as a Wolf seem a dog. Very basically

What for? If you only have one you cant use it for power projection; every time it got somewhere you needed it to be you would have to send it home for refit and training cycles. So if you cant use it for power projection, then what are you using it for?

Hello Tim Blizzard, I understand what your saying . But we will have 2 LHD's with simular capability's to give people some of the training they need . One more thing the Australian Aircraft carrier Melbourne was alone and it did fine .

give em a few subs too

David Olver LHD's are totally different to carriers, massively different internally in the way they manage fuel and stores and in their ability to maintain aircraft. They lack the communications equipment and damage control facilities to be used as carriers. They are intended to fulfil a totally different role. As for training the problem isn't getting people used to similar types of ships, its sending the carrier and the crew home from deployment to conduct maintaince and on shore training stuff. That's why if you only have 1 of something you cant keep it at sea at all times, so really 2 = 1. As for melbourne the reason she wasnt replaced was the pitfalls of only having one carrier. We originally bought two majestic's; Melbourne and Sydney. But because of cost and the need for a dedicated amphib sydney was never utilised as a carrier. Thus we only ever really had half a carrier at best. If it was worth the cost of having a single carrier the RAN would have pushed very hard for a replacement.

jeffrey gussman Were getting 12.

Good to know you don't consider only one navy to be the threat. Of course every nation has its own goals. And Australia should remain independent and maintain sovereignty. Not take sides.

Its amazing how many people voice their opinion on what the ADF should have - but no one ever mentions the cost to the Australian taxpayer. Next time you make a comment - please tell me how to pay for them. Thank you

@@jackeagles1637 we'll really pay for it if we can't defend ourselves and are intimidated in our territorial waters...look what's happening in the south China sea

No need for extra weapons. Australia isn't in an arms race like USA and China. USA and China are more concerned with having more powerful ships than having better sailors. That's why their ships get run over by cargo ships or break down every few hours.

Or SM 6 or Tomahawks, You can choose the combination.

I agree. But this frigate is expensive and is more of a super frigate. I don’t see a 48 cell vls going in the US version. But I will be disappointed if it is anything less than 32 cells. The f-100 frigate is a beauty. Looks a lot like the Burks.

@@armchairgeneral7557 actually this is exactly what the US Admirals want. Half a Burke blue Navy missile frigate.

No you wont.Western Australia Has the Naval bases.I have seen aircraft carrier here between Perth an Rotness.

@@tapper1942 ...what are you on about?

Steve Struthers Hmmmm..so your saying Australia is years behind Canada.......I think not. The big difference is the technology onboard.

+Ricky Hunter: I'm not saying that at all, I just thought it was interesting that the proposed design incorporates a couple of features found on Canadian warships.

The list covered everything that is anything lol. But these days with technology so far advanced, there is a set position for armaments on ships and i suppose other military equipment, that offers the best profile for all round protection. Australias older ships, like many navies did not have those up to date armament profiles yet. I am guessing they will look like many other ships now. What do you think on the new RAN LHD HMS Canberra. Its a decent sucker fer sure. It is about time.

+Steve Struthers That can be said of many warship design though, having a forward mounted VLS, behind the main gun, Harpoon's mounted a midships and CIWS on the hangar isn't unique to Canadian design. Burkes are similar, so are the GCS.

The hobart class is based in a spanish air defense frigate

Olvidas que también los 2 buques de apoyo ligistico/petroleros de escuadra son también de fabricación española. ¿Por qué compra Australia buques españoles o de diseño espñol?. Porque son buques de una gran calidad, que cuentan con una tecnología muy avanzada en electrónica, están bien armados y tienen un precio razonable. En los productos navales españoles están actualmente interesados Polonia, India, Turquia y posiblemente de nuevo Noruega. Igualmente es posible que ante los graves problemas técnicos, de diseño, de prestaciones, de sobrecostes y de retraso en la entrega de las fragatas británicas Type 26, Australia construya más unidades de la clase HOBART (serie 100 de la Armada Española) o bien se interese por las novísimas fragatas españolas de la serie F-110 de NAVANTIA.

First of all no AEGIS, RAN named AEGIS as a fundamental requirement given its ability to manage an entire theatre. Second of all where are you getting that cost from? Third of all how, the fuck, would the RAN man 30 6kt frigates? The problem with the super brukes are the manning levels, which are insane. Plus the government wants to invest in a local shipbuilding industry. There's more to it than simply cost. the RAN and RAAF have been caught out before relying on allies to provide us with weapons in wartime. We need the capability to produce our own surface combatants here if we need more in a hurry.

Tim Blizzard AEGIS is a sensor suite, the huitfeldt has a different suite (nearly identical to that off the T45 UK destroyer), this ship was just an example of a roughly comparable ship that is much cheaper (1/10th the price). The sensor suite is also ABM ready, the AEGIS-SPY suite is not. It is easier to take the existing ship, and modify it slightly to get the features you want, than design an entirely new ship. The ships are more like 7,000Ton, more with a slightly stretched hull. Assuming the avg fulltime wage cited below, and a generous over provision of 50% (for crew training, holdiday rotations etc..etc..) we get a figure of about 11M per ship per year, 330M for the entire fleet, and 9.9Bn in present day dollars spread over the lifetime of the ship in crew wages (assuming a 30 year life). For a total cost-weapons-basing-maintenance-upgrades of 18.9Bn, which is only 0.0004% of GDP per year using present figures. The super burkes work out similar because labour and ship costs are roughly 3x higher each. As for being dependent, you could always assemble the ships domestically, but you are still dependent on foreign countries for the engines, the design/technology, many of the components, the weapons that go into them, the helicopters that are launched from them. As for producing surface combat ships, and in a hurry, those two dont go together in todays age. It takes a very long time to build them (like 2-3 years), I am guessing that this could be done in arround 1 if the port was really efficent, even simple ships like container ships take like 1/4-1/3 of a year to make. Price of huitfeldt: >www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/hdms-ivar-huitfeldt.htm Wages: >mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/what-is-the-typical-australians-income-in-2013/

Jacobite 1. Aegis is a computer system, its not a sensor suite. That's pretty fundamental dude, and its a significant element of the cost of the Hobarts. The physical computer system takes up several rooms on several decks of a Burke. Its essentially a theatre wide battle management system. This is pretty basic info dude. Its way more than just SPY-1D, which was purchased separately anyway; i.e. if you look at the congressional publications you'll see that the RAN purchased AEGIS in addition to the sensors. The Type 45, huitfeldt and FREMM simply lack this level of capability. 2. AEGIS already has a theatre wide ABM capability developed through SM-3, though there are currently no plans to integrate that system with the Hobart's. 3. We didn't design the Hobart from scratch, its a modified F-100, so I dont know why that's important and in any case, it required less modification, and thus included less risk, than stretching a huitfeldt . 4. Those costs of manning are way, way off. You cant just take 'average' civilian wages and apply them to a ship. The costs of sustaining personnel on deployment, from specialised training scheduled to housing to basing are far higher. 5. In terms of manning cost is pretty much irrelevant. the ADF literally cant find enough people to man the ships it currently has. Now we are talking about 30 7kt frigates? No, we could barely man 4. And there's no way were bringing in conscription. 6. Domestic construction has been deemed a strategic necessity, which throws all those cost numbers you cited (which I have problems with anyway) completely out the window. 7. At a leisurely, peacetime, low threat scenario Tenix Australia launched an ANZAC class frigate every 12 to 18 months from one facility in Melbourne. If that threat increased so could the rate production, not just by increasing the speed of building but the number being built simultaneously. I'm pretty sure you could lay down 4 or 5 hulls simultaneously in that one facility. There are others in Adelaide and Sydney. 8. The ability to produce smaller equipment like helicopters requires far less capital investment than shipbuilding and Australia already has more than enough domestic capability to open up a production line quickly. We already produce high end sensor systems, including CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT and its big brother AUSPAR which will replace SPY-1D on the Hobarts. Thus, if required, there really is very little in terms of supporting sub systems and weapons which could not be manufactured here with relative ease. Shipbuilding, however, is a different story. So to sum up, AEGIS brings a battle management capability, above and beyond its supporting sensor systems (which are supplemented by CEC anyway) which was deemed essential by the RAN within the AWD project; which is why the Type 45 was not considered. We must produce these ships domestically (which renders any cost comparisons moot) on strategic grounds. We cannot realistically man any more than 4 of these destroyers without conscription. Thus the huitfeldt is a dumb idea.

Tim Blizzard Dude the European ships have their own C&C (computer systems) systems designed to do the same thing, it's not like AEGIS is some uniqe and magical thing, european systems can do the same stuff. (Oh and the burkes are not ABM ready, the USN plans on bringing a few upto ABM capacity status). Manning costs are exactly that, that is to say the cost of manning a ship. In order to attract workers the wages need to be atleast the prevailing wage, undoubtably with some sort of premium associated with the inherint dangers, and the inconvinience of tours, and being on call. Note that while I did not include such a premium, I did include overage to allow for rotation of staff (from active deployment) and for purposes of training. As I said basing costs were not counted, this was just a rough calculation to get a rough figure, not a 100% accurate calculation. But I doubt even adding stuff in would significantly increase costs, which on an annual basis are already very low. In regards to maintaining a workforce, that is the responsibility of RAN, either they are not paying enough, or conditions are not very good (seen as a joke, poor conditions on ship, unpleasent place to work, etc..etc..). Either way that is something for RAN to sort out. Its not like there is actually a physical shortage of people in australia. And yes my guess is that a 7,000 tonne warship could at best be produced in 6 months, but building 3 ships does not equate to having a viable domestic shipbuilding industry, in order to have that you need to keep the shipyards booked consistently in order to maintain the skilled workforce of labourers and keep the shipyards afloat. This requires a comercially viable shipbuilding industry, something which australia lacks. And even so australia still lacks production and design capacity for all the systems that go into the ships, the weapons, the engines/motors etc..etc.. And FYI it is probably more usefull to have a domestic aerospace industry, planes could probably be produced far more quickly than large warships... FYI destroyers/frigates are practically useless (unless operated along domestic shoes) anyway without carrier support to give other the horizon data, to provide tageting information for long range ASMs. And standoff weapons like the brahmos ASM that travels at high-supersonic speed, and is sea-skimming are very hard to stop (very low intercept periods, huge ammounts of kinetic energy/fuel, even if you did defeat the warhead).

Jacobite Aegis is a combination of the phased array radar and the computer system that enables the system to track accurately hundreds of targets

Spy radar can't spot f35. That's why Americans always rave on about "stealth". However, European and Russian radars can spot them. That's why they don't worry too much about stealth. My guess is that either European and Russian radars are much better, or US radars are plain CRAP. I'm going with the latter.

It's is a decent jet just to many of Putin's followers giving it a bad reputation. Most people I've seen that have something bad to say about the jets have Russian flags for their profile pictures.

@@calenancarrow7547 I'm not Russian nor do I like them. But the F35 isn't the unbearable all mighty war machine that people say it is. It's a very good jet. But no where near as great as its hype.

Destroyers and frigates are surface warships.Some nations don't like the word destroyer and prefer the word frigate. The British and it appears the Aussies prefer to name a ship a destroyer if it provides area anti-air defense. The Hobart class does.