#THYSSENKRUPP 

I believe it be good platform as long as they don't mess too much with the design. 32 cell for that ship size displacement is good. I just hope they plan to upgunned the hunter.class atleast for Tier 1 it wouldn't make sense to have both the 11 frigates and 6 hunter class all designed for just ASW.

@@Nathan-ry3yu Yes, I agree. I believe the whole Hunter class needs to be dropped. The 6 Type 26 will cost up to $65 billion - up to $6 billion per ship (far too expensive and contrary to the move towards smaller ships in greater number). Australia needs to cut its losses and use that money to purchase 8-10 frigates for Tier 1 and Tier 2

​@robertmcquade6251 Yes, I 100% agree. it's very expensive for a ASW platform. To be honest they would been better of building 16 of Mogami-class frigate from Japan. Crew of 90 on each vessel. For ASW vessels,it basically has everything RAN needs for ASW platform and some long strike capability and has a very good radar system like the CEFAR-2 system. 5500 tonnes fully loaded. Using missiles and system RAN looking for. Instead of building hunter class frigate they be better of building 6 Navantia flight III destroyers that has 128 cell VLS instead to replace the hobart class destroyers. And also scrap the idea of building 6 optional crewed vessels. And instead purchase a squadron of long range stealth bombers . A surface combating fleet of 22 vessels is still double than what RAN currently have. It will work well when eventually 8 nuclear powerd submarines arive. A squadron of stealth bombers for RAAF would give RAN an upper hand and would respond faster to any threat.. I think the current pick for defence posture .sucks too much ASW platforms. Not enough offensive strike capability to the mix.

Yes, we have similar ideas. The whole defense structure is weak and definitely lacks offensive, defensive and survivability. I feel the whole idea of 12 ships in Tier 1 (power projection) and 12 or more ships in Tier 2 for EEZ protection makes greater strategic sense - just look at the UK and why it was unable to deploy its second aircraft carrier due to a lack of Tier 1 vessels. Although the RAN lacks an aircraft carrier the two Canberra class ships have been muted for an air wing of possibly F35 B's - requiring the need for Tier 1ships. I agree, the Mogami class is a vey good choice and has good seakeeping qualities. It fits well with RAN armament requirements plus personnel needs with a crew of only 90 - even for the proposed batch II Mogami class. The whole Type 26 deal was an under the counter political deal not a strategic deal. My belief is that Australia needs to strengthen its ties with this part of the world, such as Japan and Korea - both are world leaders in ship building and can produce ships quicker and cheaper than the UK. The 6 optional crewed ships should be scrapped and think this is just government pipe dreams to make further delays in navy procurement and avoid the whole problem with ADF staffing issues. A tier 2 fleet of a mix of light and heavy corvettes would be much more in line with actual security needs. Further, the Tier 3 level of vessels need to be actual weapons platforms rather than a policeman's wet dream. Neither the Arafura class or the evolved Cape class would be little more than cannon fodder if it ever encountered a Chinese fishing fleet. Rather than supplying actual gunboats and armed patrol boats with the necessary means offensive and defensive weaponry to protect the our servicemen and women, the government and military mindset is to overlook such risks for the sake of spending. The whole notion of talk softly but carry a big stick is very relevant to Tier 3 vessels. The current Japanese patrol ship, for example is 540 tonnes with a 76mm mm main gun and 4 anti-ship missiles to ensure the survivability of these ships. I do not agree with the whole RAN doctrine being centered around the promise of nuclear submarines. This is flawed thinking on a number of levels. Japan and South Korea both have fleets 4-5 time bigger than Australia, but have rejected the whole nuclear submarine issue. Why? The cost is exorbitant, crew numbers are high and the long-term decommissioning of any SSN is prohibitive. There are over 90 countries with navies yet only 6 of them have nuclear SSNs and three of those have a mix of conventional and nuclear submarines. Further, in the event of any conflict the US would requisition all its leased SSN's and Australia would be exposed and without a fleet of submarines. The US is also dropping its SSN production, thereby incurring further delays for the RAN. The whole Aukus deal is basically a political scam to get Australia to store military nuclear waste while dangling a carrot for the RAN. Also look into the former PM's, Scott Morrison's business movements after this announcement. It was basically insider trading when he secured shares in the industries related to servicing and supplying Aukus. @@Nathan-ry3yu

Yeah lets buy all tier 2 systems and get rid of tie 1 Hunters ...............China would chomp us up.

What One Nation as LNP is all talk. How much was wasted on 3 different sub programs? Why does it take so long to buy equipment? Why does Australia need 3 Armoured Combat Brigade none of which is amphibious or airborne? Yet, we still have limited amphibious after 10 years of LNP.

How wrong was this comment 😂😂😂😂

Richard Marles is dangerous and I'm a Labor supporter. He has cut projects across the board with China breathing down our necks.

@@XxBloggs Your wrong ask any one that current Australian defence force and in the foreseeable future (10years) is vulnerable, and he is retiring 2 x ANZAC frigates with no replacements.

I hope not as a measly 1 x 57mm main gun will be severely out ranged by Chinese frigates.