Interesting answers so far, thankyou! Fascinating to think that at time of comparison the countries had similar populations, yet 110 years of technological advances, the results aren’t as crystal clear as one would think!
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Taiwan though has a significant lead in manufacturing of advanced micro chips and there is a strong argument that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan imperils the economic security of most advanced nations and that those nations should support Taiwan
The U.S. Has a Microchip Problem. Safeguarding Taiwan Is the Solution. - The Atlantic
I wonder how the Green Ghost would go against both, the greyhound doing 36 knots@40 years old, just showed how well the engineers looked after ships in the day.
HMAS Hobart's Final Voyage, Speed Trial 36 knots - YouTube
Source- You Tube
Never get sick of watching this greyhound of the sea that could pack a punch!!
Old ships……doing an end around of a USN task group in the South China Sea we once kept up a speed of over thirty knots for 24 hours. She rattled and shook a bit!
peterAustralia
Member
ahem,,, semiconductors are light... they fit in an aircraft... You can, and I have personally,,, traveled from Australia to south america,, and you fly over Antarctica,, just route the plane south save yourself a few tens of billions of dollars,, just saying
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Great view of the prop wake.
Makes me ask if those ships were that tough against modern weapons why don’t they build modern ships to the same level?
Mission kill.
These ships may or may not have had immune zones against certain weapons at certain trajectories at certain ranges, across certain parts of the platform referred to as the "vitals".
The vitals were usually the machinery, magazines/shell rooms, maybe some weapon stations, firecontrol and command. As technology improved the immune zones shrank and the volume that required protection increased.
Instead of an armoured conning tower there were now CICs and AICs (command centres) instead of armoured range finders there were radars, optronics etc of much larger volume. None of which could be easily protected.
Well, I am no expert but missile boats from the 1970s with their old Silkworm ASHMs would be able to comfortably take out these behemoths without even having to come into their effective ranges.
If such heavily armoured but non Air defense ships were built all we would need to counter them would be anti shipping missiles with bigger warheads. Without any sort of EW or hard countermeasures to worry about, a simple missile with simple electornics and big warhead would do the trick.
Last edited:
It will never cease to frustrate me that one of the DDGs wasn't turned into a museum.
I always felt that USN steam machinery from pre WW2 to the end of the steam era was as good as any and better than most. They hit the nail on the head when the era of increased pressure and double reduction turbines came about.
I remember when one of the USN Adams, USS Cochrane, visited Sydney in the late 1970s, there was a media report that she was the fastest of the class in the US fleet, and that she was going to try her luck against her RAN sisters (which were also said to be very fast). Never heard if that happened or how it went. Does anyone happen to know?
thatsamguy
Member
Although not confirmed, it looks like the first leaks of the surface fleet review are out.
Other than the timing for the destroyers, nothing on timing, conops or about the Arafuras so far.
Doesn't seem like much will happen quickly unless Lurrssen/Civmec is switching from Arafura to "corvette" (whatever that means).
This suggests that many of the observations made by others here are correct - final 3 Hunters replaced with Destroyers as well as adding 3-6 "corvettes".
Other than the timing for the destroyers, nothing on timing, conops or about the Arafuras so far.
Doesn't seem like much will happen quickly unless Lurrssen/Civmec is switching from Arafura to "corvette" (whatever that means).
Arghhhhh
The mystery continues.
The very long term stuff could still go many ways regardless of what is announced in 2023/24
It's the decisions, if any regarding change within the next eight to ten years that I'd like to know.
More leaks in the weeks / months ahead may give an indication of the RANs future reality.
Or maybe we just have to wait till mid next year.
Interesting times
Regards S
Sad day, wish we had em now with upgraded radar and a 32 cell Mk 41, not the slightest bit of rust when it retired.
HMAS Hobart's Decommissioning Ceremony - YouTube
Extract of an article on the Naval Review in the SMH tomorrow. speculation? Maybe but sorta kinda sounds along the lines that have been discussed publicly. Swapping 3 Hunters for 3 X Hunter hulled DDGs with up to 5 X the number of missile cells ? And 3-9 corvettes ?
Sources briefed on the findings of a review of the navy’s surface fleet, which was delivered to Defence Minister Richard Marles last week, said it had recommended slashing the planned number of Hunter-class frigates from nine to six, as current shipbuilding projects face cost overruns of up to $20 billion.
The Hunter-class frigates have blown out in size and cost since the program was announced in 2018, with critics saying the ships’ lack of missile cells would leave them seriously under-gunned in any conflict.
The surface fleet review, led by retired US vice-admiral William Hilarides, is said to call for the final three frigates to be replaced by air warfare destroyers, which could carry up to five times as many missiles as the Hunter-class ships.
“Hilarides definitely backed a further destroyer-type capability,” a source briefed on the contents of the review but not authorised to speak publicly said.
These ships could be made at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards using the same hull as the Hunter-class frigates under a proposal to be submitted by BAE Systems, the British defence firm that designed the Hunter-class ships.
The review is also said to recommend acquiring three to six corvette-style ships, in line with the defence strategic review’s recommendation that the national fleet should have a mix of larger and smaller navy combatants.
apple.news
Sources briefed on the findings of a review of the navy’s surface fleet, which was delivered to Defence Minister Richard Marles last week, said it had recommended slashing the planned number of Hunter-class frigates from nine to six, as current shipbuilding projects face cost overruns of up to $20 billion.
The Hunter-class frigates have blown out in size and cost since the program was announced in 2018, with critics saying the ships’ lack of missile cells would leave them seriously under-gunned in any conflict.
The surface fleet review, led by retired US vice-admiral William Hilarides, is said to call for the final three frigates to be replaced by air warfare destroyers, which could carry up to five times as many missiles as the Hunter-class ships.
“Hilarides definitely backed a further destroyer-type capability,” a source briefed on the contents of the review but not authorised to speak publicly said.
These ships could be made at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards using the same hull as the Hunter-class frigates under a proposal to be submitted by BAE Systems, the British defence firm that designed the Hunter-class ships.
The review is also said to recommend acquiring three to six corvette-style ships, in line with the defence strategic review’s recommendation that the national fleet should have a mix of larger and smaller navy combatants.
Navy firepower boost: Review wants more destroyers, fewer frigates — The Sydney Morning Herald
Three heavily armed air warfare destroyers would be added to the national fleet under a plan being considered by the federal government
apple.news
Quickest way to get everything probably
Overseas-3 Hobarts and 3-6 ALFA 3000(the deal from a couple of years back for $10 billion)
SA-6 Hunters(reduced from 9) followed by 3-6 Hunter DDG or 3-6 Type 83.
WA-6 MCM(Luerssen) based off Arafura (switch to navantia) 0-3 ALFA 3000, Littoral and 3 JSS
more than likely though...
No Overseas build
SA-6 Hunters + 3-6 Hunter DDG
WA-6 C90
Navantia vs Babcock in the AFR
Ministers face billions in blowouts for new warships
Existing programs for new and upgraded warships are increasing in costs, as the government grapples with a fresh wishlist for the navy.
I don't think it's much of a surprise that the Admiral from the navy made up mostly of DDGs said we should get more DDGs.
And I agree that we need the additional air warfare capability.
If this leak is credible then the main worries I have are that the government or future government turn the 3 DDGs into a Hobart replacement instead of an addition to them.
Also that we end up acquiring corvettes which are insufficient for our geographic requirements. Ideally somebody convinces parliament that Japan's 30FFM design is a corvette or alternatively we get something like the Thaon di Revel-class "OPV" from Italy which has a range of 5,000nmi and theoretical capability of fitting 16 tactical or strike length Mk 41 VLS cells.
Points of interest are that the corvettes would apparently not involve the OPVs or more Hunters being cancelled and also that a DDG with "up to 150" VLS cells is on the table.
And I agree that we need the additional air warfare capability.
If this leak is credible then the main worries I have are that the government or future government turn the 3 DDGs into a Hobart replacement instead of an addition to them.
Also that we end up acquiring corvettes which are insufficient for our geographic requirements. Ideally somebody convinces parliament that Japan's 30FFM design is a corvette or alternatively we get something like the Thaon di Revel-class "OPV" from Italy which has a range of 5,000nmi and theoretical capability of fitting 16 tactical or strike length Mk 41 VLS cells.
Points of interest are that the corvettes would apparently not involve the OPVs or more Hunters being cancelled and also that a DDG with "up to 150" VLS cells is on the table.
Last edited: