Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I remember seeing HMAS Arrow in Darwin just after Cyclone Tracy - she'd been thrown about something terrible... poor little bugger never had a chance....
I've only seen pictures of the aftermath, it cetainly wasn't pretty GF. At the least the Navy has learnt from that, with a cyclone warning the ships now head out to sea to get some sea-room or are pulled up on the hardstand. In Cairns they either go to sea or are moored a fair way up Trinity Inlet to ride it out.
Cheers
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just found RETROSPECTIVES: 1986 - Patrol boat HMAS Ardent, Hobart RANR training ship is out to greet the battleship USS Missouri. Photo Graeme Andrews. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Looked at their yard on Google Map's and there is a boat under something near the water with just one end sticking out, only thing I can see there that could even possibly be her?

Edit: there is a ship history below the photo through the link, didn't want to link to the photo.
Cheers Steve, thanks for the info. Had a look at the area, the bow looks similar but looks too short overall. My guess is she was scrapped like most of the Freos in Darwin were.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Cheers Steve, thanks for the info. Had a look at the area, the bow looks similar but looks too short overall. My guess is she was scrapped like most of the Freos in Darwin were.

I was working in germany when they were finally decommissioned and was asked to assist in getting rid of some of them (11/2006 to 12/2007)

A couple of the Freos went offshore, One went to the Barbados police.

A couple were cannibalised for that numpty TV series.

The last 6 were offered up at $2m each and were in pretty good nick considering.

I've got stacks of photos from the job (about 50+, mainly engine room, bridge, machinery etc....)

(Hulls 217, 204 visible)

I'd have to go to my archives and download them all - probably 30+ photos
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was working in germany when they were finally decommissioned and was asked to assist in getting rid of some of them (11/2006 to 12/2007)

A couple of the Freos went offshore, One went to the Barbados police.

A couple were cannibalised for that numpty TV series.

The last 6 were offered up at $2m each and were in pretty good nick considering.

I've got stacks of photos from the job, but no hull numbers that I can recall

(correction 217, 204 visible)

I'd have to go to my archives and download them all - probably 30+ photos
Got to admit I hadn't heard of any of the Freos going offshore. Most of what I heard was that they were too clapped out. I believe the Indons and some Pacific Islands did enquire about the possibility of a transfer, but the powers-that-be said no due to the work concerned in refurb.
I thought the only Freo that survived was the Townsville for use as a museum/memorial.
Can you remember which Freos were sold overseas GF? Just a look through my Jane's archives and can't find any mention of any going to Barbados, not that I'm saying it didn't happen.
Cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Got to admit I hadn't heard of any of the Freos going offshore. Most of what I heard was that they were too clapped out. I believe the Indons and some Pacific Islands did enquire about the possibility of a transfer, but the powers-that-be said no due to the work concerned in refurb.
I thought the only Freo that survived was the Townsville for use as a museum/memorial.
Can you remember which Freos were sold overseas GF? Just a look through my Jane's archives and can't find any mention of any going to Barbados, not that I'm saying it didn't happen.
Cheers
I haven't got a pennant number, but in the email traffic I got from the breaker they state that one has gone to the Caribbean as a police boat. I don't think that any australian based ones survived the breakers. some of the spares that went with them were new, even some of the spare MTU's

I've got very few shots of full view hulls (3 in total, 1 is a pair side by side on the ramps). all the other shots are either onboard or engineering shots

the one used for Sea Patrol was cannibalised from a couple of others. IIRC they had to use another for Ser 2
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
Thats how the problems with K & M started in the first place!! :lam



These ships are effectively being purchased as fleet flagships and expeditionary force command ships all in one. The UK equivilants would be Albion and Bulwark, the US Equivilent would be Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney.



Manoora is gone, Kanimbla probably should be gone as well. Also, a Bay class, which has very little-to no C&C equipment aboard is no replacement for the FULL C&C facilities aboard K & M. A Bay class would however be an ideal replacement for HMAS Tobruk.



I don't think Chillie or Brazil have the money, but even if they did, there are more important issues at stake, and a lease would potentially give the RN her back in 5-10 years when they have a bit more money.



I hope not, the F-100 is an old (1990's) design, they'd (and probably us to) would probably be better off using the hull and Engines of the Daring class if they were to use an existing hull design as a basis for the T26.

Plus T26 *should* already be a fair way through the design process, they've been working on it long enough.
Any lease or purchase of old ships would be just until the Lhd arrives, in 2012 or 2013, that´s because it doesn´t really matter is old, is not for longer than 2012 or 2013. Being also similar type, Newport, maybe just swap the CC and medical equipment to the Lst. It might sound risky, imagine again they break what a nightmare would be. But probably Spanish Lst have gone much less use than Australian in the last 10 years, cause they´ve been using more the Galicia and Castilla.
These Lst might sound extreme and risky, but as you say there are other ships not as old but also in their last cycle of life, being unused, that you could get almost free by purchase or leasing.

It depends on what part of the existing gap want you to fill. At least was the humanitarian aid and locally militar deployments. HIgh intensity Command and control and significant medical caps is other thing.


The problem wiht lease is what do you do if you unluckily in that little time of lease you enter in combat operations and the ship is hit, then lease it with insurance eheh


Well, from the Rn thread i understood the T26, or types of , like the offered to Brazil, were using F100 design similar to Awd.
That design, including Aegis, cost Adf +200 mill euro., and it is not just it will be used for the Awd but for future Anzacs in 5-10 years ahead (maybe).
The F100 design being 90´s or not it makes its job, and is very flexible, in the size of ship you want, in the different warfares, able to feed high consume sensors or not, or being Command and control or not, etc, that´s the important to make the job or as many jobs you want it to make.

Now, if Rn or British companies make a deal from T26 or derived, they will have to pay some rights to Adf, that has spent the money before. And that is "favour" that could be responded with a cheap leasing for the Bay.

:D

Edit: it seems risky, but if you are already know a lot from your Lst, and have experience maintening and extended their life limit and have made or have, from canibalizing yours or not, spares. If the Spanish Lst are in certain good contidion and many less kms/hrs of use, probably it would be the faster way of filling some of the gaps, you know the gears and don´t have to learn a Bay etc.

But, even if just is 1-2 year gap of capability (until 1st Lhd), i would wonder if it is worth to spend money either in fixing, purchasing or leasing any ship expressly for that gap.
 
Last edited:

Samoa

Member
HMAS Perth sailed for Week 1 of its 8 Week intensive Acceptance Test and Trials period on Monday last week. The week and following week are dedicated to tuning of the Phased Array Radar.
The ship has made good start to Sea Trials having performed successful PAR air tracking runs. Combined CEAFAR/SPS-49/FCD has demonstrated nil mutual interference issues. Operations so far has provided good initial training for operators and maintainers.
A pic of the new operations room is attached.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Any lease or purchase of old ships would be just until the Lhd arrives, in 2012 or 2013, that´s because it doesn´t really matter is old, is not for longer than 2012 or 2013. Being also similar type, Newport, maybe just swap the CC and medical equipment to the Lst. It might sound risky, imagine again they break what a nightmare would be. But probably Spanish Lst have gone much less use than Australian in the last 10 years, cause they´ve been using more the Galicia and Castilla.
These Lst might sound extreme and risky, but as you say there are other ships not as old but also in their last cycle of life, being unused, that you could get almost free by purchase or leasing.
If Kanimbla & Manoora are too worn out to keep using, why should equally old, equally heavily used ships, be any better? The Armada retired one LST a couple of years ago (has she been scrapped?), & the other one is about to go. I suspect she's due for a refit, but too old & worn-out for that to be worthwhile.

There are used amphibious ships that could perhaps be bought or leased, e.g. Foudre or maybe one of the Santi, but they're much newer, & much lower risk.

Well, from the Rn thread i understood the T26, or types of , like the offered to Brazil, were using F100 design similar to Awd.
I believe you have misunderstood. BAe has not based the T26 on the F100. It is a completely new design, & anything it takes from earlier ships is from BAe's own stable, not Navantia.
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
If Kanimbla & Manoora are too worn out to keep using, why should equally old, equally heavily used ships, be any better? The Armada retired one LST a couple of years ago (has she been scrapped?), & the other one is about to go. I suspect she's due for a refit, but too old & worn-out for that to be worthwhile.

There are used amphibious ships that could perhaps be bought or leased, e.g. Foudre or maybe one of the Santi, but they're much newer, & much lower risk.


I believe you have misunderstood. BAe has not based the T26 on the F100. It is a completely new design, & anything it takes from earlier ships is from BAe's own stable, not Navantia.

The Armada site cites both Lst the Hernan Cortes and the Pizarro, if they have retire one of them i don´t know it.

I recall the news wrt cooperation for the T26/Anzac II program...

I recall this from the forum:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale
Correct me if I am wrong, I think I have read somewhere (probably on here) but wasnt there a suggestion that the replacement Anzac's might be based on a watered down version of the AWD'S ? If that was the case you would think the same system would be used for an overall picture. How do these new systems tie in with the F35 the RAAF will be getting, as I understand it the F35 can share battle information between themselves and also pass it onto the ground an sea forces as well.
Any info appreciated

They are thinking about reusing the same hull, presumably with a different superstructure. The ANZAC replacement will most likely get the AUSPAR radar under development by CEA Technologies. At worst they would get CEAFAR (though I doubt it).
Which the above is responded by Stevejoh to Aussienscale.
So if Anzac II shares hull with Awd, and T26 is designed in program with Anzac II.

And if Bae was awarded to begin the design of T26 in march 2010, and just 4-5 months later they were offering it to Brazil (september 2010) so that designed T26 in 4 or 5 months (with summer holidays in the middle), while it should very different from T23 or T22, and also from T45 which is bigger.

The thing is in what are they going to cooperate the Anzac II and the T26? Not in electronic systems, probably in the hull related issues. If the contract to Bae was awarded in march 2010, when did it begin chats with the Anzac II project? I dont know.

But i had given that it was what i say, also from Rn threads commenting these things. But ok, i might have misunderstood something. Sorry it it is the case and T26 is nothing to do with either Anzac II or F100.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The Armada site cites both Lst the Hernan Cortes and the Pizarro, if they have retire one of them i don´t know it.
What does it matter if they are/were active in the Spanish Navy? For what reason would the RAN be interested in them at all? The RAN has two modified Newport-class LST's which are out of service which should at a minimum be replaced with an interim amphib until the Canberra-class LHD's can enter service. Ignoring any questions of cost or VfM, how can the possible availibility of ex-Spanish Newports help? Such vessels are of similar age to those the RAN just stopped using due to availability and reliability issues, would need to be transported to Oz and refitted to work with ADF kit. None of these things can occur until after any inspections and negotiations have been completed, all of which take time. In short, assuming that Spain had them ready for sale, they likely would still not enter RAN service until close to the time the first LHD enters service. This is also assuming that the RAN were interested or willing to purchase more forty year old Newports.

Frankly, I think if anyone in Government were to suggest that such a purchase would be a good idea would rapidly find themselves in charge of keeping track of all staplers, paper clips, staples and dustbins, if not outright no longer in Government.

I recall the news wrt cooperation for the T26/Anzac II program...

I recall this from the forum:

Which the above is responded by Stevejoh to Aussienscale.
So if Anzac II shares hull with Awd, and T26 is designed in program with Anzac II.

And if Bae was awarded to begin the design of T26 in march 2010, and just 4-5 months later they were offering it to Brazil (september 2010) so that designed T26 in 5 or 5 months, while it should very different from T23 or T22, and also from T45 which is bigger.

The thing is in what are they going to cooperate the Anzac II and the T26? Not in electronic systems, probably in the hull related issues. If the contract to Bae was awarded in march 2010, when did it begin chats with the Anzac II project? I dont know.

But i had given that it was what i say, also from Rn threads commenting these things. But ok, i might have misunderstood something. Sorry it it is the case and T26 is nothing to do with either Anzac II or F100.
You have made a number of assumptions, based upon suggestions and ideas others here on this forum have raised, and have also apparently managed to misunderstand what the ideas and suggestions where about.

The RAN is starting/has started a programme to replace its Anzac-class FFH's. At this stage, it would most likely be at some sort of project definition level where some of the basic roles and capabilities would be outlined. Given the AWD emphasis on area air defence, it is anticipated that whatever is the follow-on to the Anzac-class will be a more ASW/GP combatant than the Hobart-class AWD. Given what Australian industry will be doing/have done, as well as having the IP to, it has been suggested here on DT for the Anzac Follow-on to have hull/machinery commonality with the Hobart-classs.

A completely different suggestion is that Australia/RAN should partner with the UK/RN, and perhaps Canada as well, to participate in the UK's T-26 programme which is to replace some of the older RN escorts. Given that the UK possesses a domestic design capability for escorts, I see no reason why they would be at all interested in making use of a modified version of an Australian variant of a Spanish variant of a US design. From a RN perspective, if they wanted commonality with another vessel, it would make more sense to have a common hull with the T-45 Daring-class DDG.

Next time, prior to going off about who could do what, please look into the programmes and projects before offering commentary on them. Otherwise statements and logical leaps are made which have no basis in reality and that is something which people find very wearing.

-Cheers
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
What does it matter if they are/were active in the Spanish Navy? For what reason would the RAN be interested in them at all? The RAN has two modified Newport-class LST's which are out of service which should at a minimum be replaced with an interim amphib until the Canberra-class LHD's can enter service. Ignoring any questions of cost or VfM, how can the possible availibility of ex-Spanish Newports help? Such vessels are of similar age to those the RAN just stopped using due to availability and reliability issues, would need to be transported to Oz and refitted to work with ADF kit. None of these things can occur until after any inspections and negotiations have been completed, all of which take time. In short, assuming that Spain had them ready for sale, they likely would still not enter RAN service until close to the time the first LHD enters service. This is also assuming that the RAN were interested or willing to purchase more forty year old Newports.

Frankly, I think if anyone in Government were to suggest that such a purchase would be a good idea would rapidly find themselves in charge of keeping track of all staplers, paper clips, staples and dustbins, if not outright no longer in Government.



You have made a number of assumptions, based upon suggestions and ideas others here on this forum have raised, and have also apparently managed to misunderstand what the ideas and suggestions where about.

The RAN is starting/has started a programme to replace its Anzac-class FFH's. At this stage, it would most likely be at some sort of project definition level where some of the basic roles and capabilities would be outlined. Given the AWD emphasis on area air defence, it is anticipated that whatever is the follow-on to the Anzac-class will be a more ASW/GP combatant than the Hobart-class AWD. Given what Australian industry will be doing/have done, as well as having the IP to, it has been suggested here on DT for the Anzac Follow-on to have hull/machinery commonality with the Hobart-classs.

A completely different suggestion is that Australia/RAN should partner with the UK/RN, and perhaps Canada as well, to participate in the UK's T-26 programme which is to replace some of the older RN escorts. Given that the UK possesses a domestic design capability for escorts, I see no reason why they would be at all interested in making use of a modified version of an Australian variant of a Spanish variant of a US design. From a RN perspective, if they wanted commonality with another vessel, it would make more sense to have a common hull with the T-45 Daring-class DDG.

Next time, prior to going off about who could do what, please look into the programmes and projects before offering commentary on them. Otherwise statements and logical leaps are made which have no basis in reality and that is something which people find very wearing.

-Cheers
Wrt F100 is variant of Us design, as Abraham said, let me say that a warship needs thousands or millions of hours of engeneering. Many studies are requested, and the own yards makes its own studies. Whatever made Gibb and Cox for Navantia, it will be just a little little percentage of the total hours of the ship, and even, you can´t ensure that those studies contracted have been used or were different to studies made by Navantia also.


Wrt T26/Anzac II program, i paste:


Project Protector was for 7 vessels built to commercial specs. Estimates for the ANZAC frigates range from 2 billion up depending on whether NZ buys a third frigate etc, goes with the RN / RAN Frigate replacement program etc etc. The Defence review indicated the type of ship will be considered closer to the time, but a Defence meeting that was on one of the NZDF website documents indicated that there was a requirement for a general purpose surface combatant. While you might get the hull cheap the cost of the electronics, weapons make up around 65% of the of cost of a new warship if I remember my readings.

Hope this helps.
or

Responding to questions from parliamentarians Jan. 31, Howarth said the British government is in "close discussion with the Canadians" on a possible collaborative program to develop the Global Combat Ship, destined to replace Type 23 frigates in Royal Navy service by the start of the next decade.

The minister said Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Turkey have expressed interest in the warship program, to be called the Type 26 in Royal Navy service, when Defence Secretary Liam Fox recently visited the various countries.

The British government is mounting a major effort to increase defense exports in
the next few years to offset the downturn in military budgets at home, and has identified the Global Combat Ship as a key platform for a collaborative effort with Commonwealth and other allies.
So that at least, the "talks" for T26/Anzac replacement have been. What it was? Trying to join Australia to the T26 program, like doing with Brazil etc.?

But all those talks in a few months since being awarded the begining of the design of the T26. A multipurpose ship, i would think such commercial efforts, in terms of mulipurpose systems of ship, compatible with muliple navies interest (Brazil, Australia, Canada, New Zealand), those commercial efforts can be done when you have already a designed frame or hull, if you havent got still that you don´t go to Brazil to offer a ship, maybe. If ever i find better info, maybe at this forum i´ll post it.

Maybe T26 they derived from T45, but i don´t think from T22 or T23, nor from scratch, ie from nothing, it is my personal opinion.

Edit: the Uk/Australian contacts and more:
In 2009 BAE Systems received a contract to design the C1 and C2 frigates with a planned 25 year life. A total of 18 vessels (10 of the C1 variety and 8 of the C2 variety) were planned to enter service from 2020, at a pace of roughly one per year.[6]

In January 2010, Jane's Defence Weekly announced that the UK government and the government of Australia were exploring the potential for cooperation on the C1 and C3 designs, which correspond closely to the Royal Australian Navy's requirements in replacing its Anzac-class frigate with a new frigate, and four minor war vessel classes with a single class of offshore combatants.[10]

BAE Systems were given a four-year, £127 million contract by the UK MoD on 25 March, 2010, to fully design the C1 variant of the FSC, known now publicly as the Type 26 frigate or "combat ship".

In October 2010, BAE made a detailed proposal to the Brazilian navy, for a package including Type 26 frigates
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
I recall the news wrt cooperation for the T26/Anzac II program...

I recall this from the forum:

"Originally Posted by aussienscale
Correct me if I am wrong, I think I have read somewhere (probably on here) but wasnt there a suggestion that the replacement Anzac's might be based on a watered down version of the AWD'S ?"

Which the above is responded by Stevejoh to Aussienscale.
So if Anzac II shares hull with Awd, and T26 is designed in program with Anzac II..
You have misunderstood. He was referring to a different possible path of development, an alternative to T26 for Australia.

I'll try to explain. Australia wants a ship to replace the Anzacs. One possible replacement is a ship based on the F100. Another possible replacement is a collaborative development with the UK, & perhaps Canada & New Zealand, based on the T26.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Couldnt the RAN and the RN share systems or atleast standards rather than sharing ships with exactly the same hull.

RN daring and RAN F-100 based designs are just hulls, there is no overtly specific reason to team up for that, systems and capabilities on the other hand...
 

PeterM

Active Member
Couldnt the RAN and the RN share systems or atleast standards rather than sharing ships with exactly the same hull.

RN daring and RAN F-100 based designs are just hulls, there is no overtly specific reason to team up for that, systems and capabilities on the other hand...

Common systems seems unlikely, although I guess there could be collaboration with similar design capabilities.

However (please forgive my ignorance), if the Hobart hull was selected for the Anzac II, wouldn't it be a case of pretty much a Hobart with a different sensor and weapon fit out?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Common systems seems unlikely, although I guess there could be collaboration with similar design capabilities.

However (please forgive my ignorance), if the Hobart hull was selected for the Anzac II, wouldn't it be a case of pretty much a Hobart with a different sensor and weapon fit out?
Considering the large US navy supply train in the Pacific, it is most likely wise for the Australians to use American based weapons and systems... The Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and most of the other Pacific rim navies use American based weapons and systems...

There isn't much of a British supply train in the Pacific... Australia learned during WWII and Korea that the British supply train was wanting in the Pacific...

Notice even the British are using more American/NATO weapons and systems today, for example, a 5-inch, 127-mm main gun mount... Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece, and Italy use American/NATO weapons and systems... Although not necessarily exclusive...
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Common systems seems unlikely, although I guess there could be collaboration with similar design capabilities.

However (please forgive my ignorance), if the Hobart hull was selected for the Anzac II, wouldn't it be a case of pretty much a Hobart with a different sensor and weapon fit out?
Wouldn't bother using a Hobart hull for the ANZAC replacements, go Type 45 or similar all electric set up. The Hobarts should be our last conventional gearbox/shaft type power chains considering the Type 45 and DDG 1000s will have well and truely proven electric setups by the time we are short listing for First Pass.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Considering the large US navy supply train in the Pacific, it is most likely wise for the Australians to use American based weapons and systems... The Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and most of the other Pacific rim navies use American based weapons and systems...
Possibly less of an issue in 10-20 years if US Government spending keeps going the way it is. :D

There isn't much of a British supply train in the Pacific... Australia learned during WWII and Korea that the British supply train was wanting in the Pacific...
Hopefully any arrangement would be two way. Also, no reason production lines for certain things could not be maintained in Australia, Possibly at Benalla.

Notice even the British are using more American/NATO weapons and systems today, for example, a 5-inch, 127-mm main gun mount... Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece, and Italy use American/NATO weapons and systems... Although not necessarily exclusive...
The *British* use a 4.5" (114mm) main gun on their escorts and have done so since the 1940's. Unless its recently occured the only change they were considering was a possible switch to a BAe 6" (155mm) main gun.

Australia on the other hand, completely switched over to an all 5" main gun in the 1990's with the retirement of the last River Class (Leander) frigate/destroyer escort.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Wouldn't bother using a Hobart hull for the ANZAC replacements, go Type 45 or similar all electric set up. The Hobarts should be our last conventional gearbox/shaft type power chains considering the Type 45 and DDG 1000s will have well and truely proven electric setups by the time we are short listing for First Pass.
Honestly, and without knowing the full capabilities of all the ships involved.

I would have suggested T45 or a derivative for the AWD requirement, with an attempt to convince the Canadians to also buy some for their Tribal class replacements.

Could then build into the deal with BAe something for the ANZAC replacement in conjunction with Canada, the UK and New Zealand. If for no other reason then to build up a bit of independence from the US defense industry while doing business with countries that would hopefully not result in a negative influence on our relations with the US.

Another advantage would be the rebuilding on commonwealth ties, which could be important with a potentially declining US as a major power.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Considering the large US navy supply train in the Pacific, it is most likely wise for the Australians to use American based weapons and systems... The Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and most of the other Pacific rim navies use American based weapons and systems...
one of the things that a lot of people ignore is that US supply brings advantages not just because of that "particular widget" - but because of US systems across multiple levels.

it lowers the overall systems and logistics integration costs (and this is across theatre/service levels, not just within a service element)
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Honestly, and without knowing the full capabilities of all the ships involved.

I would have suggested T45 or a derivative for the AWD requirement, with an attempt to convince the Canadians to also buy some for their Tribal class replacements.

Could then build into the deal with BAe something for the ANZAC replacement in conjunction with Canada, the UK and New Zealand. If for no other reason then to build up a bit of independence from the US defense industry while doing business with countries that would hopefully not result in a negative influence on our relations with the US.

Another advantage would be the rebuilding on commonwealth ties, which could be important with a potentially declining US as a major power.
Its the propulsion layout more than where the hull design comes from that I'm thinking about. All electric is the way to go and from what I have heard the Type 45 is an exceptional platform, just too bad they didn't opt for AEGIS.

The trials perfomance of the Type 45 showed better than expected excelleration, speed and much lower fuel burn than specified or expected from the all electric propulsion system. The truely remarkable thing is they knew all electric was much better than a conventional setup they just didn't know how much better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top