New Hunter Frigate Variant with 96 VLS

It's an Australian Type 26 Hunter with the AWS and multirole mission bay taken out for more VLS. Total VLS at 96 cells but
new config allows room for a Mk.57 PVLS like what's in the Zuimwalt-class, max displacement at 10,000, making it smaller than an Arleigh.

Apart from being ugly as frick what's this fricking things problem? Why take a AWS with sound dampening and special engine and other bullshit to reduce noise just to take out all of its sub hunting sonars and other shit just for more VLS?

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/bae-unveils-upgunned-hunter-proposal

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do Australia even have shipyards?

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Apart from being ugly as frick what's this fricking things problem?
    It's too frickin small.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's too frickin small.
      Thats what she said.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        that you have some small dick porn screenshot saved is suspect, but it does remind me of a funny conversation from this site about some small dick guy considering seeking out sph fetish chicks, and the following discussion about the threat of them leaving him over someone with...a smaller dick

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      i dont know why people like this movie so much. probably the only funny thing in it is the gasoline fight, which is at best worth a 30 second webm

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why take a AWS with sound dampening and special engine and other bullshit to reduce noise just to take out all of its sub hunting sonars and other shit just for more VLS?
    The thinking isn't to replace all ASW hunter-class with this, it's to have a mix of ASW and Air defense oriented destroyers.

    The article you linked even says the Air defense version wouldn't be ready until flight II production anyway, so the entire first flight will be ASW ships.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here is the politics anon. Australia wanted a multirole frigate, BAE pitched an AWS with AAW features that on paper looked fricking space-aged. The catch was it wasn't really multirole and was undergunned for anything other than peacetime conditions. Australians love British dick plus the strategic environment looked benign, so they went for it anyway.

    Fast forward to 2020 BAE couldn't even deliver, hence its massively delayed and over budget. It's so over budget that I don't think there is even parallels in US shipbuilding, save for the Zum.

    Fast forward to 2023, Australia does a defence review, says that shit is fricked and we will probably be kinetic with China without a capacity to fight effectively. It asks why we are procuring a limp dick 36 VLS AWS that's meant to be multirole. It creates another sub-review with the purpose of cutting the Hunter for the Constellation or some FREM equivalent and buying more smaller tier ships in addition.

    Enter Nov 2023, BAE shills a new variant of the Hunter that is meant to do what the Australian's asked for years ago. BAE hopes this means it won't get cut or axed by the surface fleet review.

    TLDR - BAE fricked up good and was about to get cancelled so they shilled a new variant that in all likelihood they can't deliver.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >BAE about to get cut
      This is also why you're seeing all these new proposals at Indo-Pacific 2023. Check Navantias Flight 3 for example. About 10,000 tonne.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        And this is the MEKO A210 being proposed for Australia by the Germans, about 5000 tonne.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          And the Alpha 5000 by navantia.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            And the 'Tasman-class' corvette from Navantia.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              This is very nice looking for a modern ship.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              This is very nice looking for a modern ship.

              Yeah. It is quite an impressive ship on offer for Australia's theoretical corvette/light frigate program (which at this point in time doesn't exist).

              Unfortunately, if Aus goes for the Tasman, it won't have 16 NSM canisters, likely 8 (if not 4), and won't have the 35mm Millenium gun, likely an outdated Phalanx CIWS.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that dreadnought bow

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              there's some clean lines there I'm not gonna lie

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is that a codpiece in front of the ship?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >splitting the VLS at that size

            what the hell. But its nice to see navalised MANTIS. And the towed sonar looks serious.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >splitting the VLS
              >navalised MANTIS.
              What did he mean by this?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >VLS
                I suppose he thinks a small ship ought to have its VLS bays all in one location, for some odd autistic reason
                >navalised MANTIS
                The Millennium gun atop the hangar is the navy's version of the Rheinmetall MANTIS land-based AA system

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >did someone say tumblehome hull?
          hon hon hon hon
          ALLONS ENFENT DE LA PATRIE

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The only gun based CIWS that are worth anything are multi barrel 40/57/76 mm with smart fuzes. 20 mm phalanx is obsolescent since decades, it fires .50 cal apds and requires a direct hit. 30 mm gatlings - maybe - if they have timed fuzes and canister ammo so they can be turned into giant shotguns. Russian 30 mm uses direct impact fuzes and are limited to direct hits like phalanx.

        Bofors 57 mm Mk 2 and 3 are shit because they dropped the water cooled barrel of Mk1 for 10% higher rate of fire. This about cuts burst fire length into half and sustained fire by 80%.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The catch was it wasn't really multirole and was undergunned for anything other than peacetime conditions.
      You can ask them to put whatever weapons you want on it. This sounds like bullshit.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, they already used every margin to make an ASW with AAW features plus Australian radar. Hence it's weight is high, and it has no margins for anything new. The weight is actually a big issue since it effects power, speed and duration. That's supposedly been the reason for the massive delay. The easiest thing would have been making the ship bigger/longer but it was decided against since would impose new risks/costs.

        It's a charlie foxtrot from day one anon and it's being actively considered for cutting for very good reasons.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Which exact ship are you talking about here?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The entire thread is about the Hunter-class anon, it's the Australian version of the Type 26 frigate shilled by BAE.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              The type 26? OK then you are definitely full of shit. I draw your attention to this empty space in the deck here.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You could bolt these to the deck there if you really wanted to. The Type 26 is a brand new class for the Royal Navy. It of course has space for future upgrades.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >of course has more space
                Pay attention Black person, the Hunter is a modified 26 to make it more of GP frigate. In other words it's already modified, it's the modifications that make upgrading it impossible.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                So what you are saying here is you took a dedicated ASW frigate and then added a load of shit to it and now you're complaining that you've used all the extra upgrade space it came with?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry for the double post but that first one didn't appear at first.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                So what you are saying here is you took a dedicated ASW frigate and then added a load of shit to it and now you're complaining that you used all the extra upgrade space provided?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you took
                Australia wanted a multirole frigate. BAE modified the Type 26 for that purpose. 'They', I repeat, they, took a dedicated ASW frigate and added a load of shit to make it multirole and in doing so made it too heavy, underpowered and undergunned.

                Correct, BAE did that, Australia and Canada was dumb enough to believe that the type 26 could be used for that purpose.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah ok so you got a very good ASW frigate with upgrades that made it more general purpose. What's the problem here?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What's the problem
                I can't tell if you are this stupid or just trolling. Black person it can't AAW or ASW because it's too slow and heavy, it especially can't AAW because it has 32 VLS. Hence BAE literally coming up with an entirely new design almost 6 years after the problems identified. As I said it's being considered for cutting/axing for very good reasons and this is BAE's last attempt to keep the contract.

                Now I'm fricking done replying to (You) anon. There's only so much stupid I'm willing to reply to.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                What it really sounds like is you don't actually know what you want. Like you want a ship that does literally everything fantastically. Well sorry m8 but for that you're looking at more of a floating island than a ship.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Now being a bong you feel the need to shill for BAE and I get that but since you didn't know about any of this not 5 minutes ago I'd suggest you read up on it and come back to me when you're capable of making valid points.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Here you are looking for a corvette that can do literally everything from ASW to lobbing waves of tomahawks at ragheads. You are firmly fixed in fantasy land.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >want a corvette for tomahawks
                Aight I'll admit you trolled me good, thanks for confirming though.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Muh fricking corvette doesn't have enough VLS
                Get a fricking grip m8.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe if BAE shilled a cope cage for the type 26 the Russians would of bought it. Fricking Nigel missing out on all these post-brexit opportunities.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah but something something brexit muh Russia
                OK m8.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                U wot c**t

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ur getting glaas c0nt

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                bring it you pommy c**t

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                But on a more serious note. Fricking over the French and then also fricking over the British right after is a questionable move.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                BAE isn't state owned so technically we'd only be fricking BAE but IMO we probably won't see a full axing of the Hunter more likely they'll just reduce numbers.

                If they do frick them off completely it's not terminal to the British relationship since Australia is dumping many many billions into BAE via SSN-AUKUS.

                I'd be interested though to see if economy of scale issues arise for the Canadian build of the type 26 and whether that would increase cost or lead to cancellation/reduction as well.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                As previously mentioned the type 26 is destined for Royal Navy service and part of what makes it affordable to build is through international orders spreading the costs. There are knock on effects if Oz cancels theirs.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Britain has a pretty small order though so I can't see it having a huge impact on build costs, might impact maintenance and part availability but even there probably only a marginal impact if any.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm telling you straight up that if the type 26 programme fails then it will be your fault. The result of this is that the RN's drive to expand their fleet in the face of rising global tentions will also fail. This also has repercussions for Australia in that it means less of our boats available to send to that part of the world. Think carefully.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >less of our boats available to send to that part of the world
                The UKs Indo-Pacific tilt to date consists of two OPVs with a single type 31 commited later in the decade. True story.
                https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmdfence/183/report.html

                UK interests and threats are in Europe. Australia and the US doesn't expect any serious contribution in a war for Taiwan from the UK and I think it's pretty well understood the battle order is US, Japan, ROK and Australia. The UK can't project power to the Indo-Pacific in any meaningful way and has not had the capability to do so since the 1930s.

                IMO If UK naval power is significantly impacted by the cancellation of single contract with BAE for a few heavily modified type 26 frigates then shit is not looking good for bongland.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                It does right now with our current fleet. There are plans for expansion with our future fleet. Our future fleet is partially in your hands. The question for you right now is do you want an OPV or do you want a frigate or two?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                there's absolutely nothing additional planned for the Indo-Pacific according to the UK's own Indo-Pacific strategy anon at least within the next decade.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Perhaps not in what they officially declare but I like to keep my ear to the ground. There's only so many boats to g around and they will be (sorry not sorry) mainly defending this island.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >mainly defending the mainland
                To be expected anon. As I said if future UK naval power is dependent on a single contract between Australia and BAE then you've got bigger problems Nigel.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah the RN is in a bit of a tight spot. Years of the "peace dividend" has had its effect.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's pretty dire across the board. Platform complexity and cost keeps going up, it's almost impossible to attract a skilled workforce in shipyards plus you can't recruit fast enough to man what small numbers of ships you do produce. It's true across the anglosphere and not limited to shipbuilding.

                It's part of the reason I think we are fricked in a future conflict, we don't have the manufacturing advantage, chang does. You can thank the fricking israelites for that.. selling off manufacturing to China. Plus globalisation has made supply chains more fragile meaning if anything did go kinetic you can guarantee its 10x harder to build anything.

                Very fricking dire.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thing is though this programme is at least partially geared to address that. Cross training at shipyards and on board ships, mechanisation of ship systems to reduce crew requirement. You're not going to get better elsewhere for it as they won't give you the access.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you ignore forward deploying a carrier to the pacific from Oman based moron.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Seven month deployment of HMS Queen Elizabeth
                >One moment spent in the Indo-Pacific
                >No plans for regular deployments
                >No plans for permanent presence outside of 2 OPVs and a frigate by the end of the decade
                Muh Indo-Pacific tilt

                It's not even a tilt it's a fricking shrug.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Australia and the US doesnt expect any serious contribution from UK
                Lets be real here Bruce, your military and navy is a complete joke. A single T45 would be a more valued contribution than the utter trash you currently have.
                >UK cant project to the Indo Pacific
                They could project about 10x what Australia could though.
                Tl:dr before you get pissy about allies expected contributions you should probably check your own in a war with China Australia other than being a US naval base would contribute frick all.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The UK can't project power to the Indo-Pacific in any meaningful way
                It can project power more meaningfully than any country outside of the US and could bring more naval power to scene, even at that distance, than the Australian navy can on it's door step. It's a matter of will rather than ability.

                >implying UK naval power can't project into the Indo-Pacific
                NTA but this isn't controversial don't get salty like most European powers you don't really have a blue water navy (not even China has a real blue water navy) and you certainly don't have the logistics or basing to allow projection into the Indo-Pacific and as the anon mentions you haven't done so and haven't been capable of doing so since WW2, it's debatable you had assets even in WW2.

                If anything France has more basing and sustainment options in the Pacific through Caledonia than Britian.

                This is a fact anon. Nothing against bongs but if you somehow believe you are naval power capable of meaningfully projecting power outside of Europe (let alone the other side of the world) you are operating under a delusion.

                >t.burger

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't really have a blue water navy (not even China has a real blue water navy) and you certainly don't have the logistics or basing to allow projection into the Indo-Pacific
                the Royal navy has bases in the indian ocean and the highest ratio of logistics tonnage to fleet tonnage of any navy outside of the USN they absolutely have the capability to sustain a task force in any ocean in the world

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You dont really have a blue water navy
                >A blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally, essentially across the deep waters of open oceans.
                moron
                >Logistics
                3rd largest AOR fleet, picrel
                >Basing
                >The British Defence Singapore Support Unit (BDSSU) is a British naval facility located in Sembawang, Singapore
                Bruh
                >France through Caledonia
                Britains auxilary fleet could carry 10x more than whats in New Caledonia, also do you expect the French Navy to do 6000km round trips with 3 resupply ships to sustain its fleet?
                >Projecting meaningfull power
                Against China or the US? No dont be stupid. against the rest of the 193 countries, sure sit off the coast and plink away, blockades etc
                >Let alone the otherside of the world
                When was the last time anyone else sailed 12000km, carried out amphibious landings in disputed territory at a disadvantage of 3:1 then have it studied methodically as the greatest naval logistical acheivements in modern warfare?
                You are operating out of the idea a nation of 70m is trying to 1v1 China, have a word with yourself most of what you said was easy to pick apart and had the writing style of a child.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                The USN is blue water and as you can see there's a fricking mammoth drop after us. The US struggles to project into the Indo-Pacific with numbers.. the absolute delusion involved in thinking you can sustain and bring numbers via a rinky dink Singaporean port is absolute delusion, you a delusional Nigel.

                This rule britannia shit isn't a meme y'all thinks it's still 1780

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >USN is blue water and as you can see theres a mammlth drop after us
                That drop has nothing to do with what the phrase 'blue water Navy' you dumb frick, holy shit are you moronic?
                >US struggles to project into Indo pacific
                No it doesnt.
                >Incoherant irrelevant ramblings
                Stick to the Youtube comment section champ

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No it doesnt.
                The balls, the absolute balls on you calling anyone a moron. Here you are telling me, someone who has actively deployed multiple times into the region telling me.. that the USN doesn't struggle to project in the Indo-Pacific.

                This is why you limey gays are difficult to get along with.. delusions of competence and grandeur in equal measure. Have some humility, or reality, preferably both.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is why you limey gays are difficult to get along with.
                I've not worked with bongs but I've heard the RN are difficult. Army apparently are a good laugh.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't really have a blue water navy (not even China has a real blue water navy) and you certainly don't have the logistics or basing to allow projection into the Indo-Pacific
                the Royal navy has bases in the indian ocean and the highest ratio of logistics tonnage to fleet tonnage of any navy outside of the USN they absolutely have the capability to sustain a task force in any ocean in the world

                [...]
                >implying UK naval power can't project into the Indo-Pacific
                NTA but this isn't controversial don't get salty like most European powers you don't really have a blue water navy (not even China has a real blue water navy) and you certainly don't have the logistics or basing to allow projection into the Indo-Pacific and as the anon mentions you haven't done so and haven't been capable of doing so since WW2, it's debatable you had assets even in WW2.

                If anything France has more basing and sustainment options in the Pacific through Caledonia than Britian.

                This is a fact anon. Nothing against bongs but if you somehow believe you are naval power capable of meaningfully projecting power outside of Europe (let alone the other side of the world) you are operating under a delusion.

                >t.burger

                >less of our boats available to send to that part of the world
                The UKs Indo-Pacific tilt to date consists of two OPVs with a single type 31 commited later in the decade. True story.
                https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmdfence/183/report.html

                UK interests and threats are in Europe. Australia and the US doesn't expect any serious contribution in a war for Taiwan from the UK and I think it's pretty well understood the battle order is US, Japan, ROK and Australia. The UK can't project power to the Indo-Pacific in any meaningful way and has not had the capability to do so since the 1930s.

                IMO If UK naval power is significantly impacted by the cancellation of single contract with BAE for a few heavily modified type 26 frigates then shit is not looking good for bongland.

                >The UK can't project power to the Indo-Pacific in any meaningful way and has not had the capability to do so since the 1930s.
                NTA etc but the RN definitely could project sea power into the Indo-Pacific if it wanted to and didn't have anything more important for the ships to be doing. The lowest range of any of its surface combatants is 14,000km on the Hunters. It's only 9000km from Scapa Flow to their two major bases in the Persian Gulf or about 10,000km to Cape Town (assuming SA can be used for resupply). From there it's less than 7000 to either their own base in Singapore or allied bases at Diego Garcia or Exmouth. This is without even using oilers or talking about nuke subs.

                They definitely can project into the IPA and Asia. Sustaining a an aggressive force posture there would be more challenging, but, barring a world war that sees stuff happening in western europe, GIUK, gulf etc, it's hard to see how it wouldn't be totslly doable.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >NTA etc but the RN definitely could project sea power into the Indo-Pacific if it wanted to
                NTA either but there's a difference between projecting into the Indo-Pacific and projecting mass into the Indo-Pacific, there's also a distinction between projecting and fighting.The RN can one of these things i.e. projecting, buts it not doing it at mass and it's not certainly not fighting, outside of the underwater domain anyway. Still a remarkable force though and have nothing but respect for the RN but there's really only America that fits the bill here.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I wonder if anyone's updated Russia's tonnage since the 3 day SMO kicked off. How much tonnage have they even lost/built since then?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're going to make Nigel cry with posts like these

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The UK can't project power to the Indo-Pacific in any meaningful way
                It can project power more meaningfully than any country outside of the US and could bring more naval power to scene, even at that distance, than the Australian navy can on it's door step. It's a matter of will rather than ability.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's a matter of will rather than ability.
                Absolute delusion.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The UK can't project power to the Indo-Pacific in any meaningful way and has not had the capability to do so since the 1930s.
                Why you trying to hurt Nigel's feeling anon?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The UK can't project power to the Indo-Pacific in any meaningful way
                Please refrain from further contributing to this thread. God the bait on this board just keeps getting worse.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The result of this is that the RN's drive to expand their fleet in the face of rising global tentions will also fail
                Think is total bullshit

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you a fricking spastic? It's at full weight, there's no margin that allows additional VLS without removing something AND that's exactly what BAE is shilling for the new variant, they've taken OUT the mission bay and they'd fricked off the towed array and some other ASW-shit to get more VLS.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Have you ever heard the term "fitted for but not with"? The RN are very big on it.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >for but not with
                I'm talking to a moron

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm talking to a moron
                Yes, but only because he knows that term, not because there's anything grammatically wrong with it.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you don't know the term you're the moron
                [...]
                >uses the mission bay for its intended purpose
                >REEEEE
                idiot.

                OP here. I know the fricking term, it's not an exclusively British concept, we had a similar philosophy with the Anzacs and it was a disaster. I called him a moron because 'fitted for but not with' had zero bearing on the discussion.

                https://i.imgur.com/iFM83Id.jpg

                I'll wait for the Fleet Review, but it is pretty clear to me that only six Anti submarine Warfare (ASW) Hunters will be made before the the final three will be changed to be Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) Hunters. This makes sense given there is little scope for Australia to build/have designed, other vessels before the AWD Hobarts require replacing.

                I think it's the right choice. I too would double down on Hunter-hulls, as there is no debate here, the Hunter hulls are the only hulls, for Major Fleet Units (MFUs), that can be made and put into service soonest.

                This idea of 'corvettes' or 'light frigates', is a massive debate happening behind Navy and Government closed doors right now. Problem number one being most Euro/Asian 'corvettes' or 'light frigates' do not have the range and endurance required for them to be useful for Australia.

                Time will tell what the Fleet Review comes out with. My guess is six (reduced from nine) ASW Hunters, followed by three AWD Hunters, and if, by some miracle, an order for six or more 'corvettes' or 'light frigates'.

                >I too would double down on Hunter-hulls, as there is no debate here, the Hunter hulls are the only hulls, for Major Fleet Units (MFUs), that can be made and put into service soonest
                This would be right had we built a single fricking module or doorknob/hatch but to date the program has produced zero, save for some practice welds and workforce planning/training. They've made it very easy to axe and defence has made it even easier thanks to their procurement management and documenting (which ANOA picked up on). Not ideal and I agree with you but thems the facts. The fact that Labor wasn't involved in the original decision makes cutting or axing entirely even easier.

                https://i.imgur.com/QWLQY4s.jpg

                >the current Labor government are trying to ram through a class of ship
                Wrong. The media (biased defence 'journalists') and unsolicited proposals by companies are the ones trying to ram 'corvettes' into the RAN.
                >is the wrong direction for the Navy simply because muh cost
                Not quite. Their limiting factor is range and endurance, which so far has made most proposals stupid.
                >and thats been Baby Burkes
                It wanted four but got three, a major mistake, I agree.
                >The drumbeat at Osborne can be increased from 24 months to 18 months
                I sure as frick hope so. That's the only way we can get more hulls into the water soonest.
                >requires a plan for after the Hunters
                That's almost 30 years away. They haven't even decided if they want nine ASW Hunters or six ASW and three AWD.

                >Wrong. The media (biased defence 'journalists') and unsolicited proposals by companies are the ones trying to ram 'corvettes' into the RAN.
                It's the media making dogshit articles on every unsolicited offer which they all write up in glowing terms BUT it's also the DSR authors who floated this whole tier 1/2 bullshit in the first place.

                Given the numerous nations involved, and the expected user countries, I suspect Australia and the RAN will not even consider the European Patrol Corvette. The complexity of design ideas and national preferences makes it too much of a risk, and at 3000 tons it is likely to have unsuitable endurance for Australia. I believe the minimum proposed for the RAN is around 5000 tons.

                As for a new Hobart-style vessel from Navantia, I think it is common knowledge (not common for clueless public) that the ship has well and truly sailed on the chance to get more Hobart AWD. Even a Flight 3 Hobart, as proposed, is basically an all new design with new components that are actually in production. I don't believe RAN and the Government will be keen on another three-hull limited run. I fully believe they will modify T26 Hunter to be more AWD focused.
                Given the spec loadout for ASW Hunter, even ASW Hunter will basically outspec the Hobarts in the Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) role.

                >sailed on the chance to get more Hobart AWD
                Yea that's why they've floated the Flight III at indopac just yesterday. I wouldn't discount it given it just must be moronic enough idea that they go for it. There's also no denying that in total tonnage the RAN fleet is largely navantia. Whether the sailors like them or not is irrelevant, the fact is the political class and defence like them is enough plus the optics that 'navantia delivers'.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This would be right had we built a single fricking module or doorknob/hatch but to date the program has produced zero, save for some practice welds and workforce planning/training.
                You are right that it has helped with training/building up workforce, but Osborne Shipyard has already fully built a prototype hull section ages ago.
                >DSR authors who floated this whole tier 1/2 bullshit in the first place
                Indeed! They really fricked up by throwing this term out there with no clear definition, in fact, there was no definition or meaning attached when released.
                >There's also no denying that in total tonnage the RAN fleet is largely navantia
                Yeah that is fair. I definitely wouldn't rule out a new Hobart-style hull design from Navantia.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >prototype hull section ages ago.
                Yea but this is very little and amounts to 'practice welds' for training purposes. We had done similar work on the barracuda which we still cancelled. Sad but from an implementation perspective it's not at the 'passed the point of being fully cancelled' entirely stage unfortunately.
                >They really fricked up by throwing this term out there with no clear definition
                It's done nothing but make the entire debate a little more moronic. And the dumb part is corvettes make no sense however you look at them, even if you get more missiles at sea faster, which is what the DSR authors ultimately want, you still only get missiles at sea faster THAT CAN'T BE deployed since they don't have the range, and that's not something a longer range tomahawk is going to fix. Unless there's classified forward basing details I'm not aware this corvette idea is fricking moronic. Even as part of a full defence of australia strategy (which is not what the DSR was going for) it's still moronic because of the ranges involved in Australia's maritime domain. Sydney to Perth is farther away than fricking Moscow to London (almost).

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yea but this is very little and amounts to 'practice welds' for training purposes.
                Eh, I wouldn't downplay it. It was done in August 2022 and a full prototype block is pretty impressive as a practice. It all aids in speeding up the drumbeat.
                >We had done similar work on the barracuda which we still cancelled
                No we fricking did not. There was near zero physical construction taken place as practice/preparing for the hull builds.
                >your second paragraph
                You are spot on here. 'Corvettes' make near zero practical sense, given the range and endurance requires. We can finally see some more appropriate designs, such as Meko A210, Tasman class, and Alpha 5000. Though, really, these are more like frigates or light frigates, and some are even bigger than ANZAC class.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                At this rate why not build up Darwin and Townsville

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                They are, to an extent. Darwin/NT is getting upgraded RAAF bases and much more US-stationed forces and equipment, and Townsville is getting all the heavy armour stationed there.
                However, naval assets cannot be stationed in either place, because they cannot be manned. It simply comes down to manning, and MFU's require basing in major cities, where service personnel want to live. Also, being based in Fleet Base East (Sydney), and Fleet Base West (Perth), means they are harder to get to for Chinese strike forces/assets..

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >means they are harder to get to for Chinese strike
                there is that, true
                >naval assets cannot be stationed in either place, because they cannot be manned
                I should have explained; when I say upgrade, I mean going the whole hog of expanding the civilian infrastructure and population

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, I think population is out of the question, but efforts can definitely be made to improve infrastructure, ports, staging areas, refuel/rearm areas etc.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I think population is out of the question
                Mate of mine literally moved to Darwin from Melbourne for the jobs, I think it's possible
                He's a civvy but his job wouldn't be there if the Army wasn't there

                Because no one wants to live in those shitholes. Why do you think we moved from Darwin to Adelaide a decade ago? We were bleeding personnel and it happening again, we need to keep people near population centres not these crime ridden shitholes

                I mean, that's how population centres form isn't it? Economic activity goes up, support infrastructure becomes necessary, and people build towns around said activities

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because no one wants to live in those shitholes. Why do you think we moved from Darwin to Adelaide a decade ago? We were bleeding personnel and it happening again, we need to keep people near population centres not these crime ridden shitholes

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >navantia delivers cheaper than other shipyards can, because Spain
                ftfy
                >zero bearing on the discussion
                a "mission bay" is literally "empty space built with plugins to put whatever you like on", dipshit
                in this case, yes you absolutely can put missiles in if you want

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                OP here. I know the fricking term, it's not an exclusively British concept, we had a similar philosophy with the Anzacs and it was a disaster. I called him a moron because 'fitted for but not with' had zero bearing on the discussion.
                [...]
                >I too would double down on Hunter-hulls, as there is no debate here, the Hunter hulls are the only hulls, for Major Fleet Units (MFUs), that can be made and put into service soonest
                This would be right had we built a single fricking module or doorknob/hatch but to date the program has produced zero, save for some practice welds and workforce planning/training. They've made it very easy to axe and defence has made it even easier thanks to their procurement management and documenting (which ANOA picked up on). Not ideal and I agree with you but thems the facts. The fact that Labor wasn't involved in the original decision makes cutting or axing entirely even easier.
                [...]
                >Wrong. The media (biased defence 'journalists') and unsolicited proposals by companies are the ones trying to ram 'corvettes' into the RAN.
                It's the media making dogshit articles on every unsolicited offer which they all write up in glowing terms BUT it's also the DSR authors who floated this whole tier 1/2 bullshit in the first place.
                [...]
                >sailed on the chance to get more Hobart AWD
                Yea that's why they've floated the Flight III at indopac just yesterday. I wouldn't discount it given it just must be moronic enough idea that they go for it. There's also no denying that in total tonnage the RAN fleet is largely navantia. Whether the sailors like them or not is irrelevant, the fact is the political class and defence like them is enough plus the optics that 'navantia delivers'.

                >because Spain
                Speaking of Spain. I hear A LOT of grumblings and discontent about the quality and reliability/performance of the Hobart and Canberra classes. Safe to say there is much distaste for Navantia within Navy (more so at actual working-class ranks), so a desire for more Navantia-quality might be questioned.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Who's surprised? Spain is an unknown quantity in most defence respects; Navantia ranks below BAe, Naval, Fincantieri and I'd say even Damen; what they mainly brought to the party was GDP per capita half of Australia's ie cheap labour

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The problem is it's a generation that only knows peace and who grew up thinking we lived in the end of history and that major war was basically impossible, you know, basic unipolar moment shit
                there is that
                I remember listening to a hard-left mate talk about how the previous government totally dropped the ball on China and we should've cannoned up earlier
                after all that I said "well, dyou remember when we said a while back we shouldn't be letting the Chinese control so much of our trade and we should be more hardline about their regional activity, and you said 'that's racist'?"
                fellow was silent for only a moment before coming back with a feeble "then it's a failure of diplomacy"

                fricking numpty

                https://i.imgur.com/zAinLTX.jpg

                >Navy is but one stakeholder. Sad but absolutely true
                Yeah fair. Maybe there is some hope, after all, Army recommended Hanwah Redback to Government, and Government went with it, though I thoroughly suspect it was driven by politics (jobs in a different electorate).
                Government has made some good decisions with Blackhawks, Apaches, Boxer etc. so I do have some hope Government will listen to it's own people.
                >has been the Achilles heal in procurement and has so since the 90s.
                Indeed, very limiting, while I fully support the benefits vs the increased costs of local builds, the Continuous Shipbuilding Program has been a failure, and hopefully, once again, Government reviews and a worsening geo-political environment, can breathe new, sustained life into our two shipbuilding precincts. Anything more than two major shipyards is not sustainable for a small country like ours.

                It's really bleak anon. I think we're fricked. I don't think this gets sorted. The political class isn't motivated to solve it in reality when they can pretend to solve it with words, and let's be clear, all we've had for the last 10 years is words, nothing but words. A good example is the DSR. Current government nods their head about our strategic circumstances and the need to do more, agrees even to every recommendation, but then turns around and instead of increasing funding dramatically decides to cut from existing programs. Until the incentives change or until politicians, public servants and the brass get punished for failure (which hasn't happened in my lifetime) there's just no incentive unless it involves jobs in marginal seats. They don't care if the jobs produce capabilities we need, that's irrelevant.

                There's no grass roots mechanism for adding accountability either since the average punter cares naught for defence unless it involves $$ waste. I don't see this being resolved without a war tbh.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >increasing funding dramatically decides to cut from existing programs
                I agree to an extent, but you have to remember they inherited the worst financial position the country has ever been in, with the most debt ever recorded. I can't really blame them for slashing some projects, to put towards our number one strategically important defence asset we have, the submarines.
                When you decide to spend $398billion on submarines, there has got to be some compromises.
                Ideally, we would end multinational corporate tax avoidance, and then we could get back all the axed SPG's, drones and IFV's.
                >I don't see this being resolved without a war tbh.
                Hopefully, our defence force will be in a better position by the time China kicks off their war, which will be before Xi Jingpin will get too old.
                Biggest issue we have is more people are leaving defence than there are joining up. No joke.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                When you break it down the $260-$360 billion dollars over 32 years is like 8-12 billion a year for an entire industry, its not an impossible figure.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, and considering it is our main strategic advantage and deterrent, I'd say it is damn well worth it. Sadly, the public divides that figure by number of submarines, not number of years.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just have a camera pointing at the zhangs and wait for their usual tantrum and the public will shrug at the cost

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                1/2

                >When you decide to spend $398billion on submarines, there has got to be some compromises.
                >Ideally, we would end multinational corporate tax avoidance, and then we could get back all the axed SPG's, drones and IFV's.
                It's not an income problem, it's not a defence-being-too-big-a-price-tag-problem and it's not a "urgently need to fix the budget position as of 2022" problem.
                1. Government (all levels) revenue as a percentage of GDP and in absolute dollars has pushed into continuously new record highs for decades.
                2. Simultaneously defence spending as a proportion of GDP has remained at historical lows despite a long period of high op tempo on a shoestring and conflict lead indicators. Defence spending is also less than 10% of federal social security spending in absolute terms.
                3. A continuous pattern of spending planning and cutting has been exhibited over at least the last six governments (Hawke/Keating to Albanese), so it's not an "Oh frick suddenly we need to fix the budget" issue.

                It's two things: 1. ALP ideological dislike of and institutional incompetence with everything related to the military except state funded manufacturing jobs. 2. Defence projects and strategy being too long a lead time to deliver inside electoral cycles.

                Hawke/Keating brought us the "air-sea gap" doctrine, where all of the services, but especially the army, were starved of funds and using kit from the 50s, 60s and 70s and their level of capability was deliberately slashed, for example not retaining aircraft carriers.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                2/2

                Howard then did East Timor and the ADF was barely able to do it even without Indonesia resisting it, which was a wake up call for that government that the ADF was anemic, so they replaced Leo with Abrams and started longer term projects to inject some blood into the veins. Then GWOT kicked off and everyone was running on fumes and running ancient fleets into the ground for years, so a long term spending target of 3% of GDP was set a year on year spending increase of 2% planned and more projects were lined up to meet it.

                Rudd/Gillard/Rudd was then elected on a promise of maintaining the 3% target and immediately broke it, cancelling major projects left and right, driving defence spending down to nearly 1% of GDP while also insisting on the addition of new vanity projects of his liking (LHD) funded from the carcass of other projects.

                Abbott/Turnbull/Schlomo were then elected and we went back to plotting in projects to spend us back to 3% GDP, then we have another change of government.

                Lo and behold, now we have the Albanese government, who made absolutely ZERO mention of any defence cuts when campaigning for the election (and did not have it in their policy platform: I know because I read the whole fricking thing), but is cancelling projects and driving downwards towards 1% of GDP spending.

                This is not a sudden issue now. It's a pattern of behaviour for the last 4 decades. It takes nearly a whole government term to set a strategy and conop, design a force and posture to meet it, plan, tender, select and then move to delivery, and every fricking time we do it we then get an ALP government that cancels nearly every bit of it and forces the whole process to restart a few years later. I'm not ideologically opposed to the ALP and I think Albanese is generally doing a pretty good job, a frickload better than Scomo, but holy frick their defence credentials are fricking terrible and they are 110% to blame for pretty much every capability deficiency in the ADF.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/hcpv0Cw.jpg

                1/2

                >When you decide to spend $398billion on submarines, there has got to be some compromises.
                >Ideally, we would end multinational corporate tax avoidance, and then we could get back all the axed SPG's, drones and IFV's.
                It's not an income problem, it's not a defence-being-too-big-a-price-tag-problem and it's not a "urgently need to fix the budget position as of 2022" problem.
                1. Government (all levels) revenue as a percentage of GDP and in absolute dollars has pushed into continuously new record highs for decades.
                2. Simultaneously defence spending as a proportion of GDP has remained at historical lows despite a long period of high op tempo on a shoestring and conflict lead indicators. Defence spending is also less than 10% of federal social security spending in absolute terms.
                3. A continuous pattern of spending planning and cutting has been exhibited over at least the last six governments (Hawke/Keating to Albanese), so it's not an "Oh frick suddenly we need to fix the budget" issue.

                It's two things: 1. ALP ideological dislike of and institutional incompetence with everything related to the military except state funded manufacturing jobs. 2. Defence projects and strategy being too long a lead time to deliver inside electoral cycles.

                Hawke/Keating brought us the "air-sea gap" doctrine, where all of the services, but especially the army, were starved of funds and using kit from the 50s, 60s and 70s and their level of capability was deliberately slashed, for example not retaining aircraft carriers.

                Absolutely correct.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can you post a source that shows Rudd promised 3% GDP spent on defence? As far as I can see, we haven't had 3% since 1970.

                >Defence budget papers show spending for 2023-24 will reach $52.558 billion – 2.04 per cent of GDP – up from $49.131 billion – 1.93 per cent of GDP – in 2022-23.
                >https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/budget-policy/2023-2024-defence-budget-at-first-glance
                Not sure where you are getting that we are "nearly down to 1% of GDP".

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Post a source for an election promise in a campaign campaign that happened six months after Facebook was opened to public users for the first time
                https://www.jstor.org/stable/26459239

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                2/2

                Howard then did East Timor and the ADF was barely able to do it even without Indonesia resisting it, which was a wake up call for that government that the ADF was anemic, so they replaced Leo with Abrams and started longer term projects to inject some blood into the veins. Then GWOT kicked off and everyone was running on fumes and running ancient fleets into the ground for years, so a long term spending target of 3% of GDP was set a year on year spending increase of 2% planned and more projects were lined up to meet it.

                Rudd/Gillard/Rudd was then elected on a promise of maintaining the 3% target and immediately broke it, cancelling major projects left and right, driving defence spending down to nearly 1% of GDP while also insisting on the addition of new vanity projects of his liking (LHD) funded from the carcass of other projects.

                Abbott/Turnbull/Schlomo were then elected and we went back to plotting in projects to spend us back to 3% GDP, then we have another change of government.

                Lo and behold, now we have the Albanese government, who made absolutely ZERO mention of any defence cuts when campaigning for the election (and did not have it in their policy platform: I know because I read the whole fricking thing), but is cancelling projects and driving downwards towards 1% of GDP spending.

                This is not a sudden issue now. It's a pattern of behaviour for the last 4 decades. It takes nearly a whole government term to set a strategy and conop, design a force and posture to meet it, plan, tender, select and then move to delivery, and every fricking time we do it we then get an ALP government that cancels nearly every bit of it and forces the whole process to restart a few years later. I'm not ideologically opposed to the ALP and I think Albanese is generally doing a pretty good job, a frickload better than Scomo, but holy frick their defence credentials are fricking terrible and they are 110% to blame for pretty much every capability deficiency in the ADF.

                >This is not a sudden issue now.
                No, but there has been 10 years of inaction from the Liberal and National Coalition, and in that time, the strategic and geo-political environment has changed.
                So, no, you aren't quite correct. This is in fact a sudden issue, because now, suddenly there is a government that is in a position that MUST do something about it.
                I don't think Labor's defence credentials are as dog shit as the LNP's, after all, they did appoint the Deputy Prime Minister as Defence Minister, but they are having to make very tough choices to 'fix' the defence stagnation of the last 10 years.

                I share your skepticism and doubt, but there is no doubt that the Albanese Government has inherited the highest debt our country has ever had, and has decided to actually do something about ADF stagnation in regards to the path leading to WW3.

                >The ALP....are 110% to blame for pretty much every capability deficiency in the ADF.
                How far back do you want to go? Howard and Abbot/Turnbull/Morrison really did frick all for defence, but hey, lets say it is 110% the ALP's fault. I mean, after all, they were only in Government for eight of the last 20 years.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, I mean ALP was in Government for 8 of the last 28 years. So yeah, totes ALP fault amirite guise? homosexual.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/l9dHJYw.jpg

                [...]
                >This is not a sudden issue now.
                No, but there has been 10 years of inaction from the Liberal and National Coalition, and in that time, the strategic and geo-political environment has changed.
                So, no, you aren't quite correct. This is in fact a sudden issue, because now, suddenly there is a government that is in a position that MUST do something about it.
                I don't think Labor's defence credentials are as dog shit as the LNP's, after all, they did appoint the Deputy Prime Minister as Defence Minister, but they are having to make very tough choices to 'fix' the defence stagnation of the last 10 years.

                I share your skepticism and doubt, but there is no doubt that the Albanese Government has inherited the highest debt our country has ever had, and has decided to actually do something about ADF stagnation in regards to the path leading to WW3.

                >The ALP....are 110% to blame for pretty much every capability deficiency in the ADF.
                How far back do you want to go? Howard and Abbot/Turnbull/Morrison really did frick all for defence, but hey, lets say it is 110% the ALP's fault. I mean, after all, they were only in Government for eight of the last 20 years.

                Did you not read what was written? Being in government for 8 of 28 years absolutely can frick everything if it's in the middle and you cancel everything and force it to start over again.

                There hasn't been 10 years of stagnation, there's been Apache, Blackhawk, Barracuda come AUKUS, Hunter, Land 400 (CRV, then IFV cut by 2/3 by ALP, plus M&S, extra M88s, and extra tanks), Land 159 and 200 (digitisation), SPG (again, because Rudd cancelled it last time), A2AD missiles, HIMARs, GBAD AFV, special forces renewal, Growler stop-gap, C17 stop-gap.

                That's not stagnation you dullard. That's a bunch of shit that the new government is now in the process of dick fingering either by reducing numbers to undeployable irrelevance. For whatever reason you want to hate the Liberals and suck Labor's wiener, and that's fine, all power to you, but don't be a Friendjordies-style simp where you have to pretend that the ALP can do no wrong and that they have better policy and outcomes than the LNP in every area. They are absolutely fricking terrible at defence and have chronically fricked the entire portfolio up every single time they have been in government. They are already well into fricking it up for another generation or two this time around, immediately making the Army totally irrelevant and operationally unsustainable by dumpstering L400, which was the lynchpin and backbone of the army's entire future operational concept, digitisation concept and modernisation concept for the next 40 years that they'd spent more than a decade designing and planning.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                *either by reducing numbers to undeployable irrelevance, by changing capability requirements to some unhinged list picked on a whim or by outright cancelling the project.

                Got mad because people like you, who are so biased towards one party or the other that they can't see when "their side" fricks up, and missed most of my sentence as a result.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                Did you not read what was written? Being in government for 8 of 28 years absolutely can frick everything if it's in the middle and you cancel everything and force it to start over again.

                There hasn't been 10 years of stagnation, there's been Apache, Blackhawk, Barracuda come AUKUS, Hunter, Land 400 (CRV, then IFV cut by 2/3 by ALP, plus M&S, extra M88s, and extra tanks), Land 159 and 200 (digitisation), SPG (again, because Rudd cancelled it last time), A2AD missiles, HIMARs, GBAD AFV, special forces renewal, Growler stop-gap, C17 stop-gap.

                That's not stagnation you dullard. That's a bunch of shit that the new government is now in the process of dick fingering either by reducing numbers to undeployable irrelevance. For whatever reason you want to hate the Liberals and suck Labor's wiener, and that's fine, all power to you, but don't be a Friendjordies-style simp where you have to pretend that the ALP can do no wrong and that they have better policy and outcomes than the LNP in every area. They are absolutely fricking terrible at defence and have chronically fricked the entire portfolio up every single time they have been in government. They are already well into fricking it up for another generation or two this time around, immediately making the Army totally irrelevant and operationally unsustainable by dumpstering L400, which was the lynchpin and backbone of the army's entire future operational concept, digitisation concept and modernisation concept for the next 40 years that they'd spent more than a decade designing and planning.

                Oh, but it's ok for you to be an LNP wienersucker? That's fine then.
                Yes, stagnation. The LNP doesn't get points for replacing equipment that was fricking broken, obsolete, undeployable and that defence has been begging to be replaced (NH90, MRH90, M888, Tiger, M113, reverine craft etc.)
                I will agree that there has been some purchases of equipment over the past 28 years (I'd fricking hope so), but the real stagnation is ADF numbers. The ADF has become a joke from lack of equipment, funding and morale issues, so much so that it is literally losing more personnel than it is signing up.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Got mad because people like you, who are so biased towards one party or the other that they can't see when "their side" fricks up, and missed most of my sentence as a result.
                It salts me to because I vote independent and it amazes just how party ideology and commitments blind otherwise quite rational people to reality. The Labor base doesn't fricking care about defence and this is a fact, and this colours defence funding. The Labor base doesn't really think china is a threat and this colours their foreign policy. The same happens for Liberals on a bunch of issues and both deny the reality of it. Fact is if Labor was in power over 2018-2020 we'd have no foreign interference legislation, we'd have Huawei 5G everywhere and we wouldn't have joined AUKUS. The least labor shills can do it acknowledge that.

                That being said, liberal shills should also acknowledge that defence spending wasn't all that under the liberals and they did absolutely fail on a number of def acquisitions, submarines being the primary example. The ADF withered under the liberals too, they weren't immune to cashing in that peace dividend.

                Still were it up to the left faction in labor we wouldn't even have a submarine capability they would of fricked it off entirely and that's ultimately why I'll always flow prefs to the libs. Sorry not sorry.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                qft

                [...]
                Oh, but it's ok for you to be an LNP wienersucker? That's fine then.
                Yes, stagnation. The LNP doesn't get points for replacing equipment that was fricking broken, obsolete, undeployable and that defence has been begging to be replaced (NH90, MRH90, M888, Tiger, M113, reverine craft etc.)
                I will agree that there has been some purchases of equipment over the past 28 years (I'd fricking hope so), but the real stagnation is ADF numbers. The ADF has become a joke from lack of equipment, funding and morale issues, so much so that it is literally losing more personnel than it is signing up.

                >Oh, but it's ok for you to be an LNP wienersucker? That's fine then.
                How fricking clear can I be for you? I think the Liberal party (shut the frick up with LNP you fricking banana bender: that party doesn't exist in federal politics, and that's the level we're talking about, you dumb c**t) and the Nationals are stacked with fricking low altitude fliers who haven't had a decent agenda in the last decade. But that doesn't mean mean that they suck anywhere near as much dick as the ALP on Defence. Stop being a fricking dumb c**t, pull your head out of your arse and go to an ALP branch meeting to shout at the other frickers in the party you worship about their fricking moronic defence policy. Stop shilling to try and defending the indefensible on the internet and go unfrick your party's defence policy you fricking wanker. People like you who are polarising the frick out of western politics because you are determined to ignore everything "your team" does wrong and ignore anything "the other team" does right are the fricking cancer that is killing democracy.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >killing democracy.

                Democracy as a political system is already well into dying due to the inherent features of the system. What you two mongolids are arguing about is which out of three dysfunctional AUS parties are the least dysfunctional. But guess what? All three are dysfunctional choices.

                The things you complain about are the age related diseases of democracies, similar to artherosclerosis, cancer and dementia in humans.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Democracy as a political system is already well into dying due to the inherent features of the system. What you two mongolids are arguing about is which out of three dysfunctional AUS parties are the least dysfunctional. But guess what? All three are dysfunctional choices.
                Shut the frick up you edgy pseud. Why don't you go watch some pro-Assad or pro-Stalin propaganda videos with a VHS filter on youtube while kidding yourself that whatever shit ideology you ascribe to is relevant and competitive. History is over, we've replaced you. We're not letting your shitty kind come back. If I want your opinion I'll take my fricking wiener out your mouth before asking, until then keep your lips sealed around the shaft so that no one needs to listen to your self-impressed 96IQ homosexualry.

                I'm not arguing which out of the Liberal / Labor / National / Greens party is better. Oh, by the way, there are more than 3 relevant parties in Australia. I'm getting this fricking brainwashed shill to understand that not every party is equally good or bad in every policy area, and that some parties have long term institutional incompetence in certain policy areas.

                Again, shut the frick up, your opinions are worthless, you're either a c**t or you must be 18 to post here.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Democracy as a political system is already well into dying
                What a shit take. Here we are interested in democracy, liberalism, free speech etc and here you are telling us not to be interested in democracy because it's pointless and it's dying. I wonder why it's dying Black person? Could it be because a large demographic thinks it's pointless and hence fails to contribute and shape it? Could it be your very fricking attitude that's hastening it's death?

                And what would you replace it with homosexual? Perhaps we just let some c**t rule us? Is that your alternative you silly little b***h that refuses to acknowledge reality because it doesn't align with your ideological beliefs / doesn't want to lose an argument on the internet.

                Protip, when you get schooled comprehensibly on a topic the big thing to do is either shut the frick up or acknowledge that that you might be wrong on a few points. I have nothing but respect for people who do that. The low IQ thing to do is to retreat back into ideology, the even lower IQ thing to do is screech that it's all bullshit, democracy is dying anyway blah blah the game is rigged etc etc. A very low IQ move anon, and you lose because of it, we all lose.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely truth-pilled

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                mashallah brother, the Dept of Defence has spent more money on contractors than it would take to equip/train/maintain a second armoured regiment - in just the past 5 years

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >There hasn't been 10 years of stagnation, there's been Apache, Blackhawk, Barracuda come AUKUS, Hunter, Land 400 (CRV, then IFV cut by 2/3 by ALP, plus M&S, extra M88s, and extra tanks), Land 159 and 200 (digitisation), SPG (again, because Rudd cancelled it last time), A2AD missiles, HIMARs, GBAD AFV, special forces renewal, Growler stop-gap, C17 stop-gap.
                Not even a full list but the labor shill will disagree because he bought the albanese talking points. You could of mentioned the space funding and the creation of a cyber security centre of excellence etc etc but I'm sure he thinks labor would have put these in place anyways. Just like they would have totally banned Huawei amirite?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                here's a different graph for you, though it contradicts a bit what you say
                also, just remember that in 2009 we had the Global Financial Crisis

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Here, I labelled the graph for you so that you can noootice as well.

                >There hasn't been 10 years of stagnation, there's been Apache, Blackhawk, Barracuda come AUKUS, Hunter, Land 400 (CRV, then IFV cut by 2/3 by ALP, plus M&S, extra M88s, and extra tanks), Land 159 and 200 (digitisation), SPG (again, because Rudd cancelled it last time), A2AD missiles, HIMARs, GBAD AFV, special forces renewal, Growler stop-gap, C17 stop-gap.
                Not even a full list but the labor shill will disagree because he bought the albanese talking points. You could of mentioned the space funding and the creation of a cyber security centre of excellence etc etc but I'm sure he thinks labor would have put these in place anyways. Just like they would have totally banned Huawei amirite?

                >space funding
                >but he thinks labor would have done it anyway
                The ALP actually already fricking cancelled and defunded the space stuff.
                >Cyber center + ASD expansion
                Good points that I missed.

                https://i.imgur.com/NVz938F.png

                Typically, defence spending is reckoned as a ratio of GDP
                iinm Australia has achieved around 1.9-2% of GDP for the past 10 years, which is roughly near NATO minimum guidelines
                so there's that
                you are correct that Australia has a high GDP even for an OECD country, so it should be able to afford higher tech military capabilities
                but I think the problem is that to achieve its defence aims, Australia has to spend more than the minimum

                Let's consider the US and UK, two good reference countries:
                the US military spends about 800 billion yearly; this buys the Army and Marines 74 brigades, 11 carriers, 120 escorts, 50 submarines, 30 amphibs, 140 fighter squadrons and 9 bomber squadrons
                the UK military spends about 55 billion, and gets 6 brigades, 2 carriers, 18 escorts, 11 submarines, 5 amphibs and 10 fighter squadrons

                2% of GDP for Australia is roughly 30 billion a year
                The attached table shows a notional "What if" Australia spent like the US or the UK. There are certain differences due to differing spending priorities between the 2 countries; notably, the UK doesn't operate any dedicated bombers like the B-1 and B-2

                Realistically, the Australian Army can only afford 3 mechanised brigades. The Navy, only 1 carrier, 10 escorts, 6 subs and 3 amphibs, and the Air Force only 5 fighter squadrons (80 combat jets).

                This is actually fairly in line with current structures of 3 brigades, 6 Collins, 3 Hobarts and 8 Anzacs, 2 Canberras and 1 Choules, and 80 F-18s and F-35s. The missing carrier can be explained as increased expenditure on the P-8s and E-7s, very expensive yet essential aircraft

                However, note the difference in US and UK spending in carriers, escorts, and amphibs especially. US warships are nuclear, have more VLS cells, and more amphib capacity.

                If the Australian military wishes to EXPAND its capabilities, such as by investing in additional Army and Marine capabilities, or pursuing that 18-escort figure, or Burke-class warships, the budget must INCREASE.

                Firstly: 2% of GDP is meant to be a peacetime, no warning signs maintenance figure. It's meant to be well north of 2% if the strategic outlook has large risks, like a northern neighbour that is a retrograde party state that has rhetoric around invading neighbours and subjecting the region to their hegemony because of a chip on their shoulder.

                Secondly, your figures and knowledge of what the ALP is actually doing with defence are way off the mark. For example: The ALP cut the plan for 3 mech brigades down to 1 mech brigade. The ALP got rid of Australia's 1 carrier (and it wasn't a cope carrier) and didn't replace it. The ALP has repeatedly cancelled SPG. Etc.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The ALP actually already fricking cancelled and defunded the space stuff.
                I know and it's one of the dumber cuts I've seen Labor do given the cost vs possible value, not just to defence but the Australian space industry.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The ALP got rid of Australia's 1 carrier
                To be fair wasn't this because we were going to buy a replacement carrier off the bongs (HMAS Invincible) before the Falklands started, then when war started the bongs told us to frick off?

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(R05)

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, but we still had all the money that we'd allocated for it in the budget. Hawke decided not to get another carrier with that money and instead to take it out of the Defence budget. Keep in mind this was in '83, the Cold War was still very much a thing, Iran had just had its Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war was kicking off and threatening our oil supply route, and the Hawke-Keating government was about to define our military strategy as defending the air-sea gap to the north of Australia, while also getting rid of the most or second most useful tool for doing that: the aircraft carrier.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                The option was open to buy a new-build Invincible-class; the RAN didn't take it up

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >2% of GDP is meant to be
                as I said, a MINIMUM

                >Secondly, your figures and knowledge of what the ALP
                I haven't said a word about the ALP, so frick off

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you concede your GDP figures were wrong? Thanks.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nope, because they weren't. Rudd gets to nearly 1% GDP. Every sharp cut is under ALP. Funding certainty only exists under coalition. Real funding declines year on year under ALP always. The only times the budget ever gets north of 2% is under coalition spending plans before the ALP can frick them.

                Your position is comprehensively wrong.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Rudd gets to nearly 1% GDP

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao why are you using USD?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not Australian, and the quickest references available to me are denominated in USD. The ratio doesn't change whether they're in AUD or USD.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, parliament library and ABS disagree with your figures. They give them as 1.8% in 2008, 1.94 in 09, 1.86 in 10, 1.76 in 11, 1.67 in 12, 1.64 in 2013 when he lost office. He was on pace to hit 1% within 1-2 more terms in office, had he won the 2013 election.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Possibly due to differences in calculating what goes into the military budget.

                Nonetheless it's not 1%. Nor is it even "nearly".

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Being within a term or two in office of 1% is the definition of nearly. It's a quanta or two of time from the state.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He was on pace to hit 1% within 1-2 more terms in office
                >he served 4 years. if we extrapolate that out to 10, what I said might have come true
                krudd was not PM at all in 2011-12 and only for a few months in 2013. not sure you can pin all of that on him.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The ALP got rid of Australia's 1 carrier
                To be fair wasn't this because we were going to buy a replacement carrier off the bongs (HMAS Invincible) before the Falklands started, then when war started the bongs told us to frick off?

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(R05)

                And the need for a carrier plummeted with the end of Forward Defence in 1972. Relevant projection of airpower can be achieved in AU's near abroad with tankers rather than steaming a carrier from FBE with an appropriate escort force.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I hate DOA c**ts so much it's unreal.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >forward defence
                cringe, suck local hegemon dick, deploy forces in distant lands to 'stop dominoes falling', just plugging in to allied forces and hoping that we wont get singapored/tobruk'ed again

                >Defence of Australia
                based, redpilled defence concept where local projection and A2AD is prioritised, disproportionate effects, indepentent action, corbettian rather than fleet in being

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You need to detach Hugh White's knob from your ass mate, or better yet, read more Mahan.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cringe
                What a critique of forward defence, very high IQ. Good job.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You need to detach Hugh White's knob from your ass mate, or better yet, read more Mahan.

                name one intervention in south east asia where Australian forces were deployed because Australian interests were at risk, rather than because of papa GB or US

                i'll wait

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Name one conflict in Australian history that wasn't a function of papa GB or US? I'll wait.

                Note how your answer has no theoretical bearing on DOA or forward defence? Think carefully why that might be.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Australia had (Forward Defence) and continues to maintain a colonial mindset (DOA acquistion of Defence materiel, but deploying assets as if forward defence has never ended - see afghanistan and iraq) with its Defence policy - continually spending funds, military capability and lives in the hope that we can recover these payments with interest later on.

                This colonial mindset has made australian defence and diplomatic policy instrinsically reactive.

                >what are the americans doing? we'll wait and see what they do before we do something ourselves - see the east timor
                >what do you mean China has negotiated a new agreement in the pacific? do a 'pacific step up' that still doesnt close the foreign aid gap made from the cuts in 2015.

                Is it not inherently better to make decisions on policy rather than just vibes?

                What if Australia spent that $9b spent over in Iraq/Afghanistan on new capability? Does this not answer (in part) the funding gap that we already see in Defence?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                it also doesn't mean running away from allies or from a broader policy of chinese containment (given they're already fricking over every neighbour they have already, we need not do anything to frick up their place in S-E Asia)

                Instead it broadens the operational concept open to Navy/Airforce/Army to be a true (national) joint force, rather than leaning superhard into interoperability with NATO+ countries.

                Conditional on not buying failed Eurocuck equipment (MRH/Tiger + every spanish ship) of course.

                Not interested in your politics, I've had this debate a million times and I just don't care what you think. It's an approach rooted in politics rather than strategy and I'm fundamentally not interested in debating it on PrepHole and especially not with someone whose first post about the topic was bait.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                if you cant recognise strategy as planned/applied politics then there is no help for you brother. Dust off your Clausewitz and contemplate the sheer scale of failed AU Defence policy as it has existed for the better part of a century.

                RAN can't staff their ships because they cant recruit and retain their personnel for want of poor leadership, lifestyle and pay.

                Army is understrength and underfunded.

                Airforce is still failing its availability requirements.

                We are approaching Russian-tier in our approaches to geopolitics and military acquisition and sustainment.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Clausewitz
                It's not applied politics and it's quite telling you'd attribute that view to CVC. Strategy might have a political goal but it's not applied politics. Feel free to have this philosophical debate with your other undergrads but I'm just not interested in your politics I'm even less interested in your understanding of strategy.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Clausewitz
                said that war is one of the tools of politics; you're arguing that politics is a tool of war
                You got it the wrong way round.

                Australia had (Forward Defence) and continues to maintain a colonial mindset (DOA acquistion of Defence materiel, but deploying assets as if forward defence has never ended - see afghanistan and iraq) with its Defence policy - continually spending funds, military capability and lives in the hope that we can recover these payments with interest later on.

                This colonial mindset has made australian defence and diplomatic policy instrinsically reactive.

                >what are the americans doing? we'll wait and see what they do before we do something ourselves - see the east timor
                >what do you mean China has negotiated a new agreement in the pacific? do a 'pacific step up' that still doesnt close the foreign aid gap made from the cuts in 2015.

                Is it not inherently better to make decisions on policy rather than just vibes?

                What if Australia spent that $9b spent over in Iraq/Afghanistan on new capability? Does this not answer (in part) the funding gap that we already see in Defence?

                >Is it not inherently better to make decisions on policy rather than just vibes?
                Just because you disagree with policy decisions, doesn't mean the Government made decisions based on "just vibes".

                >Instead it broadens the operational concept open to Navy/Airforce/Army to be a true (national) joint force, rather than leaning superhard into interoperability with NATO+ countries.
                Who ever said you can't be both?

                Your arguments lack significant logical steps to make up a coherent whole.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kiwi-tier thinking
                selfish

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Name one conflict in Australian history that wasn't a function of papa GB or US? I'll wait.

                Note how your answer has no theoretical bearing on DOA or forward defence? Think carefully why that might be.

                it also doesn't mean running away from allies or from a broader policy of chinese containment (given they're already fricking over every neighbour they have already, we need not do anything to frick up their place in S-E Asia)

                Instead it broadens the operational concept open to Navy/Airforce/Army to be a true (national) joint force, rather than leaning superhard into interoperability with NATO+ countries.

                Conditional on not buying failed Eurocuck equipment (MRH/Tiger + every spanish ship) of course.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                east timor

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >implying Australian interests differ from our allies
                Kys

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                The entire Papuan campaign you fricking moron

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                why do diggers always b***h and moan about Tobruk, when you're the c**ts who got a priority Royal Navy pass out of there and left everyone else to be captured?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Relevant projection of airpower can be achieved in AU's near abroad with tankers rather than steaming a carrier from FBE with an appropriate escort force.
                1. Not true; tanker reliance means that you have to defend the air-sea gap where the gap is widest instead of absolutely raping an invasion force where it is easiest to find, most vulnerable and has the fewest options (when it's traversing straits).
                2. We didn't have, and he didn't procure, any air tankers. We had the option to procure KC130s, but didn't because they were irrelevant to our carrier interdiction and F111 strike based strategy.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Typically, defence spending is reckoned as a ratio of GDP
                iinm Australia has achieved around 1.9-2% of GDP for the past 10 years, which is roughly near NATO minimum guidelines
                so there's that
                you are correct that Australia has a high GDP even for an OECD country, so it should be able to afford higher tech military capabilities
                but I think the problem is that to achieve its defence aims, Australia has to spend more than the minimum

                Let's consider the US and UK, two good reference countries:
                the US military spends about 800 billion yearly; this buys the Army and Marines 74 brigades, 11 carriers, 120 escorts, 50 submarines, 30 amphibs, 140 fighter squadrons and 9 bomber squadrons
                the UK military spends about 55 billion, and gets 6 brigades, 2 carriers, 18 escorts, 11 submarines, 5 amphibs and 10 fighter squadrons

                2% of GDP for Australia is roughly 30 billion a year
                The attached table shows a notional "What if" Australia spent like the US or the UK. There are certain differences due to differing spending priorities between the 2 countries; notably, the UK doesn't operate any dedicated bombers like the B-1 and B-2

                Realistically, the Australian Army can only afford 3 mechanised brigades. The Navy, only 1 carrier, 10 escorts, 6 subs and 3 amphibs, and the Air Force only 5 fighter squadrons (80 combat jets).

                This is actually fairly in line with current structures of 3 brigades, 6 Collins, 3 Hobarts and 8 Anzacs, 2 Canberras and 1 Choules, and 80 F-18s and F-35s. The missing carrier can be explained as increased expenditure on the P-8s and E-7s, very expensive yet essential aircraft

                However, note the difference in US and UK spending in carriers, escorts, and amphibs especially. US warships are nuclear, have more VLS cells, and more amphib capacity.

                If the Australian military wishes to EXPAND its capabilities, such as by investing in additional Army and Marine capabilities, or pursuing that 18-escort figure, or Burke-class warships, the budget must INCREASE.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the Australian Army can only afford 3 mechanised brigades

                And now we don’t even have that. We have a mechanised “brigade” with only two battalions. PLANMC CABs have FOUR.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why does Labor do it?
                Why cant they just let us have good things?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >a "mission bay" is literally "empty space built with plugins to put whatever you like on",
                Yes but the mission bay isn't a blank space, it was designed and this quoting BAE to allow: "helicopters, unmanned vehicles, boats, mission loads and disaster relief stores.

                In this scenario they've ripped it out including the ships ability to use a RHIB. The idea this is what the mission bay was intended i.e. to be removed entirely for VLS is utter bullshit.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they've ripped it out including the ships ability to use a RHIB
                says you
                the ship's boat bays are aft of the mission bay, dearie; the mission bay provided additional stowage for additional boats for requirements additional to the ship's baseline need
                >The idea this is what the mission bay was intended i.e. to be removed entirely for VLS is utter bullshit
                it's not even the first warship class in commission to have this ability, idiot
                they're not even "ripping" anything out, just redesigning the space, and YES, they were fully prepared to make it a missile silo; it's even adjacent to existing dedicated missile space. Clearance is not an issue.
                In fact the RAN can chose to keep the towed array or not, but if they want to bin it they can even replace it with another boat bay

                if you want an example of mission bays NOT designed for adding missiles, take a look at the LCS Independence

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you don't know the term you're the moron

                Are you a fricking spastic? It's at full weight, there's no margin that allows additional VLS without removing something AND that's exactly what BAE is shilling for the new variant, they've taken OUT the mission bay and they'd fricked off the towed array and some other ASW-shit to get more VLS.

                >uses the mission bay for its intended purpose
                >REEEEE
                idiot.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Australian Navy desperately wants to limit itself to the smallest type 26 hull variant for whatever reason (probably because we love waste billions on advisors and reviews over actual hardware). So no, it doesn't have that space.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >for whatever reason
                same reason we are going for the smaller sub designs: we're a smallish country with a smallish military and there's a lot of ocean, so we want the maximum number of effective boats for our budget

                whether the smaller boats turn out to be cheaper to man and run remains to be seen but that's the theory.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I draw your attention to this empty space in the deck here.
                heavy stuff above water line make funny bathtub unhappy. Too much unhappy and funny bathtub wants to be upside down more than up if you tip it over a bit. The ocean isn't a stable platform, you need reserve stability. I don't know how to dumb it down any further.

                I didn't read anything else and I don't care. You have a fixed limit of how much shit you can spam onto a ship, which is why the vast majority of WW2 or interwar ships were fricking instantly scrapped. They legitimately couldn't fit any more shit onto them without it getting unsafe, they were maxed out.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You know nothing.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it wasn't really multirole and was undergunned for anything other than peacetime conditions
      Hmm, what does that remind me of?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't really want understand why the other anglo states don't just buy what works from the Americans and go from there.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because the US Nacy also chases boondoggles from tine to time.
        Please see the LCS.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Good luck trying to operate Arleigh Burkes, Fords and Americas on a budget 1/12th the Americans'

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >how dare BAe sell us what we want and not anticipate our future change of mind!!

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Calm down redditor. Australia is still getting ASW frigates the only thing thats changed is it will get more destroyers.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Calm down yourself, I'm not the one throwing a multi paragraph hissyfit here

          Australia doesn't know what it wants. It wants a British style AA/ASW frigate fleet, AND an American style AA cruiser fleet, AND a Streetfighter style AA/missile boat fleet.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Bae is about to get Naval Grouped

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AWS

    You mean ASW.

    Stop saying amazon web services when you mean Anti Submarine Warfare.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      yes, no shit Black person, autocorrect.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >can't afford multiple classes of frigate
    >tries to mutilate one frigate until it fulfils their needs
    Just buy a couple Type 26s, Type 31s and Type 32s you cheapskates, stop butchering our ships.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >BAE came up with the idea homosexual, the main issue is that Australia didn't go with the FREM which is what the US did ala the constellation. In fact, there's rumours that constellation is exactly what this is replaced with given the chap doing th surface fleet review is retired USN admiral. Time will tell.

      The irony in all this is that Canada is in the backyard there not even aware of the cluster frick they are about to walk into (being about 5 years behind Australia). God bless those c**ts.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >It's an Australian Type 26 Hunter with the AWS and multirole mission bay taken out for more VLS
    Isn't the type 32 a dedicated multirole frigate?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes and I'd be very interested to see if the RN looks at this modified type 26 variant as an option instead of the 32 given VLS count is equivalent to an Arleigh Burke at only 10,000 tonne. Really depends what RN wants for the type 32 role I guess.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Should have brought FREMM. No refunds.

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Hurr durr we want a ship with destroyer capabilities
    >Lets buy an ASW frigate then blame BAE for selling us one
    Why not just buy a destroyer in the first place you dumb c**ts

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    what are the aussies other option in the event they decide to cut BAE loose, who else is making frigates for the international market?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lets be clear no Australian government is seriously going to scrap/replace the Hunters. There are only 2 real solutions for the RANs need for more lethal ships.
      Speed up the drumbeat at Osbourne from 24 months to 18 months which can be done if the Government wishes. Or see if a foreign shipyard can shit out ships that are can be useful for Aus which is unlikely considering every relevant nation is packed building their own ships

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a ship yet with those new boxy masts that doesn't look like shit? I have this instinctive feeling that there is one out there, and that I've seen it before, but right now I can't name it.

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't Australia get its destroyer blueprints from the Spaniards a few years back? What a way to piss off the bongs lol

  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Uh, who's gonna tell the engineers that the ships not in the water?

  14. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The real question: how many cardboard drones can it launch?

  15. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Australia is basically United States South, and the UK is basically United States Europe Airfield Island with rapey Pakis at this point. I don't understand why they can't just crib off of what works for Uncle Sam, since they're basically bat boys for the real hitter anyways.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Uncle Sam is building french frigates my Black person

  16. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The diggers wanted more missile cells

  17. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'll wait for the Fleet Review, but it is pretty clear to me that only six Anti submarine Warfare (ASW) Hunters will be made before the the final three will be changed to be Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) Hunters. This makes sense given there is little scope for Australia to build/have designed, other vessels before the AWD Hobarts require replacing.

    I think it's the right choice. I too would double down on Hunter-hulls, as there is no debate here, the Hunter hulls are the only hulls, for Major Fleet Units (MFUs), that can be made and put into service soonest.

    This idea of 'corvettes' or 'light frigates', is a massive debate happening behind Navy and Government closed doors right now. Problem number one being most Euro/Asian 'corvettes' or 'light frigates' do not have the range and endurance required for them to be useful for Australia.

    Time will tell what the Fleet Review comes out with. My guess is six (reduced from nine) ASW Hunters, followed by three AWD Hunters, and if, by some miracle, an order for six or more 'corvettes' or 'light frigates'.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This idea of 'corvettes' or 'light frigates', is a massive debate happening behind Navy
      Its not a debate the current Labor government are trying to ram through a class of ship that is the wrong direction for the Navy simply because muh cost. The RAN has always known what its wanted since 2005 and thats been Baby Burkes. The drumbeat at Osborne can be increased from 24 months to 18 months if the governments wants but that requires a plan for after the Hunters which theyre too cheap and stupid to do

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the current Labor government are trying to ram through a class of ship
        Wrong. The media (biased defence 'journalists') and unsolicited proposals by companies are the ones trying to ram 'corvettes' into the RAN.
        >is the wrong direction for the Navy simply because muh cost
        Not quite. Their limiting factor is range and endurance, which so far has made most proposals stupid.
        >and thats been Baby Burkes
        It wanted four but got three, a major mistake, I agree.
        >The drumbeat at Osborne can be increased from 24 months to 18 months
        I sure as frick hope so. That's the only way we can get more hulls into the water soonest.
        >requires a plan for after the Hunters
        That's almost 30 years away. They haven't even decided if they want nine ASW Hunters or six ASW and three AWD.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      What's your take on buying more Navantia air warfare destroyers vs a modified Type 26?

      What kind of endurance are you thinking of? The European Patrol Corvette programme has an ocean patrol variant that is very long ranged

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Given the numerous nations involved, and the expected user countries, I suspect Australia and the RAN will not even consider the European Patrol Corvette. The complexity of design ideas and national preferences makes it too much of a risk, and at 3000 tons it is likely to have unsuitable endurance for Australia. I believe the minimum proposed for the RAN is around 5000 tons.

        As for a new Hobart-style vessel from Navantia, I think it is common knowledge (not common for clueless public) that the ship has well and truly sailed on the chance to get more Hobart AWD. Even a Flight 3 Hobart, as proposed, is basically an all new design with new components that are actually in production. I don't believe RAN and the Government will be keen on another three-hull limited run. I fully believe they will modify T26 Hunter to be more AWD focused.
        Given the spec loadout for ASW Hunter, even ASW Hunter will basically outspec the Hobarts in the Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) role.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I believe the minimum proposed for the RAN is around 5000 tons
          Big "corvette"
          What kind of endurance is the RAN asking for? 45 days, 4000nm? would that really be impossible for a 3000 tonner?
          of course, the fit for the corvette is the question. if they are demanding 24 VLS cells plus 32 missile canisters plus radars plus helicopter plus kitchen sink

          I agree with your broad outlook, I'm just asking about details and playing devil's advocate a little

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The ANZAC class is around 6000nm, and I really don't think RAN will accept anything under 5000nm, given they are used to their expectations of what they have accustomed to. All the Navy really knows is ANZAC class, being the workhorse of the Navy.

            >I agree with your broad outlook, I'm just asking about details and playing devil's advocate a little
            No all good. I think it's fair to ask questions, given their is a lot of incorrect info on here and the broader media landscape.
            The devil in the detail is Government and RAN wanting their own spec, primarily radars from CEA Technologies, AEGIS combat systems etc. which means, any 'corvette' will be pushing its full load displacement figure.
            Question is, can Australia make do with lesser, smaller systems in order to get hulls in the water?

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >don't think RAN will accept anything under 5000nm
              The RAN won't have a say in it anon, that's not how the defence procurement sausage is made. Navy is but one stakeholder. Sad but absolutely true.
              >Question is, can Australia make do with lesser, smaller systems in order to get hulls in the water?
              NTA but the answer is yes it can and the DSR says it absolutely should but then there's the political realities of shipbuilding anon, and that, in almost every instance, has been the Achilles heal in procurement and has so since the 90s. The problem is it's a generation that only knows peace and who grew up thinking we lived in the end of history and that major war was basically impossible, you know, basic unipolar moment shit. A review won't kick that habit but I'm hoping successive National Security Strategies eventually will.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Navy is but one stakeholder. Sad but absolutely true
                Yeah fair. Maybe there is some hope, after all, Army recommended Hanwah Redback to Government, and Government went with it, though I thoroughly suspect it was driven by politics (jobs in a different electorate).
                Government has made some good decisions with Blackhawks, Apaches, Boxer etc. so I do have some hope Government will listen to it's own people.
                >has been the Achilles heal in procurement and has so since the 90s.
                Indeed, very limiting, while I fully support the benefits vs the increased costs of local builds, the Continuous Shipbuilding Program has been a failure, and hopefully, once again, Government reviews and a worsening geo-political environment, can breathe new, sustained life into our two shipbuilding precincts. Anything more than two major shipyards is not sustainable for a small country like ours.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The problem is it's a generation that only knows peace and who grew up thinking we lived in the end of history and that major war was basically impossible, you know, basic unipolar moment shit
                there is that
                I remember listening to a hard-left mate talk about how the previous government totally dropped the ball on China and we should've cannoned up earlier
                after all that I said "well, dyou remember when we said a while back we shouldn't be letting the Chinese control so much of our trade and we should be more hardline about their regional activity, and you said 'that's racist'?"
                fellow was silent for only a moment before coming back with a feeble "then it's a failure of diplomacy"

                fricking numpty

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's right, though. Your gripes relate to a failure in diplomacy and policy, and can't be enforced without a stronger, more enduring navy, so yea, we should've 'cannoned up' earlier.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, he's not, because his definition of "diplomacy" as not "speak softly and carry a big stick", but "if we only TALK to the Chinese I'm sure we can all get along"

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ah, well then yeah he's fricked in the head. We all know in reality the Chinese will say whatever they want to say, and do the exact opposite, and not care that we can see them doing it, yet they still say they aren't. Fricked. Can't negotiate with hard-left/rights and bugs.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I'll wait for the Fleet Review, but it is pretty clear to me that only six Anti submarine Warfare (ASW) Hunters will be made before the the final three will be changed to be Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) Hunters.
      Here's the thing. The signs aren't great here. The chair is a retired USN admiral and the inquiry was set up by the DSR who weren't shy about what they thought about the Hunter. Maybe I'm paranoid but I don't think you go out of your way to get a retired american admiral to run an inquiry into the suitability of the current fleet if you don't have an outcome in mind.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >My guess is six (reduced from nine) ASW Hunters, followed by three AWD Hunters
      this would be the dumbest choice and therefore I reckon the government will do it. I love how we had a shipbuilding review about 10 years ago that strongly recommended we build mature designs and the first thing we did was sign a contract for a ship that wasn't even under construction, then significantly change the design to make it further immature, and now we're looking at changing the design even further.

      I guarantee you, BAE will pitch a batch 4 of Hunters that will be designed to fly and the government would strongly consider it

      Babwiener Arrowhead 140 has entered the chat. Vying for selection as a tier 2 combatant also known as the Type 31 frigate. This small Boi weighs in at 5,700 tonne, but don't let that fool you the wiener has 32 VLS cells and 57mm main gun.

      Will it take some of the money to be axed from Hunter. You be the judge. Vote now, dubs means yes.

      I like the arrowhead based on this post alone, why frick around with corvettes when this exists.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >be labor government
        >ignore review from 10 years ago saying we need to leave Darwin for Adelaide because we're bleeding men being
        >ignore Plan Beersheba
        >ignore reality and lie that more nation "are building a larger fleet of smaller ships"

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          both sides are bad for national defence and maintaining any semblance of sovereignty. Libs penned the contract with BAE and ignored the RAND review that was the basis of continuous shipbuilding.

          Both sides are moronic, they're banking that the status quo will remain the same even if Taiwan gets invaded, the hope is that China won't pose a threat outside of the South China Sea

          >this would be the dumbest choice
          Brainlet. It is actually one of the smartest choices to ensure the Hobarts are replaced on time. That's why everyone is talking about it so much. By the time ship six completes, the efficiency of building the same hull will work in our favour to modify the block to have more VLS.
          >why frick around with corvettes when this exists.
          Because it is basically another frigate like the ANZAC class...which is already being replaced by Hunter, so there is limited value, but I don't necessarily disagree. Instead, we should have 12 Hunters and 6 Hunter-based AWD.

          >It is actually one of the smartest choices to ensure the Hobarts are replaced on time.
          true, by the time Hunters hit the water after they're redesigned for the nth time, Hobart's will probably need to be replaced. Anzacs will probably be on another LOTE because, why not.

          There are better options then Hunter, stop having a sunken cost bias.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There are better options then Hunter, stop having a sunken cost bias.
            Name them, then tell me they will hit the water sooner than Hunter, so I can laugh at you.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Arleigh and FREMM/Constellation. It's not just about getting them built quickly, but their sustainment and through-life support. Hunters are going to be just another bespoke Australian cluster

              we're an ancillary of the US, we might as well stop pretending we're not, especially when we just spend more money and waste more time adapting european platforms to use american systems with mixed to disastrous consequences

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Arleighs cost A$ 3 billion apiece if built in the States and half again the manning requirements; I'm sure you know how much salaries costs the Forces

                Constellation didn't exist then

                FREMM would be another
                >european platforms to use american systems

                anything else? Arrowhead 140? didn't exist either

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Arleighs cost A$ 3 billion apiece
                oh no, well Hunters are on track the exceed that figure, and then the increased sustainment costs of having a unicorn design. Manning is going to be an issue regardless as thr ADF is hellbent on killing retention in a time where it is unable to meet its current recruitment goals without even considering the additional 18,500 it wanted to grow by

                >Constellation didn't exist then
                which is hilarious as it is being built now while Hunter is still being prototyped.

                >FREMM would be another >european platforms to use american systems
                and now the constellation exists, which could've been a collaboration effort in hindsight.

                >anything else? Arrowhead 140?
                same issues, not a mature design but probably better than corvettes due to endurance requirements as long as the RAN can keep the australianisation to a minimum

                We are talking about ships that were ordered prior to the strategic update in 2020 and the DSR said that the navy isn't fit for purpose. SFR will hopefully have clarifications and not just be another review to recommend a review. I still believe Hunters will be a massive boondoggle and we should get fricking serious, otherwise we may as well invest in infrastructure upgrades in other countries to build ships for us because we obviously are unable to do it here.

                [...]
                Yeah. It is quite an impressive ship on offer for Australia's theoretical corvette/light frigate program (which at this point in time doesn't exist).

                Unfortunately, if Aus goes for the Tasman, it won't have 16 NSM canisters, likely 8 (if not 4), and won't have the 35mm Millenium gun, likely an outdated Phalanx CIWS.

                they'll have to name it something else if they go for it seeing as the third Hunter will be named Tasman. I think Navantia was having a bit of a dig with this

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Manning is going to be an issue regardless
                and it will be even more of an issue when you need a crew 175% larger

                >which is hilarious as it is being built now while Hunter is still being prototyped
                because it was designed and built in America
                if you wanted, you could also have subcontracted Hunter to be designed and built in Scotland, and it wouldn't cost this much or have such delays, and Osborne would get a pittance of workshare, as opposed to building a small warship design and production facility right here in Adelaide

                >as long as the RAN can keep the australianisation to a minimum
                herein lies the problem, and if RAN couldn't keep their fiddly hands off the Burkes you would run into the same problems and costs as well

                >and the DSR said that the navy isn't fit for purpose
                the main issue so far as I can tell is that the RAN wants a frickton of missiles; but still faces a potential PLAN sub threat and is also buying AUKUS which underscores the ASW requirement, unless you make the boats fend for themselves; but sea drones are part of the future and so are laser weapon systems - there are three new considerations and one revisited factor which likely the Navy is frantically running through the operational tradeoffs thereof right now

                but ALL of that is design-agnostic; whether it was T26 or Burke you would have the same hangups all the same if you'd decided now to pause work and relook at your concepts of operations

                and nonetheless Hunter was absolutely the right buy even so, because you now do have the option of stuffing it to the gills with ninety VLS cells if you so wish, AND you have a world-class sub hunter all the same. or keep the mission bay and let it launch drones if you wish.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hunter can and will be state-of-the-art and quite versatile. We should frick corvettes right off and double the Hunters. 12 ASW Hunters and 6 AWD Hunters.
                These, and the AUKUS class will keep Osborne in business for decades, while allowing Henderson to focus on everything else, such as niche theoretical ships like the Joint Support Ship, replacement LHD's etc.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                too bad they cost $1 billion each.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Hunter can and will be state-of-the-art and quite versatile.
                Hope™

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >especially when we just spend more money and waste more time adapting european platforms to use american systems with mixed to disastrous consequences
                Reminder the Navy wanted Baby Burkes almost 20 years ago but were told to shove it

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hobarts are baby burkes though, always have been

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >this would be the dumbest choice
        Brainlet. It is actually one of the smartest choices to ensure the Hobarts are replaced on time. That's why everyone is talking about it so much. By the time ship six completes, the efficiency of building the same hull will work in our favour to modify the block to have more VLS.
        >why frick around with corvettes when this exists.
        Because it is basically another frigate like the ANZAC class...which is already being replaced by Hunter, so there is limited value, but I don't necessarily disagree. Instead, we should have 12 Hunters and 6 Hunter-based AWD.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Problem number one being most Euro/Asian 'corvettes' or 'light frigates' do not have the range and endurance required for them to be useful for Australia.
      Huh, I expected smaller french frigates to have the endurance, considering how much overseas territory they have, but it looks rather limited.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's because the French dont actually care about their overseas territory. Its just prestiege thing for them.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        which ones are you describing?
        the French overseas territories are generally well secured, they use these patrol boats which are practically commercial rig support vessels. all they really need to do is ship supplies, equipment, a platoon of colonial marines, and that's it. Not even a deck gun.

        https://i.imgur.com/xdmK4ua.jpg

        Hunter can and will be state-of-the-art and quite versatile. We should frick corvettes right off and double the Hunters. 12 ASW Hunters and 6 AWD Hunters.
        These, and the AUKUS class will keep Osborne in business for decades, while allowing Henderson to focus on everything else, such as niche theoretical ships like the Joint Support Ship, replacement LHD's etc.

        Australia will need to raise its defence budget if it wants to operate as many as eighteen frigates and six SSNs, which are very manpower intensive - the Collins requires 60 crew, but the Astutes need 100.

        too bad they cost $1 billion each.

        Even a Constellation costs north of a billion dollars. ANY kind of warship mounting a credible air warfare fit will cost at least a billion dollars today.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >which ones are you describing?
          the FDI class.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The FDI are budget general purpose warships designed to bulk out the navy, which can't afford more numbers of Horizons and FREMMs. If the French have a situation further afield, they can call on two Horizons and eight FREMMs. If the FDIs can't make it they can fill in the taskings close to home and free up what they call the "first rank" ships.

            In addition they have these small "third rank" ships which go around doing antipiracy patrols. They get a great deal of mileage out of them; just this year they've done ops all over from West Africa to Japan.

  18. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Really, that's the biggest thing Aussies can afford? My older brother's GI Joe Aircraft Carrier set was bigger than that.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      These models cost upwards of 5 digits

  19. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Apart from being ugly as frick what's this fricking things problem?
    The problem is the Australian government is fricking bipolar and constantly want to modify a proven design to something that it shouldn't be modified to.

  20. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Babwiener Arrowhead 140 has entered the chat. Vying for selection as a tier 2 combatant also known as the Type 31 frigate. This small Boi weighs in at 5,700 tonne, but don't let that fool you the wiener has 32 VLS cells and 57mm main gun.

    Will it take some of the money to be axed from Hunter. You be the judge. Vote now, dubs means yes.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      pic rel, also checked

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        this is very likely the frigate NZ will pick as a replacement for the ANZAC. They can't man even one frigate so I don't see how they do 2-3 of these but then again they aren't really a navy so it's a moot point.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >then again they aren't really a navy so it's a moot point.
          Sad but also correct. They are basically Canada, if Canada had 5 millions people and lived on an island in the Pacific.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            this pretty insulting to Canadians

            Babwiener Arrowhead 140 has entered the chat. Vying for selection as a tier 2 combatant also known as the Type 31 frigate. This small Boi weighs in at 5,700 tonne, but don't let that fool you the wiener has 32 VLS cells and 57mm main gun.

            Will it take some of the money to be axed from Hunter. You be the judge. Vote now, dubs means yes.

            rolling

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you think NZ will choose Arrowhead 140? In all honesty, given their decision to never upgrade their two ANZAC classes, I'd say scrap further frigate purchases, and just go for air force transport and maritime surveillance.

          In reality, the only thing the NZ can contribute to WW3 will be providing infantry to help fill Australian losses.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well NZ put in a request for a quotation to Babwiener explicitly and for the explicit purpose of replacing the ANZACs as this was a recommendation, apparently, of their latest 'defence review'.

            >https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/10/babwiener-to-offer-arrowhead-to-aotearoa-new-zealand/

            >https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2023/november/13743-babwiener-joins-forces-with-new-zealand-smes-to-promote-arrowhead-140-frigate-design.html

            I suspect these little sheep frickers want us to pick the type 31 as a tier 2 so there are economies of scale but I can't see it. Although it is being shilled by the Murdoch press:
            >https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-nz-could-combine-on-deal-for-smaller-missile-laden-frigates-20230809-p5dv81

            IMO I'd rather see NZ become a Chinese vassal then help them in any fricking way but who knows maybe they'll improve when their national party wins the election (it just finished but they are still counting because apparently counting 5M votes is complex when you are a third world).

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          the frick does NZ realistically need a navy for though? Other than coastie stuff I guess or stopping pirates around those couple islands theyve agreed to be the big brother for.
          I'm genuinely struggling to think of a location on the planet that is less strategically significant.
          They're between Australia and nothing basically, and in the big picture they're not even all THAT close to Aus.
          No world power great or small needs to go within 1000km to get to anything else they could possibly be interested in.
          maybe MAYBE of China wanted to go to Antarctica, but that would be taking the really long way round.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Realistically, NZ should just integrate its military with the Australians

            this pretty insulting to Canadians
            [...]
            rolling

            Accurate though
            the only reason Canada is relevant, defence-wise, is their GDP, NORAD, and Arctic patrol

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      rolling

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >16 VLS on counting
      Where are the other VLS? Looks like you can see the top of another ship which is lower and behind the Arrowhead 140. Because of the clear panels, it doesn't even show how many deck-mounted NSM launchers.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is a good point anon

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oh cool, thanks. Looks like it's an extra model showing options.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *