The big surprise about Spain, is their manufacturing capability. They got the work to build these hulls for a reason.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
Indeed, Spain's shipbuilding industry has gained a strong reputation for quality and efficiency. Navantia, the Spanish state-owned shipbuilding company, has been at the forefront of this industry. The construction of the HMAS Hobart class destroyers in partnership with Navantia showcases Spain’s advanced manufacturing capabilities. These vessels have been praised for their design and performance, reflecting the expertise and precision of Spanish shipbuilders.
@getstuffed2391
28 күн бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashedthey didn't build them they designed them. Those hulls were built in Australia
@nedkelly9688
27 күн бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashed Fully built in Australia, what are you even on about.. based on the Spanish design is all. Australia built in Osborne shipyard in South Australia. by BAE Australia also...
@Nathan-ry3yu
25 күн бұрын
@Military_Forces_Unleashed Australian vessels were all built in Australia. though and only based on Spanish F100 design but use different technologies to integrate US designed weponry systems and sensors including Australian own technology. They may look alike but are different..
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
24 күн бұрын
@@getstuffed2391Ah, of course! A reminder that while the Spanish drew up the design, it was right here in Australia where the real heavy lifting took place. After all, there's nothing like combining the best of both worlds: European design elegance and Australian manufacturing toughness.
@sosministriesrev1412
Ай бұрын
HMAS Sydney test fired an SM6, so add that to the mix. We needed at least a 4th ship. 48 MK41 VLS is decent and is as much as the type 45 destroyer of the U.K. but with the advantage of ESSM, which can be quad packed. An 8 cell block becomes 32 missiles. There is a lot of criticism of our defence spending in Australia, and rightly so, the upcoming hunter class frigates will only have 32 Mk 41 VLS, and it should have at least 64. We could, in reality, reduce the amount of Hunter class frigates and build a couple more Hobart class destroyers instead since we have built 3. The good news is they are now being armed with SM6 as well as the new updated Naval Strike Missile which has superior range to the Harpoon it is replacing. Most of the tech is U.S. The Aegis Spy radar, missiles except the new naval strike missile, the Mk 45/60 5inch Naval gun.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
You’ve raised valid points. The SM6 test by HMAS Sydney showcases the robust capability of the current fleet, but indeed, a fourth ship and greater VLS capacity would be ideal to further bolster defense. The upcoming Hunter class frigates, with only 32 cells, are concerning, especially considering modern threats. It’s an important ongoing debate about the balance between cost and capability in our naval defense.
@nedkelly9688
27 күн бұрын
Lol except the Nulka Australian defense system invented by Australia also used on USA Arleigh Burke destroyers, Aircraft carriers and also Canadian navy ships. saved USA ships since 2016 against Houthis firing missiles at 3 US ships....
@sosministriesrev1412
27 күн бұрын
@nedkelly9688 that is a fair point, l think we also collaborate with the U.S in the manufacturing of standard missile (sm2,sm6, sm3, and ESSM).
@nedkelly9688
27 күн бұрын
@@sosministriesrev1412 Yea read somewhere was a collab with SM6 but can not find it now, Sea Sparrow also joint collab, so much Australian tech in USA weapons it is not funny, all their systems either have Australian AI or target recognition and tracking systems, CEA radars and systems are becoming really good and sold world wide also. Australia biggest thing is helping USA in hypersonics, Aus never mentioned but is ahead of all in scramjet technolohy with world fastest at mach 12 and test fly a hypersonic drone in less then 300 days. HACAM scramjet missile developed though SCIFIRE and HIFIRE joint USA, AUS tests..
@JeffSulivan-x4s
14 күн бұрын
@@nedkelly9688 Actually, you're right-the HMAS Hobart was built in Australia at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia, but it’s based on the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán-class design. It’s a perfect example of how Australia took a proven design and made it their own, integrating advanced systems and technology to suit their needs. So while the bones of the ship might be Spanish, the build and final touches are all Aussie, showcasing local industry and expertise.
@1armstrong607
Ай бұрын
first time ive subscribed under 1000, pretty cool. You've got very cohesive writing and production for a new channel. Keep up the great work
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
Thank you so much for subscribing and for your kind words! We're thrilled to have you with us from the beginning. Your support and feedback mean a lot to us. We'll keep striving to bring you the best content. Stay tuned!
@billwhite1603
Ай бұрын
I would have gone to Japan to build their copy of Arliegh Burks.. Not sure if they could have gotten a less classified plan for Arliegh Burks and put them out for bid. Jeremy Clarkson said the Spanish only work 4 hours a day. Obviously not true, but this event will push others from Spain as a ship builder.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
It's an interesting perspective. The choice of Japan for building Arleigh Burke copies does have its merits, especially considering Japan's reputation for precision and efficiency in manufacturing. While Jeremy Clarkson's comment about the Spanish work ethic might have been made in jest, it's clear that Spain's shipbuilding capabilities should not be underestimated. The HMAS Hobart is a testament to the craftsmanship and expertise that went into its construction. Diversifying shipbuilding efforts could indeed lead to a more robust and versatile fleet for the future.
@geradkavanagh8240
Ай бұрын
I agree, Just the cost of transporting the unfitted hulls to Australia was enough to build a few new patrol boats.
@nedkelly9688
27 күн бұрын
@@geradkavanagh8240 What drugs are you on the Hobart class was fully built at Osborne shipyards in South Australia based off the Spanish design.. think you mean the LHD helicopter carriers were delivered as bare hull to Australia....
@Nathan-ry3yu
25 күн бұрын
Australia builds its own ships. They only use the hull design from others as a starting base plate. All weponry sensors and other technology are all custom to suit RAN requirements. Australia does not get other nations to build it's ships except the first few hulls sometimes can be built overseas if Australian shipyard isn't ready to speed up the process but than has to be fitted out by ship builders in Australia for specifications required for RAN. Australia does not allow other countries to fit out its radars sonars and weponry system fire control or its computer system ect. All has to be done by Australian defence companies working with shipyard builders in Australia.
@LeonAust
3 күн бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashed What was offered in competition to the Spanish F100 upgraded Hobart class ship was called a Gibbs and Cox international frigate with 64 VLS and 2 x ASW seahawk style helicopter hangers, this ship was my preference at the time and to build 4 off.
@MrFukinkickyourazz-mf2bv
25 күн бұрын
we do not do weapons sales. or industries. Australia defends it's self. that is all we need to do, as all countries should do.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
24 күн бұрын
Interesting point of view! But considering that "defending oneself" involves having access to the best technologies and military capabilities, maybe a little international cooperation and development of defense industries isn’t such a bad idea. After all, a bit of self-sufficiency never hurt anyone, right?
@LeonAust
3 күн бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashed Australian builds usually fit out different systems capabilities from different countries then fits them to the ship, very rarely we buy off the shelf with all systems from one country. But now comes the 11 x GP frigates,🤣 I wonder if we will upgrade any of the existing bids or buy off self. For these GP frigates the best tech comes from various distributors, but we need these GP frigates in the water ASAP. Now look at the Hunter class as they are the best version of the Type 26 they have a British ship design, American weapon systems, French/British ASW gear, British anti torpedo gear, Australian AESA radars, AEGIS American combat system with Australian and US communications with connected US network centric capabilities and add the Australian/US ECM Nulka hover decoys. All to be built in South Australia!......what could go wrong🤣 But if it all goes well it will be the best ASW electric drive and very quite frigate in the world.
@rodpope7838
Ай бұрын
The Hobart's are a great ship - albiet there were some teething problems with the build process. Also to the disgust of veterans and serving members of the RAN the Government did not take up the option of a 4th AWD at the time. We are paying the price for that now. The Canberra class LHD's and the Supply class AOR's built by Navantia have experienced major issues with powertrain which sidelined them for some time. Neither Supply class ships are available at the moment, for the foreseable future, to carry out their tasking. Navantia is in the mix for the General Purpose Frigate program which will see up to 11 ships built for the RAN.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
You’ve raised important points that can’t be overlooked. The Hobarts have proven to be great ships, but the issues faced with the Canberra class and the Supply class are concerning, especially as Navantia remains a strong contender for future shipbuilding programs. The decision not to build a fourth AWD is one of those that, over time, reveals itself to be a strategic failure, hurting the RAN’s operational capabilities. Powertrain problems in critical ships like these directly impact fleet readiness, and the absence of the Supply class ships is a significant gap in the RAN’s capabilities. It’s clear that shipbuilding and maintenance decisions need to be made with utmost care to avoid similar issues in the future.
@rodpope7838
Ай бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashed - the issues with the Canberra Class seem to be resolved but the Supply Class are potentially out of service for 12 months or more. This is unacceptable and has tarnished Navantia's credibility. I do not think they will be successful in their bid for the General Purpose Frigate program. I am hoping that the South Korean HHI Chungnam class will be the chosen option. This is particularly relevant given the commitment by the ROK to have the first three ships built by 2030 given the impending retirement of multiple ANZAC class ships. ROK have a very good reputation for quality work and the Chungnams are a impressive ship. ROK is also very keen to work with Australia on many levels.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
28 күн бұрын
@@rodpope7838 The situation with the Supply Class is indeed concerning and raises questions about the viability of future partnerships with Navantia. HHI’s performance and the quality of the Chungnam class are strong arguments for considering a South Korean alternative for the General Purpose Frigate program. Additionally, the promise to build the first three ships by 2030 is crucial given the aging ANZAC fleet. South Korea’s reputation in shipbuilding and its willingness to collaborate on various levels with Australia are points that certainly deserve attention.
@JDub_GP
Ай бұрын
HMAS not HMS, why do you keep saying HMS?
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
Good catch! HMAS (Her Majesty's Australian Ship) is the correct term for Royal Australian Navy vessels. HMS is used for Royal Navy ships. It’s easy to mix them up sometimes, but thanks for pointing it out. Let’s keep things accurate.
@AB-gi3qy
Ай бұрын
They're really good ships that can do many things well, the aussie should have built 6 of them. I do wish the UK RN took this approach when building the Type 45, its far too specialised imo.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
Indeed, the versatility of the Hobart class is one of its strongest points, and having six of them would have significantly bolstered the Australian Navy’s capabilities. The Type 45 destroyers, while exceptional in their specific roles, might benefit from a more generalist approach similar to the Hobart class. Balancing specialization with versatility can often yield a fleet that is both highly capable and adaptable to a range of missions.
@BTR-xw4of
28 күн бұрын
The Hobart class AWD 'should' have been a straight up Burke Flight 11A, or the bespoke, smaller ship from the Arleigh Burke - the 'baby Bourke' which at the time, and consistently throughout the decision making discussion of the National Security Committee Cabinet [NSCC] the PM of the day was John W. Howard. JWH wanted the 'Baby Bourke' design, however then head of RAN Admiral Shackleton fretted about crewing numbers, and Dept Treasury [nearly always a member of NSCC meetings saw an opening to save money and sided with those involved arguing money saving - both these dynamics proved to be the killer punch that saw both a straight up Flight 11A + Baby Bourke being overlooked for the Spanish design. The Spanish were relentless in their lobbying [we witnessed how European governments have fought hard for/been arguably arrogant only recently with their efforts to retain the AHR Tiger] demanding the Commonwealth reject the Apache E and retain the European AHR. and President Macron's head nearly exploding when the Commonwealth killing off the nuclear submarine with Naval Group.. So in the end RAN/Howard's Government picked the Spanish design - a design that was only rated as a 'stalking' platform - as nearly all involved wanted the bigger, more lethal capabilities of the Bourke - ALL factions/players at the time were happy to choose money over ensuring RAN/Australia had a 'genuine' Destroyer - RAN lost massively. A mere x48 VLS [even with quad packed VLS] the missile capabilities were significantly reduced - and instead of x3 flight illuminators Hobart has only x2. The dysfunction involved in terms of selecting this ship are too long to write here - RAND was bought in to analyse the program, and the ANAO had a field day. The option for a 4th should have been made at the start after the Spanish design was selected - as history shows neither side of politics took up that option. The final displacement is slightly larger than the F105 design - while the lack of x2 helicopters a massive sacrifice. Yes, they 'are' very good platforms - however RAN 'should' have x4 Arleigh Burke DDG's in the water. A monumental opportunity missed.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
28 күн бұрын
Your comment highlights a series of complicated issues and choices in selecting the Hobart class design. The decision to go with the Spanish design instead of an Arleigh Burke variant like the "baby Bourke" was influenced by various political and financial dynamics, with the RAN opting for a compromise that many believe sacrificed advanced military capabilities for cost savings. While it's easy to criticize this decision in hindsight, it's important to remember that defense choices are often a delicate balance between desired capabilities, costs, and timelines. The Hobart class destroyer program resulted in highly capable ships, but ones that indeed could have offered more in terms of firepower and flexibility. However, given the budget constraints and political pressure involved, the final decision reflects the realities of that time. Regarding RAND and ANAO's involvement, these analyses provided valuable critiques but also highlighted the complexities inherent in any major defense acquisition. Even with the criticism, the Hobart class offers a significant contribution to Australia's naval defense, even if it isn't the "genuine destroyer" some hoped for.
@bossdog1480
Ай бұрын
Something is a "bureaucratic nightmare" is only that if you let the bureaucrats get involved.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
21 күн бұрын
Ah, the bureaucrats... always meddling where they're not wanted. If we left things to those who actually know what they're doing, maybe we'd have fewer "nightmares" and more results. But let's be honest, blaming bureaucracy is always a convenient excuse, isn't it?
@user-ll4ii5mx9k
Ай бұрын
Three vessels does not make a Navy! As a rule of thumb three vessels basically allows one vessel to be available for deployment at any one time. The other two would be either being upgraded and maintained or on leave! The Hobart Class only has half the VLS missile battery of a U.S. Arleigh Burke Destroyer. Rather than building under armed Hunter Class and even less capable replacements for the ANZAC escort vessels we should have built a baker’s dozen Hobarts!
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
You're absolutely right; three vessels alone don't make a robust navy. The Hobart Class, while impressive, does indeed have limitations compared to the U.S. Arleigh Burke Destroyer, especially in terms of missile capacity. Building more Hobarts or investing in similarly capable ships would certainly strengthen naval capabilities and ensure better readiness and flexibility. Thank you for your insightful feedback!
@geradkavanagh8240
Ай бұрын
Big barges to tow with 100 missile batteries 🙃I'm so over our Australian politicians playing navy. And we have lost the real Naval commanders who could tell us what to do better.
@Harve955
Ай бұрын
Did the Navy and its procurement and production team pay for this video because it is full of poetry, euphemism and praise but very little real analysis and critical realism.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
So, if I don't make a video with the language or opinion you agree with, I'm being paid off? Interesting theory! The reality is that the HMAS Hobart has plenty of positive points worth highlighting, like its Aegis combat system and advanced radar capabilities. Of course, there's always room for critical analysis, but that doesn't mean emphasizing the strong points is a sign of bias. Constructive criticism is welcome, but let's remember that not every compliment indicates a lack of analysis.
@Harve955
Ай бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashed No the lack of detail and the tone of the video was out of step with the appalling state of Australia's defence forces particularly the Navy. It sounded more like a fan boy's coverage than a critical evaluation.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
@@Harve955 I understand your concern, but my goal was to highlight the technical aspects and capabilities of the HMAS Hobart, which is a crucial piece in Australia’s maritime defense. It’s not about ignoring the challenges the armed forces face but recognizing the value of the tools they have at their disposal. A critical eye is always important, but acknowledging what works well is also part of a fair evaluation.
@Astroboy66
Ай бұрын
❤
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
🫡
@BarefootPhilanthropist
20 күн бұрын
HMAS… not HMS..
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
20 күн бұрын
Good catch! HMAS (Her Majesty's Australian Ship) is the correct term for Royal Australian Navy vessels. HMS is used for Royal Navy ships. It’s easy to mix them up sometimes, but thanks for pointing it out. Let’s keep things accurate.
@mitchhoneysett7674
Ай бұрын
We should never build capital ships in Australia. Overpriced, over time in build, and we change the design of the original plans. Should buy better made from Japanese ship
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
I understand the frustration with costs and timelines, but it's important to remember that building ships locally isn't just about economics; it's about sovereignty and industrial capability. By keeping shipbuilding in Australia, we ensure local jobs, develop skills and technologies, and can tailor the ships to our specific needs. Japan undoubtedly has an excellent reputation in shipbuilding, but relying entirely on foreign suppliers for our defense comes with its own risks. It's worth considering the balance between cost and security.
@nicholaslin1630
Ай бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashed Well that is why even the US is relying on expanding cooperation with Britain and Japan to keep ahead of China in technology. And relying more and more on Australia for regional reach. Australia does have the Australian arm of BAE Systems the leading British defence contractor. Thus Australia does have a domestic defence industry owned by the UK.
@LeonAust
Ай бұрын
Does the Hobart class have a CEAFAR radar! I wish it did! as it is far superior to the older US SPY 1D. No difference in maintenance than any other large warships, remember this is a proven Spanish designed ship that has been operating for years before Hobart was first built. By the third ship was built the ship yards were operating at worlds best practice! that's why a fourth ship should have been ordered........... Now look at the lack of current ship the RAN have now! There is a precedence for a continuous ship building capability in Australia especially for the Hunter class and what upgraded ship to be produced beyond that class
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
Ай бұрын
The Hobart Class does indeed feature the CEAFAR radar, a highly advanced system that surpasses the older US SPY 1D. Maintenance for these ships is on par with any other large warship, and the proven Spanish design has stood the test of time. By the time the third ship was built, Australian shipyards were indeed operating at world-class standards, making the case for a fourth ship compelling. Continuous shipbuilding capability is crucial for maintaining a robust fleet, and expanding beyond the Hunter class with upgraded ships is a strategic move. Your insights highlight the need for sustained investment in naval capabilities.
@LeonAust
Ай бұрын
@@Military_Forces_Unleashed I don't think so, as the CEAFAR radar is on only ANZAC class frigates and the future Hunter class and will be on the future un named 11 x light Frigate class. Maybe the company CEA has something to do with the surface search radar but I'm not sure, if so it isn't CEAFAR because that radar is a Med to very long Range air search AESA radar and the Hobarts have the SPY -1D long range radar and the Northrop Grumman AN/SPQ-9B X-band pulse Doppler horizon search radar for short range air search.
@mattattard-yk7bk
Ай бұрын
It is getting a CEAFAR upgrade in 2024-2025
@LeonAust
Ай бұрын
@@mattattard-yk7bk The Upgrade of the Aegis Weapon System to Baseline 9 or 10 with theatre ballistic defence networking ect and new weapons like SM6 and Tomahawk. As for a SPY 1D radar i'm not so sure as I cannot find conformation? but there is vague mention in wiki (they say possibility?) whatever that means...what SEA project number is it? It would be good if they did receive the superior CEAFAR 2 of which is a 6 faced multi frequencies' med to very long range radar with 4 x fixed CEAMOUNT Active Phased Array Illuminators FCR ) like the future Hunters.
@MrFukinkickyourazz-mf2bv
25 күн бұрын
the truth, is. you are talking about things. you obviously have no concept of. apart from selling your own weapons.
@Military_Forces_Unleashed
24 күн бұрын
Oh, I see. If I don’t share your oversimplified view, I must just be "selling my own weapons." Because, of course, discussing national defense and global security is just a cover for business, right? Sometimes, it’s worth remembering that the world is a bit more complicated than it looks from the comfort of your couch.
Пікірлер: 61