I am shocked by the high number of Military Naval Engineers and Chief Admirals commenting. And, of course, the marketing boys from some shipbuilders.
@bsimm1234
22 күн бұрын
We can't forget that this is a Tier 2 requirement procured using a minimum viable capability approach. This means less emphasis on gold plating the design and greater emphasis on getting vessels into operation as soon and as efficiently as possible. This is where Alpha 3000 has a strong hand because of Navantia's existing footprint in Australia and its commonality with other RAN vessels such as the Hobart Class, as much as 80% the video says. This means much of the industrial capability and supply chains would already be existing in country if this option is chosen greatly reducing the complexity of the project. Alpha 3000 also has the advantage of being more compact with a simpler propulsion system which is likely better suited to maintenance operations in Northern Australia where the bulk of these vessels will be based. The vessel will also slot into the Tier 2 role without problem whereas some of the other options appear to be growing beyond Tier 2 such as "Upgraded" Mogami which is now 142m LOA or only 5m shorter than Tier 1 Hobart. It now also matches Hunter's 32 VLS as does Ocean 4300. This looks like another case of design creep/gold plating not suitable for the tier 2 concept. This is one time I hope Australia and the RAN builds on what they have already established rather than throwing it all out to start again.
@JPT-fz8wc
11 күн бұрын
yep and more ships with no defence from missiles like the YJ-21 and other similar ballistic missiles, if our ships have no defence from the YJ-21 or similar ballistic missile than they are just floating cannon fodder.
@bsimm1234
11 күн бұрын
I think the govt thinking is that the A2/AD system described in the DSR will keep the majority of Chinese surface vessels away from the Australias mainland in a similar way that the Chinese A2/AD aims to keep US/allied surface vessels including aircraft carriers away from the Chinese mainland in a conflict. This means both sides will use submarines if they want to operate closer to their adversary's territory. As the tier 2 GPF's will operate closer to our mainland they will not likely come across a Chinese Type 55 cruiser operating YJ-21 but will alternatively encounter the odd Chinese submarine... I guess this is why TAS and support for Seahawk will be essential rather than BMD.
@JPT-fz8wc
11 күн бұрын
@@bsimm1234 The thing is no one needs to attack Aus they just have to shut down our imports and wait. our country relies on imports, i think it's within about 4 weeks and we start running dry on everything, once our trucks no longer have fuel than supply chains across our country stop too meaning empty shelves in supermarkets, the 2 fuel refineries we have left would struggle to keep our ADF going especially in a conflict, fuel used for facilities, bases and supply chains along with other logistical support, i don't think we even make jet fuel anymore for aircraft either, am pretty sure we have 1 diesel and 1 petrol refinery left.
@notavailable570
10 күн бұрын
@@JPT-fz8wc The YJ-21 is one advantage for China, but it is not the whole story. Although growing in power, the PLA-N is not yet thought to be strong enough to defeat the USN on the open oceans and it is likely in a conflict that Chinese surface combatants will be restricted to the first island chain where they have support from China based aircraft and missiles. Therefore any Chinese blockade of Australia would largely need to be undertaken by submarines rather than the Type 55 cruiser which is the only vessel capable of carrying a large missile like YJ-21. China only has around 8 or so Type 55's. Any of the GPF options should be well placed to counter submarines operating close to Australia or the SLOC along with the P8's and uncrewed. On the other hand, if the PLA-N could defeat the USN, say in a battle for Taiwan (or some other scenario) which leads to the US withdrawing from Asia, all bets are off...
@JPT-fz8wc
10 күн бұрын
@@notavailable570 it's a low probability china will be in direct conflict with USA, nuclear armed countries don't go to war with each other, they use non nuclear proxies to do the fighting for them against their nuclear adversaries. There is nothing stopping china and russia arming proxy groups with missiles to target us the US and our allies. south east asia is full of proxy terrorist groups philippines, indonesia malaysia and thailand are all struggling to contain. half the countries we trade with like vietnam, S Korea japan are in the south china sea where the PLA-N considers it's own waters and operates its ships. the CCP does not need to come to Aus to block our trade they can do it in the south china sea and the islands in south east asia using proxy groups, all our fuel comes from singapore which comes from the middle east. The CCP does not need to be anywhere near our country to block our trade and imports
@jamesfilsell7853
2 ай бұрын
Stick with the Mogami ! Not enough VLS
@juanmontull8550
2 ай бұрын
What I don't understand is why Navantia chose this ship, because both Avante 2200 and 3000 were design as Corvettes or big OPVs such as Spanish BAM class and the Saudi Al-Jubail class. I think it would have been better to have presented the F110 and this Avante 3000 as a Corvette. Greetings from Spain btw😅✌
@SyafieHanifah
2 ай бұрын
It's depend on the user's budget & threat level, especially in Asia Pacific.
@oriolguerrero1702
2 ай бұрын
El proyecto australiano es sustituir las ANZAC con "fragatas" de nivel corveta, además que si lo piensas ellos llaman a nuestras fragatas destructores, entonces nuestras corvetas serán sus fragatas. Si comparas tonelaje, dimensiones y el personal requerido para operarlas las fragatas ANZAC y las corvetas A2000/A3000 son muy similares.
@forgivemenot1
2 ай бұрын
@@oriolguerrero1702 True, the main problem with our current ships is we tend to classify them somewhat optimistically, our Air Warfare Destroyers should be Air warfare Frigates, the Type 26 Frigates should be Antisubmarine Destroyers and something like this should be called what it is a corvette. The improved Mogami would be a far better choice for a frigate replacement given all the things we will eventually want it to do but this design would be a good replacement for the stupid OPV fiasco. Our patrol vessels should all be transferred to Border patrol as Coast Guard vessels and the Navy should operate corvettes armed like this instead of patrol vessels.
@Avieno
2 ай бұрын
Because it depends on the requirements of the client. The client dont want F110. It is easy to understand.
@LeonAust
2 ай бұрын
@@oriolguerrero1702 16 VLS and 8 SSM are insufficient for a ship fitted with that kind of sensor pack.
@andrewwarcup684
2 ай бұрын
And they say the Hunter class has too few VLS. Once all fired has to return to port to reload.
@stevethomas7273
2 ай бұрын
New Morgami with 32 VLS looks to be a better option, or the meko 300 better fire power.16 VLS is not enough for high intensity warfare
@ziongite
2 ай бұрын
While true, the Australian labour party for some reason (possibly because of Chinese political influence) don't want to buy Japanese equipment. Therefore the likelihood of Australia actually buying Japanese ships or Japanese missiles like the enhanced range type 12 SSM is very unlikely. Last time Japan offered the sale of Soryu submarines, many strange people in Australia's government and mainstream labour affiliated media argued that Australia shouldn't buy them, and they did this by bringing up how Japan back in WW2 was an adversary, which is really strange rhetoric quite frankly, and it made me realise that there is likely a lot of Chinese political influence within the labour party and their affiliated media. Therefore, expect Australia's next ships to come from Navantia. This is the most likely situation.
@stevethomas7273
2 ай бұрын
@ziongite You're spot on.Same reason they won't put a few f35s on our assault ships.Cant upset poo bear.We could add a few f35s with new mako hypersonic missile making our navy really powerful.Amazing how they always go for a ship with the very least amount of firepower and cheapest option.Never worry about survivability or winning a battle.
@tharr67
2 ай бұрын
@@ziongite Where's the evidence that the ALP is under the influence of the CCP ? From memory it was the LNP who cancelled the Soryu class so your claims appear rather baseless
@tharr67
2 ай бұрын
@@stevethomas7273 No he's not. And as for chucking a few F-35b's onto our LHD's do some research first. This isn't feasible without major engineering and structural work being done. It would probably be quicker and cheaper to buy a dedicated platform from scratch
@stevethomas7273
2 ай бұрын
Spain flies harriers off the same ship.Adding jet fuel tanks is not hard to do.
@タコの王
2 ай бұрын
Next version Mogami, 32cell vls, huge well deck for, rib, usv anti sea mine warfare, xluuv anti submarine warfare and can also deploy sea mines…..why would you waste money on the alpha 3000
@stevethomas7273
2 ай бұрын
Is the upgraded Morgami on the governments list?,they seem to be hell bent on old hulls already in the water?
@LeonAust
2 ай бұрын
Upgraded Mogani Like it👍
@anthonywarwick6090
2 ай бұрын
From logistical view point having commonality with Hobart class means it’s maintenance will be cost saving. However a Meko based design could leverage maintenance of our current ANZAC fleet. People rattle on here about Mogami but for Australia there isn’t any commonality or existing infrastructure familiar with its design. As a tier 2 does it need more VLS cells? It would be desirable for sure. One wishes we had just kept building more hulls based on the Hobart class with modifications and we wouldn’t be having this discussion or gap in capabilities
@JPT-fz8wc
11 күн бұрын
In peace time operations it fits the bill otherwise it will be spending more time in dock rearming which defeats the purpose of it being a long endurance ship
@ysemeniuk
2 ай бұрын
this guy answered every question without actually answering it xD felt like myself back in school
@Isaac8243
2 ай бұрын
Ship is too small for blue water operations. The Saudis have these ships for coastal defence and not for operations in the South China Sea and Pacific. Australia should look elsewhere or at larger vessels like the F110 frigate.
@Avieno
2 ай бұрын
The point is that australian Government dont want what you imagine they need.
@watermirror
2 ай бұрын
Seems Alfa3000 is 2nd best choice for Aussie if weight is a nonissue. If weight is an issue, upsizing a proven platform is low risk by maintaining design proportions, if not, then FFM remains the best choice. Belharra and Fremm are also apt but wondering if they'll be included in the choices
@halfonso_0871
2 ай бұрын
Will the FMM integrate the CEAFAR radar? If this is chosen, won't the RAN be left with too many types of combat systems in service? Logistical and interoperability pain or am I wrong?
@watermirror
2 ай бұрын
@@halfonso_0871the previous video focused on FFM, and Mitsubishi said FFM is of modular design and can be made to accommodate other radars for export. But if we assume FFM radar is retained, then Aussie will have a dedicated X-band radar which will complement its CEAFAR which is of L and S bands
@SyafieHanifah
2 ай бұрын
Based on my personal obervation, Tasman class corvette (3,600 tonne), proposed by Navantia Australia in last year is much more better than Alfa-3000. The smoothness of design & armament package is much more better & suit to face the threat, especially in Asia Pacific.
@Harldin
2 ай бұрын
Belharra is French, after the Subs deal went South, I doubt they would have any interest in bidding anyway.
@watermirror
2 ай бұрын
@@halfonso_0871 previous video focused on FFM, and Mitsubishi said FFM is modular to accommodate other radars. Even if FFM radar is retained, then Aussie would have a dedicated 4-panel X-band radar to complement CEAFAR which is of L and S bands
@janthony1970
2 ай бұрын
the ship is underarmed, my thoughts are to just pick the upgraded Mogami class from Japan
@SyafieHanifah
2 ай бұрын
Based on the design & 'armament package', Tasmanian class corvette (3,600 tonne) proposed by Navantia Australia 🇦🇺 on 2023 is much more better than Alfa-3000 (Navantia Spain 🇪🇦) I would say Tasman class corvette is 'mini frigate' & suit to patrol & to protect Asia Pacific maritime. * Regards from Malaysia 🇲🇾
@shaunlabang8014
2 ай бұрын
The Tasman Class model had 4 quadruple ashm launchers 🤔
@lancebond2338
2 ай бұрын
It was a lengthened variant 109+m, this is 104m-the same as the Saudi corvette.
@qtdcanada
2 ай бұрын
Good looking but dated design with limited future upgrade potential. It is also likely a bit small for the RAN's Indo-Pacific operating theatre. I am not a naval architect, but could see a possible/probable top-weight problem with this design. The phased-array radar looks massive & heavy compared with the hull. Would there be a mismatch given the capability of the radar with the small number of SAM VLS? Mounting the 2 triple Light-Weight ASW Torpedo Tubes above the hangar is interesting; but is it the result of not having enough space in the hull for them?
@arakami8547
2 ай бұрын
Is the choice of fixed-array radars really the best choice for a low-cost frigate? What is its instrumented range? How does it compare overall to say, the 400km-range NS200? I suspect we've gone for fixed arrays as we do not have the CAMM, which pairs favourably with rotating arrays.
@JesusSanchez-ij5de
2 ай бұрын
La matrices giratorias son inferiores en todos los aspectos escepto en la generación eléctrica. De hecho es un sistema que solo mira en una dirección y necesita refrescarse en el giro. Y si se avería el sistema de giro mecánico, te has quedado sin radar. Es un concepto obsoleto.
@lukedogwalker
2 ай бұрын
@@JesusSanchez-ij5denot correct. Beam steering eliminates the blindspots on rotating arrays. Study the Sampson array and the proposed single faxe sampson.
@JesusSanchez-ij5de
2 ай бұрын
@@lukedogwalker Entonces... ¿ me estás diciendo que el radar giratorio, gira por estética?. ¿O que me estás diciendo?. Me parece absurdo el comentario.
@lukedogwalker
2 ай бұрын
@@JesusSanchez-ij5de sorry, the translator is not working on your last comment.
@JesusSanchez-ij5de
2 ай бұрын
@@lukedogwalker Charge the video. Look for the coment velow. Sorry for my bad english. I am spaniard.
@coreydark8795
2 ай бұрын
Arrowhead 140 is what Australia needs. Out performs this ship but also everything else being looked at and offered by Australia.
@LeonAust
2 ай бұрын
The Japanese offer is a big ship with 32 VLS and 16 SSM, towed array ect for just over 5000 tons very favoured by it growth size. Let's hope Marles sees the growth factor and capability instead of only budget!
@stevethomas7273
2 ай бұрын
Type 26 more then 4 billion a ship,Cant believe we bought a 10,000 ton ship with the firepower of a corvet.Bourke flight 3 would have been cheaper.I don't think the government wants their pants pulled down again with sneaky blowouts with Arrowhead.
@JPT-fz8wc
11 күн бұрын
Nope the Japan FFH ticks all the boxes and can also be used to support submarines with it's MCM sonar, biggest thing is Japan has the Type 03 Chū-SAM which can shoot down ballistic missiles like YJ-21 and similar, now we are codeveloping missiles with Japan too. Potntially yuo are looking at FFH eventually having a mix of ESSM and Type 03 Chū-SAM as it payload and a naval variant of our SCIFIRE hypersonic cruise missile
@stevethomas7273
11 күн бұрын
The Brits have pulled our pants down with the type 26 with monster cost blow outs went from 35 billion to 65 billion.So much for mates rates.Australia could have had Bourke' flight 3 for half the prices Absolute madness.9 Hobart's would have been way cheaper.With a lot more firepower.Such insane decisions keep repeating
@LeonAust
11 күн бұрын
@@stevethomas7273 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight 3 are dated last generation COGAG powered designs and in the ASW and many other aspects cannot be compared with the Hunters, as Hunters have very quiet electric drive much suited for ASW unlike the 1980s designed Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. These Hunters will be built in Australia for a continuous build. All though so far reduced in numbers to accommodate the new frigates, there is plans for a continuous build project after the initial Hunter class, maybe modified Hunters by Australia. It takes production of around 3 ships to give one to worlds best practice so cutting corners and ordering old dated designs is not the way to go, if one is to have a naval ship building capability. It is mandatory Australia should have it own building industry now to beyond the 2030s producing the best ....not 50 year old designs.
@anthonywarwick6090
2 ай бұрын
You know what. That ship may be okay for a country like Saudi Arabia who are unlikely to have to operate in blue water oceans but not for an island nation like Australia. Tier 2 or whatever Tier, the surface assets have to be as well armed and defended as possible and 16 VLS doesn’t cut it against a top tier adversary like the PLAN a who has a much larger navy with modern frigates (e.g. type 054 frigate) sporting 32 VLS and other weapons, and Type 055 Destroyers sporting 24 VLS a surface to air missile launchers and 112 VLS for anti ship missiles. We need as many silos as you can afford and fit and not just one CIWS or equivalent.
@josevargasortega2588
11 күн бұрын
Fligth III de Navantia Australia 128 VLS
@BungoPls
2 ай бұрын
Well one thing is for sure, and it’s that if this is selected, it won’t be using a Millennium gun lol
@bjones5240
2 ай бұрын
Why’s that?
@Falloutman1990
2 ай бұрын
@@bjones5240 RAN is already pretty tied to Phalanx CIWS.(Already own the mounts, have the ammunition stocks and have the maintainers trained)
@felixmunozcalvet7672
2 ай бұрын
Phalanx 20mm, Milenium 30 mm
@lindsaybaker9480
2 ай бұрын
Should be offering the Alpha 5000 instead.
@Harldin
2 ай бұрын
Paper design, no chance of being ready to build in 2026 and designs are supposed to be already in construction.
@JPT-fz8wc
11 күн бұрын
@@Harldin what ever we pick will not be built in 2026, this deal still has to survive the next election with a government change. Canberra has a long legacy of cutting contracts back with changes to government. Prob find when LNP gets in gov again this deal will be cut back from 11 or 12 frigates to 6 ships then money reallocated from here and other cutback sill got towards procurement of B-21 stealth bombers. Hastie is a big supporter of the B-21 he'll be already hashing the deal out for us to at least co operate B-21 with US till we get our own, like we have crews on US SSN now co operating them till we build our own SSN..
@PhDefense2024-eb6uo
2 ай бұрын
We prefer Sokor design,state of the art, and sophistikated
@paladin0654
2 ай бұрын
At least it has a gun as compared to the Constellation Class.
@robertaustin6940
2 ай бұрын
The Constellation Class does have a gun.
@paladin0654
2 ай бұрын
@@robertaustin6940 You're right but the Mk-110 is far less effective than the OM 76mm super rapid gun. The FREMM design that the Constellation is based on is equipped with a 5in. gun. Have a look at the 76 SR; what do you think? The fight in the Red Sea proves that the USN can't afford to use multi million dollar missiles to combat cheap drones. With a 120 rounds per minute, a 40KM range and guided projectiles, it should be the USN's choice.
@robertaustin6940
2 ай бұрын
@@paladin0654 You're right about the 76 SR.
@Caine1277
2 ай бұрын
We need the Meko 210. The ANZAC is a good ship and we know how to run it. This thing will be to small and way under gunned for our needs.
@admiralmallard7500
2 ай бұрын
Meko didn't even show up at the event though, not a good start
@TrugginsOFFICIAL
2 ай бұрын
@@Caine1277 absolutely
@JPT-fz8wc
11 күн бұрын
Meko has no defence for YJ-21 and othr similar ballistic missiles which makes it floating cannon fodder
@タコの王
2 ай бұрын
Bring back the girl Navantia, she was much better
@Cravendale98
2 ай бұрын
I'm sure it's a capable little ship, but it's already maxed out, it has virtually no growth potential, I would go with a larger design that offers more growth potential.
@DavidOlver
2 ай бұрын
a year ago they were going to build these ships so what happened
@lancebond2338
2 ай бұрын
The plan was always selection 2025, 2026 steel cutting, 2029 delivery, 2030 in service, 2 more in service before the first Hunter in 2034. All 3 built overseas, A further 8 built in australia.
@DavidOlver
2 ай бұрын
@@lancebond2338 sorry mate but the commie labor gov is all smoke and mirrors
@DavidOlver
2 ай бұрын
@@lancebond2338 Nothing will happen labor is gutting the Navy right now and cos they are commies no one wants to join
@DavidOlver
2 ай бұрын
@@lancebond2338 Yes that is the plan but until the libs come in, I don't think anything will happen. I hope it does work out the way you are saying but I have little hope
@robertcameron2808
2 ай бұрын
The last 2 supply vessels are broken big repairs.
@andymacmac9151
2 ай бұрын
I really worry about Australia’s naval future… with the new emphasis on small corvettes with very limited capabilities, we are literally shooting ourselves in the foot… A corvette is literally little more than an uparmed patrol ship…
@Harldin
2 ай бұрын
What emphasis on small Corvettes? Even the Alpha 3000 would be considered a large Corvette at worst and the other contenders are all as big or bigger than the Anzac. The evolved Mogami which could be a contender in this project is closer in size 142m and 6000t to a Hobart, 147m and 7000t, then an Alpha 3000.
@主水-p5b
2 ай бұрын
@@Harldin The Japanese MSDF considers a total length of 140m and a width of 17m to be the limit for operating in the open ocean. The Mogami-class is a grade that operates in the boundary area between coastal waters and the open ocean. The upgraded Mogami-class is a grade that can operate in the open ocean.
@Avieno
2 ай бұрын
People don't understand that names are just names. A "corvette" with a 32 misile cell and with 127 mm. guns is not a corvette, and this class of vessels are configurable. You don't need a 200 m. vessel to pretend you are strong.
@josevargasortega2588
11 күн бұрын
Fligth III de Navantia Australia 10.000 toneladas
@homebase5934
2 ай бұрын
Too small and not enough room for future growth and systems. The S. Korean and Japanese ships have gross weights close to 6000kg. Plus if commonality/familiarity were the main advantages of this boat the RAN would be best of with a MEKO 200 design like the already in service ANZAC class. Im guessing that the RAN will end going with one of the S. Korean/Japanese ships as they have power house ship building industries and the Australian government would love for them to make an Australian onshore presence with there capabilities. Navantia already has an Australian presence and footprint. Plus it will help with the RAN being more interoperable with Japan and S. Korea. After all the RAN is much more likely to be operating with other Japanese and Koreans.
@watermirror
2 ай бұрын
More like Japan since Sokor's Chungnam frigate is only at 4300t full and is outmatched by FFM in almost all or all specs, except maybe on price (but more like price a nonissue for Aussie). But since FFM is series-produced at 12 units + 12 upcoming, so the price difference significantly narrows down
@chrisrabbitt
2 ай бұрын
My money would be on the Japanese upgraded Mogami for a few reasons, 1. It has Cooperative Engagement Capability which is only used by Australia, Japan and the US and allows each platform to see what any other platform with CEC can see as well as fire at it if it's in range, all without having to turn on their own radar. 2. It has mine warfare capability which none of the other designs do 3. It has a bay under the flightdeck to launch and recover underwater drones. 4. Requires a crew of only 90 5. The Japanese are going to integrate NSMs on to it which gives it commonality with the new ASM for the RAN 6. With 12 orders on the book and 12 of the original design to be completed in the next few years it's not a custom design and there is a benefit in numbers as far as cost goes, the more your build the cheaper they become, add 11 more and that brings the total class to 23 ships of the upgrade design making them very competitive price wise 7. Speed, range and future growth of the platform is the best of the offerings (in my opinion) I could probably think of a few more if I tried but those are some off the top of my head
@bjones5240
2 ай бұрын
The Saudi program was delivered new ship every 4 months. This is quicker than the Japanese and Koreans
@homebase5934
2 ай бұрын
@@bjones5240 ships to small for future upgrades like lasers and more powerful sensors and doesn't have room to expand up from 16 VLS cells. The new Mogami will have 32 VLS and the Korean Ghungnam class has room for the going fro 16 to 32 cells and both those ships have extra room for ballast and extra generators (for possible future direct energy weapons lasers/microwaves) Japan has also built 6 Mogami class in the last 2 years (1 every 4 months). Japan and Korea also are the 2nd and 3rd largest and most productive shipbuilding industries (both civilian and defence) after China. Both those countries shipyards can also pump out submarines at a fast rate while Navantia takes what 25+ years to build 1 modified Scorpene class (S80). I could kick the boot in further with the bow thrusters failing on the Canberra class and the issues with the Hobart class build at ASC. Or the troubles with the AOR's (Supply class).
@homebase5934
2 ай бұрын
@@chrisrabbitt Agreed 100%. If i had to bet money i would choose the updated Mogami class. It's basically a mini AEGIS frigate with multi role capabilities. I'm also sure Australia would welcome a Japanese defence footprint in Australia. Especially there massive shipbuilding giant conglomerate company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). Hanwha Defence is already here with the Hanwha centre of excellence. Navantia is already here and will still get future possible contracts for the Hobart class mid life upgrades and then get a shot at it's replacement in the late 30's. Japan and MHI are also great contenders for helping Australia's missile manufacturing industry through the GWEO program...then there's possible collaboration on the Japanese/UK/Italian 6 gen fighter jet program.
@donaldmatthews7226
2 ай бұрын
80% commonality with the DDG, 😂😂 full of crap, absolutely disgraceful
@LeonAust
2 ай бұрын
They might get them in the water faster, but the ships will last 30 years and this ship class would have a minimum growth factor and with only 16 cell Mk 41 VLS and 8 SSM missiles this will be an insufficient weapon capability. ANZAC class were criticized for being a ship with limited growth factors in her mid life upgrade thus basically they are under armed for their given sensors fit and capability .......let's not make the same mistake again !
@josevargasortega2588
11 күн бұрын
Fligth III de Navantia Australia 10.000 toneladas , 128 VLS .
@lancebond2338
2 ай бұрын
Oh Hell no, the worst design out of the 5 exemplars.
@Erik_Wulf
2 ай бұрын
I am not that deep into the matter. I am curious, why is everyone disliking the vessel?
@halfonso_0871
2 ай бұрын
@@Erik_Wulf Because is small. What they don't realize is that it is a frigate, and not a destroyer, it is probably also cheaper and I think they are the only ones who have bothered to put Australian systems like the CEAFAR radar on it.
@orangecat3021
2 ай бұрын
@@Erik_Wulf The frigate is too small and im not saying it should be a F126 or Type 31 class size but it lacks future growth. The Korean and Japanese solution in my own opinion and like many others are some of the best contenders and its also equipped with right amount of weapon suite optimal for long range engagements in a hypothetical war with China.
@Erik_Wulf
2 ай бұрын
@@halfonso_0871 Thanks:)
@Erik_Wulf
2 ай бұрын
@@orangecat3021 thanks:) I understand now more clearly.
@BallisticSollution
2 ай бұрын
By far the least capable of all the options available. Something like this is what the Arafura class should have been. This has neither the range nor the firepower to meet the requirements of a frigate. Utterly clueless choice.
@lukedogwalker
2 ай бұрын
02:00 "compact" and "small". Words which the RAN will regret in years to come if they go with a platform like this. What are the upgrade margins? Bad weather endurance on a small hull? Unrefueled range across Pacific and Southern ocean distances? Are they also buying half a dozen tankers to follow these things around? If they hadn't pork barrelled the Hunter class into a top heavy, unaffordable white elephant, they could have stuck with the original, sensible, plan. As it is, sticking with Type 26 and just building 9 basic, fitted for but not with, T26 hulls in addition to the 6 Hunters would give the RAN ships that could be upgraded in the future and adapt to new technologies, and which could be built on the same production line as the Hunters.
@felixmunozcalvet7672
2 ай бұрын
Navantia F110 for RAN?
@lukedogwalker
2 ай бұрын
@@felixmunozcalvet7672 it meets the requirement of being an existing design, but doesn't offer anything mich more than the Korean submission. If they want cheap(er) than a Hunter, and already in build, Arrowhead 140 is an obvious candidate. It has the hull volume and upgrade potential without being as expensive as the Type 26, and is already sold to three nations, and has a spiral development plan for in-service upgrades put together by the Brits. No brainer, really.
@chrysllerryu4171
2 ай бұрын
the design isn't smooth enough, look like early 2000 design. the real problem with navantia's ship are they are too SPECIALIZE, means not enough space for upgrades. They should really learn from south koreans and dutch, they use a single key design like incheon of korea and sigma by dutch, yet they can change specifications of weapons, number of vls, types of sensors without compromising the design of the ship. another flaw of navantia design is its PAGODA like radar towers, its just not sleek enough, and partnering it with ,90 degree angle bridge is a nah.
@SyafieHanifah
2 ай бұрын
Based on my personal obervation, Tasman class corvette (3,600 tonne), proposed by Navantia Australia on last year is much more better than Alfa-3000. The smoothness of design & armament package set is much more better & suitable to neutralize the threat, especially in Asia Pacific.
@Harldin
2 ай бұрын
This project is. Navantia v Australian Government. TKMS v Australian Government Korean Government v Australian Government Japanese Government v Australian Government Navantia and TKMS are outsiders, there is little political advantage for the Euros as compared to the 2 Asian Governments.
@1guitarlover
2 ай бұрын
The RAN has proven to be quite inefficient designing a fleet. Starting with its AUKUS alliance and following with the Hunter Class FIASCO. The best units the RAN has are those designed by NAVANTIA. Australia does not have the money ot the power to be a first blue ocean navy while they can not protect their waters first. So, Australia must built an effective self protecting navy before sailing to conquer the world. You do not have enough sailors, population or money to do it. Any Navantia advice must be thankfully taken. Cheers.
@v8revengemachine
23 күн бұрын
Nice try, Navantia.
@robertaustin6940
2 ай бұрын
Australia should go for the Constellation Class frigate from the US.
@Falloutman1990
2 ай бұрын
Part of me also agrees, but from what I have read online the USN is having their own issues with the Constellation program. Its something like 3 years behind schedule and still not fully designed.
@admiralmallard7500
2 ай бұрын
The Constellation is way more expensive than these proposals, these are "Tier 2" vessels for Austrlia, the Constellation meanwhile costs something like a Billion per
@lancebond2338
2 ай бұрын
Crew twice that of the upgraded Mogami.
@deralbtraumritter8573
2 ай бұрын
NO offense but I’d expect a design like this to come from some 3rd world country, a country that has little to no military, or maybe some mercenary force…but not this… I may be new to Spanish ships but aren’t these the same guys who made the SMART 7000(?) and 8000 designs?!
@Harldin
2 ай бұрын
Paper designs, a massive amount of work would still be required.
@josevargasortega2588
11 күн бұрын
Fragata F 110 de Navantia
@DavidOlver
2 ай бұрын
the labor government needs to be sacked
@RobertLewis-el9ub
2 ай бұрын
Should just buy US FREMM Frigate.
@halfonso_0871
2 ай бұрын
That project is delayed and has gone over budget. It is a FREMM with the systems of a Hobart, to buy that you buy more Hobarts, which are and will continue to be the best anti-aircraft destroyers in the region for years.
@AlFreeman-xy4jy
2 ай бұрын
@halfonso_0871 It's late because they always ask for changes, now it doesn't look like a FREMM anymore
@halfonso_0871
2 ай бұрын
@@AlFreeman-xy4jy Exactly, it has lost all communality with the FREMM, the weight has been increased to fit AEGIS, among other reasons (and for which I do not understand why the Navantia F100 was not chosen, which it already had equipped, since it is an Arleight Burke light).
@lukedogwalker
2 ай бұрын
There isn't a US Fremm to be bought! The design hasn't even been finalised. There are no complete builders plans! The whole project is US internal politics - the USN clearly does not want it and wants more destroyer class vessels, instead, so Constellation is being sabotaged while they work on getting Congress to authorise more Arleigh Burkes, and release money to develop whatever comes next.
@MyPapapapa-qt8cb
2 ай бұрын
Look like copy cat of China Type056+Type054😅
@valiant8730
2 ай бұрын
And 056 is a copy of SIGMA 9113. So it's crazy china and Spain copied Netherlands design.😂😂😂
@romell06
2 ай бұрын
its actually a larger Avente 2200 used by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The Antiship missiles were placed farther at the back while Type054 is just behind the superstructure. CWIS is also on a different location. The Mast is also different.
@BravoCheesecake
2 ай бұрын
Yeah I don't think Chinese can comment on copying. It's literally the only thing they do.
@watermirror
2 ай бұрын
Type054 a miserable trying hard copy of Lafayette 😅. Type056 a watered down version of Type054 😅
@DDDDDDDDDDD-O
Ай бұрын
Isn't it the biggest joke of 2024 for a Chinese person to talk about copying?
Пікірлер: 160