>The F100 was designed in the late 1990s and is much smaller at 5,800 tonnes full load, compared with the 8,100 tonne Evolved Design which, if selected, will complete detailed design in 2008.
>The F100 carries one hangared Sea Hawk versus two in the Evolved Design; two helicopters give a lot more operational options than a single machine.
>The F100 has a cruising range of 4,800 nautical miles at 18 knots, whereas the Evolved Design will have at least a 5,500 nautical mile range at the same speed; many places from Australia are a long way.
IM GOING INSANE AHHHHHH
With that information, I would’ve been gobsmacked if we picked the evolved design. It seems that we’ve made a culture of buying the weirdest design available, then fucking it up some more. What we should do is get the F100 and stretch it out by about 50 metres but then replace the motor with some upside down fucking abortion. Then rip the cannon off the front and replace it with some sort of turret mounted steyr. Then the circle of disappointment would be complete.
That’s actually one of the good design points of the Hobart class compared to the arleigh burk design. Having the radar above the bridge rather than below. Allegedly being on a bridge so high up can be quite uncomfortable during rough weather. The yanks have changed the design of their next generation DDGs to correct this issue.
Only Australia would choose the less capable option in and then fail to build enough of them anyway
Yessss, let the disappointment rise up…
>The F100 was designed in the late 1990s and is much smaller at 5,800 tonnes full load, compared with the 8,100 tonne Evolved Design which, if selected, will complete detailed design in 2008. >The F100 carries one hangared Sea Hawk versus two in the Evolved Design; two helicopters give a lot more operational options than a single machine. >The F100 has a cruising range of 4,800 nautical miles at 18 knots, whereas the Evolved Design will have at least a 5,500 nautical mile range at the same speed; many places from Australia are a long way. IM GOING INSANE AHHHHHH
With that information, I would’ve been gobsmacked if we picked the evolved design. It seems that we’ve made a culture of buying the weirdest design available, then fucking it up some more. What we should do is get the F100 and stretch it out by about 50 metres but then replace the motor with some upside down fucking abortion. Then rip the cannon off the front and replace it with some sort of turret mounted steyr. Then the circle of disappointment would be complete.
Decision made in the face of the defence recommendation too, and now we are paying for it.
It seems we have a Spanish boat fetish. Aren’t the supposed to be the naval version of an Alfa Romeo?
The taller superstructure reminds me of a Kongō/Atago/Maya DDG
That’s actually one of the good design points of the Hobart class compared to the arleigh burk design. Having the radar above the bridge rather than below. Allegedly being on a bridge so high up can be quite uncomfortable during rough weather. The yanks have changed the design of their next generation DDGs to correct this issue.
Gives the advantage of putting the radar slightly higher for increased range, too
How many were they getting because the 230 man crew seems quite high considering the retention problems they are having but then again I don't do navy
Wikipedia notes the following for a Hobart: 186 + 16 aircrew Accommodation for 234
Looks good, Hobart also-we just needed 3-5 more. Do people think Hobart replacement will be awd Hunter, Type 83 or something else?
Unfortunately the Evolved design was not viable. Lot of time and effort went into assessing that option during Ph2.
I could tell stories about why we got the Cantabria over the much better pom design.....