Projects for Future Combatants.


HMAS Hobart. 20-05-2015.

Launch date is set for 23rd of May 2015. Unfortunatelly even at this late date that is all we know except for the contents of the prays for the event. Nice to know I guess. No event time line, no 'apparent' effort to enage the general public to counter the negative political commentary.

Interesting I was just comparing differences between the Australian and spanish ship of this design on Wikipedia (Interesting initial stopping point in any inter-search). As of this date (27-7-17) under weapons it is uncertain on the VLS is or is not 'Strike' capable. I.E. Able too launch tomahawks and the more Advanced SM-6 missiles, 

I can confirm that AWD Alliance web site confirmed over two years ago that Australia had in fact ordered the longer "Strike Module" version of the MK-41 VLS. Thus at least physically 'YES' to this question. Software wise, that's not something I have any idea on at this time, but upgradable obivous. 

I did hear mutterings here in Adelaide, that one reason for the delays were due to government / Navy wanting to upgrading the combat systems to the latest specs due to the time delay in commisioning so a post acceptance system upgrade would not be needed soon after entering service.

One would expect that to include the full range of abilities possible from the VLS.

It would make logical sense to be FULLY mission capable, even if we haven't ordered any weapons of those type at this time.

Would't be completly stupid to have too send the AWD's back to the workshop?


An incomplete model of the AWD design. Still to be completed.

Type 26 vs sea 5000 vs Arleigh Burke class development.


You could be forgiven in asking what possible link exists between the development of the type 26 , the future FFG project in Australia and the development process of the various 'flights' of the USA's Arleigh Burke class?

The answer is very simple, both the UK governments and Australia should take a long moment to look at the development of the US class where the three 'flights' of this class have three very distinct combat roles while maintaining common 'class' abilities.

Flight I while maintaining the common class ability Air defense via the AegisCombat system, It has exstensive asw capabilities which suggests a combat role as a inner asw picket.

Flight II started out as just improved flight I's with later constructed ships lossing  their towed sonar arrays, thus their asw role was degraded giving theses ships a slightly different combat role.

flightIII are under development as direct replacements the "Tico" cruisers and there are plans to convert the latter FlightII designated 'IIA' to flightIII standard.

The lesson here is ONE class of surface combant can carry out multiple different combat roles when "kittedout" with different weapons and sensor suites using a comon hull class thus generating ecomomic savings.

The UK and Australian Defense boffins need to stop trying and re-inventing the wheel every time the need to replace a class of ship. If you look at the published displacment,size and weapons system requirements, both countries already have state of art hull designs existing that match their respective published requirements. The only diffrence is the 'weapons kit' and combat roles of each 'Class'.

The type 45 destoryer hull could easily be biult to a deticated ASW role with stand off land strike role. The type 45 itself is expected to be refited in the future with a stand off land attack missiles. So why the need to waste money on studies in a 'completely new' design?

Similarlly the hull specs for the sea 5000 project match the hull specs of the AWD design currently been biult. 

With the Australian government delaying construction of the AWD so a 'SKILL DRAIN' does not occur between various projects is plan 'wooly' simplistic thinking. By changing the required weapons kit of a existing design currently being built that requires NO overt design change would extend employment at the ASC until a 'improved' Collins class( another case of wheel invention) startes construction when block intergation of the modified AWD could switch to Williamstown and or other dockyards. Infact with the number of units required intergation could be split from the outset.

This would avoid the sudden building spurts that occur between class construction that makes it hard to maintain a up to date work force and allow for the early retirement or better yet the current Anzac Class could be re-assigned to permanent border security role thus replacing the under performing Armidale patrol boats.

There is nothing stopping a similar practice in the UK.

Further information in support the argument for the extra Hobart class ships orientated to ASW role to replace the Anzac class FFH s is the reported weapons capabilities, Tomahawk cruise missiles , and a ABM role in SM-3 SAM. Currently the only proven western ship-borne ABM system is the SM-3 / AEGIS combination which of course is already mounted on the AWDs. 

What do you this?

Recent Annoucements


Recent announcement by Australian defence Minister that Australia is looking into using the F105 design to replace the Anzac class is been investigated. The idea been to marry up the current ASMD systems on the HMAS Perth with the F105 class hull.

This would meet the Common Hull Design or CHD that is the principle idea or concept mentioned inthe above paragraph.


The reported push by the Defense Minister to remove the AWD contract from ASC due to delays and cost over runs due to a belief that ASC is or was ' not up to the task' smacks more of giving the likes. of BAE Williamstown a leg up as the LHD project concludes, than any real desire to fix or admit to political reality faced by ASC under Labour.To do either would let ASC off this fictional 'fish hook'; Thus disallowing any lack of performance clause to be inacted.

l feel some points need to be pointed out in this debate.

1./ Was it not an construction error by BAE williamstown that intitally delayed the project ?


In regards to the last point, how this direction was to be followed without the current relality faced by ASC NOT occuring is completely behond my understanding. Having slowed down production and preserving your workforce without going over budget not possible.

One can not otherwise feel that this whole discussion is more to do with punishing South Australia for rejecting the liberal ideal by removing even more jobs from the state and transfer that economic wealth to a part of the country that is more likely to support the policiies of the current government.


One particular specification on the Australia's AWDs l was finding it hard to reference was which MK 41 VLS package was to be fitted. Standard length or Strike length. The Strike length been the only package capable of shipping the Tomahawk cruise missile.

The answer was found in the recent reference to deliver of all three complete units  (6 x 8) x 3 VLS strike length packages in a AWD alliance media release.

This shows more reason to use this Common Hull for the sea 5000 project as a 'strike' ability is listed and in Western Navies this equates to only the Tomahawk.


The Australian government recently accounced that the "Future Frigates" will have the latest US/Aus "BMD capable" radar/combat system based on the latest AEGIS system. Confusing  things, included was the SAAB combat system, which links the Ceamount/Ceafar RADAR that may link the latest Active Scan Radar that the US/Aus has been reported working on, which is not the AEGIS, unless the plan is to combine this new RADAR with the AEGIS operating platform, thus replacing the Passive Scan Radar currently used. 


Alternate sea 5000 design
OPV Australia Design concept.

Latest comments

19.05 | 15:01

Good point! I was thinking Helo pads but never got around to it. The design thought been why not have full port or base resources including dry dock and repair

19.05 | 11:44

Why is there no airport on top of the base?

03.04 | 13:07

Just found your site-very cool. Also agree with your views regarding government decision processes, all about looking after their arse after they're booted out

19.01 | 08:39

Detailed answers on blog page.