Hunter Class: 6 (-3)
Tier 2 FFG : +11
Optionally crewed LUSV : +6
Aussies need to add a couple more big drydocks. It's not as horrible a situation as the USN with yard space since Oz is smaller than the Lower 48, but you still need at least one 200+m drydock up north, one on the east coast, and one on the west coast.
 
"optionally crewed” large surface vessels, built in Western Australia and based on work underway in the United States on large-unmanned surface combatants, that will “significantly enhance” the RANs long-range strike capabilities. According to the review, they’ll be armed at least 32 vertical launch systems, and equipped with the AEGIS combat system.

So:
'large'
optionally crewed
Aegis
32xVLS

That's an interestingly challenging design for Tier 2.
 
In what respect?
Rough dimensions, and more importantly you don't have to detour clear down to freaking Panama to go from east coast to west coast...

And I'm having a hell of a time finding a good place for the north coast drydock... Darwin is just too small a city to support that big a facility.
 
Probably wouldnt want it on the north coast anyway, right on the frontline if Australia attacked and unlike the sub base in Darwin where they could sail with reasonable notice of impending hostilities a ship in drydock would be vulnerable.
 
So:
'large'
optionally crewed
Aegis
32xVLS

That's an interestingly challenging design for Tier 2.

I think they are referring to an Australian version of the LUSV the American Navy is experimenting with.
 
Probably wouldnt want it on the north coast anyway, right on the frontline if Australia attacked and unlike the sub base in Darwin where they could sail with reasonable notice of impending hostilities a ship in drydock would be vulnerable.
Then you're stuck with only having two such shipyards, and that's a much simpler attack problem. All the people who would work in the shipyards are down around the southern coast and halfway up the east coast.
 
Then you're stuck with only having two such shipyards, and that's a much simpler attack problem. All the people who would work in the shipyards are down around the southern coast and halfway up the east coast.

Which is on the order of 2,000-2,500km further away from potential adversaries on east or west coast or 6,000km further away on the south coast. Your in the Panama Canal during WW2 realm, yes they may want to attack but their ships have neither the range nor at-sea resupply capacity to extend their logistics chain beyond the Java Sea.
 
Last edited:
since Oz is smaller than the Lower 48,
Wikipedia data gives land area of
- Australia as 7,550,667 sq km (7,688,287 sq km total - 1.79% water area)
- USA Lower 48 as 7,649,506 sq km (9,147,590 USA total land - 1,481,346 (Alaska land) - 16,638 (Hawaii land))

Non-Hawaii US-islands thrown in with US Lower 48 total.
Australian islands thrown in with Australia total.
Australia is a big place.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia data gives land area of
- Australia as 7,550,667 sq km (7,688,287 sq km total - 1.79% water area)
- USA Lower 48 as 7,649,506 sq km (9,147,590 USA total land - 1,481,346 (Alaska land) - 16,638 (Hawaii land))

Non-Hawaii US-islands thrown in with US Lower 48 total.
Australian islands thrown in with Australia total.
Australia is a big place.
Right. And you don't have to detour an extra 1000+ miles south to get to the closest place to get from one coast to the other.
 
they may want to attack but their ships have neither the range nor at-sea resupply capacity to extend their logistics chain beyond the Java Sea.

Which is undoubtedly why China is cosying up to places like the Solomons.
 
And I'm having a hell of a time finding a good place for the north coast drydock... Darwin is just too small a city to support that big a facility.

The demographics haven't really changed since WWII, you have to go south to Townsville or thereabouts for the population to support major installations.
 
US coastline 12,383 miles
Australian coastline 21,126 miles
Not counting some 8000 miles of landlocked borders...

Again.

How far does a ship have to travel to get from San Diego to Norfolk?

5500 nautical miles.



How far does a ship have to travel to get from Perth to Sydney?

2050 nautical miles.
 
5500 nautical miles to go from San Diego to Norfolk.

2050 nautical miles to go from Perth to Sydney.

Which one has the shorter trip again?

What point are you trying to make? we were talking about having naval facilities in Australia further from an adversaries reach and yes despite being a smaller country at 7.6m km2 of which 7% is inland waterways such as the Great Lakes border with Canada (122,000 sqkm of the US landmass) as opposed to your original claim of Australia being smaller than the 48 with a shorter coastline; having Canada to the north and Mexico to the south provides a geographical advantage to the US by increasing the distance an adversary would have to travel to blockade the entire coast line.

Incidentally for an aircraft they are pretty much identical distance, 2,045 miles between Perth and Sydney and 2,186 miles between San Diego and Norfolk. Though the port of San Diego and port of Seattle are only 1,070 miles apart as the crow flies as opposed to the port of Melbourne and port of Darwin which are 1,950 miles apart.
 
Last edited:

MELBOURNE, Australia — BAE Systems Australia ceremonially cut steel on the first batch of Hunter-class Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) frigates at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia on June 21.

The company also signed a production contract with the Commonwealth of Australia on the same day, for the first batch of three vessels.
The cutting of the steel, which is to be part of the understructure support for the port propeller shaft brake system, was initiated by South Australian Premier Peter Maklinauskas following the contract signature.

The first ship, HMAS Hunter, is due to be completed in 2032 and is expected to be fully operational by 2034.

1719584505295.png
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom