People have gotten confused the 25% loss is because we cut 1 boat which is 25% of our sub fleet so we lost 25%.

I think someone misused the numbers thats all.

We usually have 48 warheads out and about at any one time. That to me is what we should have minimum on a sub more when we need to such as when things look dangerous. 160 is the lowest number of warheads is the bare minimum i think we should have as that allows 3 boats to have around 48 warheads assigned to them and the rest would be for testing and maintenance. Remember these warheads need top-up’s every so often and need to be checked hence why there are convoys up and down the country every so often.

Obligatory, Afghanistan is roughly 600nm from the coast so it’s not that bad and yes they do get tanked. Fly into Afghan air space hook up with a tanker tank up go on patrol for 2 hours come back re-tank, patrol, re-tank and head home. Not as barmy as people think. It means you can have lower numbers of people in Afghanistan in danger and you have a much shorter logistics trail for those aircraft as carriers carry all the stuff you need. Im not sure they do it much but they must for the US defense.mil site to have pictures of USN F-18’s being tanked over stan.

I’ve no idea how they get them over Afghanistan but yes im pretty sure USN F-18’s do provide CAS over Afghanistan. I dont see a problem flying over Pakistan as they would be flying pretty damn high so people would not really notice. There is aircraft in Afghanistan but still a lot of F-18 sorties are generated from offshore afaik.

Hmmm! i dont see the point in giving a Frigate a long range AAW missile mainly as it causes people to see the ship as an AAW asset when it is not. Some idiot might send a frigate to provide AAW where it would be a wiser job for the albeit scarce Hobart class. For the missions i see the future frigate doing it’s overkill, 64 ESSM with a range of around 50km will be plenty in my opinion.

My VLS load out would be the following in a 48 cell launcher in the bow:
64 ESSM in 16 cells, these have a range of around 50km
16 VLS ASROC
16 TLAM

Of course loadouts would be changed all the time depending on missions but thats what i would try and keep it looking like. It gives a light land attack role for priority targets while still leaving space for a decent AAW loadout and the all important ASW Asroc.

Im sad so i laughed at “If they get AUSPAR they can control them themselves” as in the Aussies can’t control themselves atm but im a nutter and i know what you mean and it aint funny. Im pretty sure CEFAR and CEAmount could control SM-2/SM-6 fair enough they simply dont have the detection range to be useful. Im guessing AUSPAR is a large scaled up radar made of CEAFAR and CEAmount panels arranged tighter around a mast,with a more robust combat control system?

Philbob how many VLS cells would you have at the bow oyu only really need around 32, 16 quad packed with ESSM gives you 64 missiles and the other 16 filled with ASROC. You could easily have the full VLS from the hobart and include 16 TLAM’s in the same place rather than having an extra launcher midships.

Netfires NLOS missiles could be put anywhere with the room really as it’s a large box and not difficult to add, AShM missiles i would stick with Harpoon for now or whatever will become standard. For CIWS i would look at having a SEAram launcher on the roof of the hangar as well as an additional one on the bridge roof if this is possible.

Nice drawing, a few things to note i dont think there is enough room for 48 Mk.41 cells in the bow. I would have said maybe 32 max as the Mk.41 cells are bigger in all dimensions. Im pretty sure as well that the deck house as well would need to be quite high compared to the current T23 to allow for strike length VLS cells.

The propulsion system could be kept similar but with updated equipment such as the new electric motors by Coverteam for the C1 which might fit.

Ahhh! I get it now thanks for that i didnt realise it was culmative. Enough endurance for the Aussies then if it’s Nautical Miles, the only slight thing is the speed but if you have a helo and 2 40knot RHIBS things should be ok.

Almost a carbon copy of the C3 requirement for the RN for which there are more than a few ideas floating around. Spain has the BAM but it has a very short endurance compared to what i think is needed furthermore it is also very very slow for doing security work. The Italians are working on something close to the same idea to replace all the smaller vessels but this is not due for a while yet. France i think will follow Spain, Italy and the UK and will no doubt come up with an excellent deisgn that Australia will no doubt see in the Pacific area.

The VT C3 design i think is one of the best designs out there for the moment as it offers low risk/cost while hopefully being able to cover the missions asked of it. It could be easily built in most shipyards in Australia keeping politicians happy that they are keeping people employed. The design is also well enough armed with a 76mm gun and 2 30mm guns to be able to defend itself and do other jobs when needed. The rear deck has an area for boat launches and unmanned systems to be deployed from filling the survey and mine hunting jobs. The hangar is sized for a lynx which may be a problem as the UH-60 and NH-90 are larger but it’s ideal for UAV’s. My concerns however is that it is larger than the 2000 ton target so may cost far too much for 20 to be bought. Apart from that it fills most of the criteria.

The dream ship to fill this requirement would have to be the BMT Venator which has a massive mission garage taking up most of the ship. This would allow all sorts of missions to be carried out with a high degree of flexibility. The design also has a large Heli deck and a retractable hangar so UAV’s can be carried and deployed and manned helicopters can be accommodated when needed. The factors that sink this design are cost and size both are far above what is needed and would be prohibitive.

Looking at the three ships side by side is intresting nice find i must say. A wave class would certainly do just fine for replacing HMAS Success or an Aegir 18R. Maybe if the RAN approached the RFA they could get one or both of the wave class when the RFA get new tankers and it would allow the RFA to maintain a higher level of commonality within the fleet. Just an idea but i dont know how much the RAN would like a second hand ship that has been working hard for years. Mind you there is little risk and they are excellent ships.

For a new build design i would recommend the Aegir 18R as they are around the same deadweight as the Wave class if im remembering my numbers. Both are around 18,000 tons DW which looks to be ideal for what the RAN is looking for. Furthermore the design can be tailored by adding things like deep magazines, electric winches etc.

A final option would be an enlarged Berlin class which as Ja has mentioned elsewhere has better medical facilities on board and is an excellent dry stores ship. My concern is still the volume of fuel it can carry which i doubt will be enough for a deploying LHD.