Australia unveils AAW destroyer. (American Arleigh Burke knock-off)
Might have been cheaper just to buy a bunch of American FlightII DDGs
I find it odd that Australia is dumping money to devolpe a AAW destroyer that (visually) appears to be a copy of an American DDG.
With such viral bias, you're opinion is thus rendered useless. -Shrapnel12, on my "bias" against the SS.
I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith — it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
Every state has incentives to have indegenous arms productions capabilities. MIlitary autarky is a big thing.Originally posted by Lonestar
Might have been cheaper just to buy a bunch of American FlightII DDGs
I find it odd that Australia is dumping money to devolpe a AAW destroyer that (visually) appears to be a copy of an American DDG.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Except that Australia's navy is designed to co-operate with the USN.
So what?Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Except that Australia's navy is designed to co-operate with the USN.
The primary reason for the Australian Navy is to defend Australia. Currently the US is an Australian ally, henceforth the two navies work together. That in no way invalidates Australia's interest in being able to build by herself modern effective warships.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
It only has a passing resemblance to an Arleigh Burke. On a side view of the ship, the suerstructure is completely different.Originally posted by Lonestar
Might have been cheaper just to buy a bunch of American FlightII DDGs
I find it odd that Australia is dumping money to devolpe a AAW destroyer that (visually) appears to be a copy of an American DDG.
ACK!
"Foof." - Sasquatch.
Still would be cheaper for them to buy right out or license build 'em.
With such viral bias, you're opinion is thus rendered useless. -Shrapnel12, on my "bias" against the SS.
I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith — it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
Because it isn't a matter about getting the junk as cheap as possible - it's a matter of keeping the knowledge updated.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
Why would they want to buy a ship from a country that can't even make reliable passenger cars?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Cuz we make the best military hardware?
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Having served on a Burke for the better part of three years and posting from one in the Gulf right now, here is my many cents.
1. The vessel is actually much more similar to the Flight IIAs than the Flight IIs, and that "A" means a lot. The Aussie ship has the two hanger bays, which also means it pushes the aft VLS and Harpoon launchers up a deck. The aft #3 Generator stack in our IIAs is moved to a starboard side vent similar to the French Lafayette class. I don't see that here, so maybe they moved it to the port side.
2. The aft two SPY arrays have been moved up a deck like our IIAs, so that they are not symmetrical with the forward two. This has the effect of cutting out the aft half of the bridge wing, which from an OODs perspective (mine) sucks. But the Burkes always spoiled OODs anyways.
3. The entire forward half of the superstructure (which from the top is a big octagon) has been elevated a deck like the Japanese Konga-class. The mast looks to be the same height, which is why it looks smaller than the American version. The picture shows little to no comms gear on the mast, but I attribute that to the suite not yet being defined which is not uncommon for this stage of development.
4. Mount 21, or the forward point defense mount just below the bridge windows, has been merged more smoothly into the superstructure than the American IIs and IIAs, which looks nice but eliminates the forward port and starboard underway fueling stations. I assume the two after stations are still there.
5. Like in the American IIAs, once they added the hangers they had to remove the Harpoon launchers because they would be in front of the lower aft illuminator. The Americans just removed Harpoons from the IIAs completely, the Aussies moved them to the amidships areas. Thee pictures having the angles they do, I can not tell if this means the two Replenishment stations for solid stores are still there, but I doubt it. If this is the case, the Aussies are retards.
6. The anchor assembly is completely different, and there is no bullnose, which is consistent with contemporary marine design.
7. Looks like they opted for the Goalkeeper system instead of the Phalanx for point defense, which I find odd. In any case most American IIAs have been installed with only one forward or aft CIWS vice the two all IIs have. Some have none. The reason is that with the imminent introduction of the ESSM, and with some ships being fitted with RAM, CIWS is being relegated to a surface weapon (very cool, they attack a video camera to it and you control it from a joystick in combat).
So there you have it, as Lonestar said basically a superficial copy of the American DDG. Obviously Australia is building it themselves to keep their proficiency up. I see no problem with them using an American design, no need to reinvent the wheel. It should be remembered that the SPY-1D they will get will be similar to the one the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan-class has which is a much simpler and degraded version of the American. I have not heard of the Aussies buying Tomahawk either, so this vessel is far inferior to the American Burkes. The Burke style has become popular recently. The Japanese Konga-class and soon to be build improved Konga-class as well as the South Korean KDX-1-class and KDX-2 class have similar superstructure and lines.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Patroklos' post owned this thread.
Which is the best destroyer btw?
Banana
Wouldn't it depend on what you're trying to do? Also it seems like the capabilities of the ships the destroy would be working with should also be considered.
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
I served on a CG, so our SPYs were arranged very differently. I suspect the reason why the Burke style is so popular is because (1) it (supposebly) reduces the radar signature of the ship and (2) the Burke SPY arrangement may lend to better coverage, or at least as good as they can get with a reduced profile.Originally posted by Patroklos
So there you have it, as Lonestar said basically a superficial copy of the American DDG. Obviously Australia is building it themselves to keep their proficiency up. I see no problem with them using an American design, no need to reinvent the wheel. It should be remembered that the SPY-1D they will get will be similar to the one the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan-class has which is a much simpler and degraded version of the American. I have not heard of the Aussies buying Tomahawk either, so this vessel is far inferior to the American Burkes. The Burke style has become popular recently. The Japanese Konga-class and soon to be build improved Konga-class as well as the South Korean KDX-1-class and KDX-2 class have similar superstructure and lines.
Good catch on the "A" though
With such viral bias, you're opinion is thus rendered useless. -Shrapnel12, on my "bias" against the SS.
I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith — it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
The Burkes are by far the best out there. Destroyers in the historical sense were primarily sub hunters and screen ships, but in the modern military terms like Corvette, Destroyer, Cruiser are basically just size deliniations.
The combination of the SPY, Aegis, Tomahawk, endurance, and sig intel abilities is
what makes the ships rock. You would be hard pressed to find another ship with better performance in any one of those categories let alone all.
And DDX is only five years away...
In regards to SPY antenna arrangement, the Burkes design is more efficient as all the equipment is localized in on area of the ship, but the cruisers can't have all their arrays knocked out in one hit as they are divided fore and aft. I thought you I rememebered you being a CG guy.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
My understanding was that the Konga class destroyers were superior to the Arleigh Burke class when they were launched. Were they overshadowed by the IIs/IIAs, or am I just completely wrong?
"Remember, there's good stuff in American culture, too. It's just that by "good stuff" we mean "attacking the French," and Germany's been doing that for ages now, so, well, where does that leave us?" - Elok
wtf?? This has nothing to do with hockey.
I don't know what I am - Pekka
Yes, you are wrong. The Konga's have abolutlely no strike capability (ie Tomahawks), and like all foreign purchances of the SPY-1D and Aegis have a very watered down version.
Not to say the Konga is bad, but like most other navies they are thinking along the lines of limited missions and projection.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Do the Japanese even have any Tomahawk-like weapons?? Such weapons would seem to be incompatible with the official mission to be a defense force.
But sometimes attack is the best defense
Banana
They do have 3 Amphibs.Originally posted by BeBro
But sometimes attack is the best defense
With such viral bias, you're opinion is thus rendered useless. -Shrapnel12, on my "bias" against the SS.
I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith — it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks