Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs
-
video of AWD construction.
http://www.asc.com.au/images/AWD_BUILD_small.wmv
design still in progress
http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/ships_awd_construction.aspx
PHASETIMELINEACTIVITY1dFebruary 2006 -
July 2006Project start up, including project management, scheduling, planning and design analysis.2July 2006 -July 2007Design decision with further planning, engineering and development of the chosen design.3July 2007 -July 2009Design planning, engineering and development, and commencement of build activity. -
wait 6 years more lah,at least
http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/ships_current_status.aspx
The first AWD is scheduled to be delivered in late 2014, followed by the second and third ships in early-2016 and mid-2017 respectively.The Government announced in January 2006 that the three AWDs will be named HMAS Hobart, HMAS Brisbane and HMAS Sydney. -
It is better than A$2.5 billion or A$ 2500 million AWD,right?
It is the best we can do.What to do?
So what? Making excuses now?
Still got Christmas tree what.
In innovative ST marine in first world country, is this acceptable?
Also are you implying that a simple covered sensor shroud for this (which you bothered to advertise), will cost billions of dollars?
Pls larh, we lously and make mistake say so larh, no need to say we no money.
So our soldiers us the basic and lously SAR-21 while we sell better versions to OTHER nations is also because we not enough money ah?
LOL
-
If ''systems developers and those involved in the project'' already have the final
blue prints,why do they need to see the AWD model?
Dunt tell me a building architect or a building builder need a model
to design and contruct a building!!
Or pl dunt tell me u construct a war ship by following a model!!
You are talking pure rubbish now.
You never heard of this thing called a mock up model ah?
Even ST engineering released mock ups of their future systems from guns to ships long before the finalized thing is out to give their customers a rough idea of what they are planning.
Dunt tell me even this practice is lost out on you and you want to make an issue of it.
Please.
-
My layman thinking shall work in this way:
1.Navy and DSTA in SG lay down requirements of the new platform
2.Ship architect and systems designers/builders provide
solutions.
3.They then build a Model and test the RCS in a chamber,
said in NUS.Then u finalise the design according funds,technology,
time frame etc
@@@@@@@@@
But i am damn sure u are not to build a ship according to a model
which the boss feel good!!
Model follow the design,but not the other way round.
I think you are not thinking at all.
Even laymen do not think so simply.
LOL.
You are mixing up the concepts of mockup and final design.
-
If ''systems developers and those involved in the project'' already have the final
blue prints,why do they need to see the AWD model?
That's because they already have the blueprints, and built the model based on it for the LAYMAN like you.
Even things like the Eurofighter and JSF were released in mockup model form showing how they would look exactly long before they were produced.
Surely layman thinking can allow you to deduce this.
But apparently your thinking is below that of the layman.
Lol.
-
Seriously lionnoisy, get educated and don't get confused over singular statements like LCS modules and now you can't even make a mental crawl to get over what a mockup means?
Mockup:
In common usage, a mockup is a scale model of a structure or device, usually used for teaching, demonstration, testing a design, etc.
A mockup should not be confused with a prototype. Prototypes are always meant to function, even if not fully so, whereas mock-ups are only meant to look like the real system, and do not function. The two are easy to confuse in software and systems engineering especially, where mockups are a way of prototyping user interfaces on paper or computer images. In many cases it is best to design the user interface before code is written or hardware is built, to avoid having to go back and make expensive changes.
Other uses
Mockups are also used in the Consumer goods industry, as part of the product development process, when the size, impression and/or artworks have to be tested and approved.
Mockup is also a frequently used term when talking about an early layout or sketch of a Web site or GUI program.
-
Oh! Can we make more sense here?
U ONLY expose your location,if SG TY is right,when u use active radar.
But u still can remain at lower RCS when u do a better job to conceal
the hull and not using the active radar.
LOL!
Are you out of your mind?
Do you even know how these things work?
The whole point of an Aegis system to work is for it to be ON and constantly SCANNING for threats with the radar. Turning off the system renders to air defence it provides to the fleet useless.
Can YOU make more sense here?
I wonder what your next rubbish point is going to be.
-
What can I say lionnoisy?
How come this happen to you again:
lionnoisy pwnage!
-
Seriously, that sum of money could be place into better purposes.
And btw, i found this quote quite nice.
He or she who supports a State organized in the military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in the sin. - Mahatma Gandhi
-
Why is this fucker dissing the best frigate in the region? Is he so obssessed with Stealth that he forgets this frigate is practically a destroyer-lite in its own right with the best possible weapon system that can be possibly mounted on a platform that large?
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Why is this fucker dissing the best frigate in the region? Is he so obssessed with Stealth that he forgets this frigate is practically a destroyer-lite in its own right with the best possible weapon system that can be possibly mounted on a platform that large?
Erm because he needs to feel good about the RSN and the only way by doing that is to be wilfully ignorant and ask truly silly questions like if the they are going to use the mockup as a blueprint.His lame attempt to ask questions about the mockup being the blueprint for things was pretty funny. The duh factor on that thing is so astounding that even the "laymen" that lionnoisy claims to be can't possibly mess it up.
But somehow he did.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
What can I say lionnoisy?
How come this happen to you again:
lionnoisy pwnage!
-
The Hobart class is really a destroyer and not a frigate. They will be slightly larger than the Spanish F100 due to evolving design. Euro countries like to call their destroyers frigates as it sounds more 'peaceful'.
The $8billion cost also includes extras like support and training as well, and not just ship building cost. It is expensive, but for this price you're getting the most advanced ship in SE Asia. China doesn't have one like it, only Korea and Japan will have anything similar.
So to the dumbass lionnoisy, grow up.
On a side note, it is possible and likely that Australia will be getting EA18G growlers to complement their purchase of SHs. I was disappointed with the SH purchase due to doubts about their speed, but now I see what the logic is. The Growlers will multiply the ability of the SH by many fold.
-
this version make more sense
At least it looks like Future technology,not
1980's technology lah.But it is out!!
Is it Gibbs & Cox’s ‘Evolved Design’ .?It is out!!
i think i may disappoint u all.
Oz selected Navantia’s F100 ‘Existing Design’ rather than
Gibbs & Cox’s ‘Evolved Design’ .
http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_annual_report.aspx
read overview section
pl read 18.08.2008 postings
http://www.raytheon.com.au/Default.aspx?x=332
RCS
just remember this basic rule then the ship
will not become a floating coffin.
http://www.kockums.se/products/products.html
-
i think u guys love to see what is 'Australianised Aegis combat system'?
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/awd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm
note the progress in this link.
Design still in progress!!
But they alreday finalised the layout of Operation Room!!
i read from other links.
The Hobart Class AWDs will be equipped with an Australianised Aegis combat system to ensure they possess the most up to date combat technologies available. These technologies ensure the Hobart Class meets the specific and demanding capability requirements of the Royal Australian Navy.
-
This is another brave action of Oz .
I think they never build so big ship,not to say war ship.
Read bewteen the lines then come back and talk.
http://www.kockums.se/products/products.html
When the Australian government planned the acquisition of their new submarine force, they aimed at a submarine more capable than any existing design in the world. Moreover, they made the bold and daring decision to build the submarines in Australia, a country with no experience of design and construction of submarines.
-
This is another brave action of Oz .
I think they never build so big ship,not to say war ship.
Read bewteen the lines then come back and talk.
http://www.kockums.se/products/products.html
When the Australian government planned the acquisition of their new submarine force, they aimed at a submarine more capable than any existing design in the world. Moreover, they made the bold and daring decision to build the submarines in Australia, a country with no experience of design and construction of submarines.
WTF are you on lionnoisy? I thought drugs were strictly illegal in your country, how the hell did you get some? And your name is very appropriate, all noise and nothing else.
You don't even make your point clearly. You just rehash bits of someone else's work and mumble some garbage.
Yes it is a bold move by Australia, but if you want to develop new capabilities, then of course it has to be. One could argue that it is a bold move by SG to develop a submarine capability based on so little experience, however it's a move that has to be done.
-
Originally posted by Asian Aussie:
Yes it is a bold move by Australia, but if you want to develop new capabilities, then of course it has to be. One could argue that it is a bold move by SG to develop a submarine capability based on so little experience, however it's a move that has to be done.
u are right.SG just got few decades old sub for first phrase.
Now,we are waiting for two AIP sub lah,still old sub.
SG dunt go for latest and biggest sub.
Just get the one suitable for our needs.
Nevermind it is old and small,about 20 years.
But one thing u can assure.SG old sub.,after conversion,will
not need to be 'upgraded' or repair in near future.
Janes calls this 'Get well ' programmes for Collins Sub.
Substances is more important than names.
http://www.kockums.se/products/products.html
read old postings then u know better about Collins.
Not more than half can sail in any time!!
http://www.sgforums.com/topics/search?q=Colins+&commit=Go&type=topics
i think 6 Collins sub spent more time in docks than sailing after delivery.
-
i think 6 Collins sub spent more time in docks than sailing after delivery.
You think, you though who confirm?
But one thing u can assure.SG old sub.,after conversion,will
not need to be 'upgraded' or repair in near future.
You obviously have no idea on the true state of our submarine force. Do you have any idea on the readiness our our current submarine force? No idea? Try talking to somebody into the RSN.
Curiously for anything regarding the SAF, you always seem to assume 100 percent readiness for anything, but is incredibly pessimistic when it comes to any other nation. Apparently, murphy laws only works for other nations?
In any case for your "layman" understanding, lets just say that in terms of submarine technology, the Aussies are light years ahead of us, or any nation in the world for that matter when it comes to operating blue water SSKs.
So when Australia get second hand weapons system it is a mistake?
But when Singapore gets an old, second hand sub that was supposed to be scrapped it is "for our needs".
Seriously you are a joke.
-
read old postings then u know better about Collins.
Not more than half can sail in any time!!
How come after reading old postings, you still don't seem to know any better about Collins?
Your "not more than half can sail in any one time" submarine managed to wreck havoc with the USN to the point the Americans decided to trade their advanced submarine technology with the Aussies for experience in SSK warfare.
You keep harping on problems, while the Aussies go on ahead with Virgina SSN technology and ADCAP torpedos, and are already planning a new class of SSK from the lessons they learnt with the Collins.
What does ST marine have to show after all these years except a few refurbished submarines that are endurance limited, dumb, deaf and blind compared to the collins?
So apparently "our needs" for submarines mean this standard? Is this the same excuse that had us operating outdated light tanks for over 30 years?
-
This is another brave action of Oz .
I think they never build so big ship,not to say war ship.
Read bewteen the lines then come back and talk.
http://www.kockums.se/products/products.html
Actually they have had experience in operating fighting ships of such tonnage before.
You make so much noise for what?
-
Personally I think the RMN has pretty good ships comparable and may be better than ours too.
-
Yes it is a bold move by Australia, but if you want to develop new capabilities, then of course it has to be. One could argue that it is a bold move by SG to develop a submarine capability based on so little experience, however it's a move that has to be done.
The problem about any military programme that the SAF develops is that you only hear the good news in the media, but the actual picture of things is very different.
Unfortunately for lionnoisy, there are plenty of issues with our procurement projects, reference customer or not. We spent millions mucking around with our AMX13 replacement, trying weird stuff like Bionix MGS before deciding to just get Leo2A4s and refurbish them.
So what happened to all the time, money and effort spent on our AMX13 replacement project over 20 years?
Flushed down the toliet.
In any other country, this would have been a big scandal and media disaster, but for some reason we never hear of it, quietly forgotten.
How come lionnoisy isn't saying much about the fact that despite 10 years since it was introduced, the SAF has still not fully introduced the SAR-21 to all the troops and even frontline units find themselves using a mix of M-16 for M203 and SAR-21 and realizing that in battle the M203 gunner is unable to share ammunition with the rest of his section?
To add salt to the wound, we see ST selling better versions of the SAR-21 to other nations while our own soldiers use a basic version that can't even fight at night without relying excessively on the LAD.
In any case I do not see why lionnoisy wants to cry so much about stealth in Australia's context, JORN can easily find our Formidibles, there isn't anything of multi-thousand tonnage on the surface of the water that isn't supposed to be there the Aussies can't find.
-
Our Formidable frigates are by and no means even close to the F-100 frigates, or even the new German frigates coming on line. They have to get by with a cheapy phase array radar that has to be rotated.