Talk:Hunter-class frigate
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter-class frigate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Aegis combat System ? Okerefalls (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
editWhy would you specify the super expensive Aegis Combat system for ship type that doesnt have the Aegis type SPY flat plat radars ? yes the link does say :'Under the plan, the combat management system for Australia’s fleet of nine Future Frigates will be provided by the Aegis Combat Management System, together with an Australian tactical interface, which will be developed by SAAB Australia.' Which makes it even worse, with an 'Australian tactical interface' cobbled onto that. History of Australian developed combat type sytems isnt good with that approach been tried and failed for Collins class submarine and the Seasprite naval helicopter.
Lockheed Martin who are the current integrator for the Aegis combat system which started under RCA in late 60s to 70s have the new contract for the US navy FFG-X program combat system[1]. This software would seem to be a more likely contender with its modules developed from the 'Aegis Common Source Libraries or CSL. As LM say "Aegis CSL can be used across a variety of platforms, ranging from multiple classes and types of ships to land-based systems." [2]. The big advantage of using existing CSL is for both development and testing phases. In my view the RAN Hunter class will have a LM combat system using Aegis CSL , but yet unnamed, developed for the USN FFG(X) program with some Australian ( shudder) interface.
- Article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, and are not forums to discuss the topics covered by the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Have not seen in writing as yet, but the official RAN video shows tube launched ASM above mission bay in place of Sea Ceptor Silo's, and the RAN will not use Sea Ceptor, so no silo's fwd, video clearly shows 32 cell VLS in its place https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67VW9-2fn4M Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The image for the page is the one used for the UK Type 26 . I see the RAN is using a modified image that would seem to have Australian features, specifically the structure above the bridge for radars . http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cache/746x497/crop/images%7Ccms-image-000013977.jpg Is it possible to have this RAN image replace the UK one ? Okerefalls (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The design & Construction section says SAAB tactical interface & Aegis combat interface. Should that not be Aegis combat management system (CMS)? My understanding is that the job of the SAAB Australia tactical interface to allow intergration of systems not already intergrated to Aegis CMS without having to pay LM or get US permission to do so (as we have to for our jet fighters if we want to add something not already catered for). We have a similar interface on the AWD from Konsberg but the SAAB one includes the radar (which is an Australian radar). Also the table on the side is missing the ESSM missiles which will also be carried (as does the Hobart & ANZAC classes). ESSM is the short range missile, Standard 2 the long range missile (as aslo mentioned in the referenced (2) article. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure RAN is keeping its ESSM but thought there was a plan to add SM6 as well. Note that both ESSM and Sea Ceptor fit 4 missiles per VLS cell, so presumably 8 of the VLS cells would be for ESSM? Webwat (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Table on ships of class
editI don't believe there are two batches to be built. Therefore, shouldn't this be removed from the table all together? Life200BC (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Update and tidy up of content and refences on 12/01/22 at 17:19
edit- Removed irrelevant content in “Design” section to tighten it up.
- The previous “Tender process” section focuses too much about foreign procurement rather than the procurement of the Australian ships, which is the point of the article. Irrelevant content related to foreign procurement replaced with Australian content such as the government announcement press release.
- The “Australian Defence Review” article about the helicopter bay doors is not a reliable source, it is just take from an anonymous comment on the page, with the speculating based on a public relations drawing. Therefore it has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.94.221 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Displacement: 8,800 t or 10,000 t?
editThe infobox says 10,000 t full load while the body of the article says 8,800. Given that the higher figure is massively heavier than the Type 26 frigate despite them using the same hull, it seems less likely to be correct. But both figures have citations for them. So which is correct? — Red XIV (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Needs improvement
editToo much detail in first paragraph about the procurement process. More appropriate would be a general description of what the ships are and what capability they are supposed to have.
Suggest: Shorten what's there add more after ship is launched. Other suggestions? Germsteel (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)