iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
You realise you'll have to put up with a 127mm gun! Think you can handle the firepower?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I seem to recall the ASEV is a one-off class of two using radar sets originally intended for AEGIS Ashore - AN/SPY-7(V)1Looking ahead to potential Hobart class replacements. Everyone has mentioned an evolution of the Hunter Class. What about the Japanese ASEV?
Just an idea for discussion.
Costs as opposed to Evolved Hunter, manpower,etc.?
I'm not sure ASEV is actually a design intended for future development, or if its just a way of using radars already ordered by Japan.
The ASEV seems a bit overkill for Australia. It makes a Hunter look small in comparison. It would be expensive to operate and require a lot of people.Looking ahead to potential Hobart class replacements. Everyone has mentioned an evolution of the Hunter Class. What about the Japanese ASEV?
Just an idea for discussion.
Costs as opposed to Evolved Hunter, manpower,etc.?
While I think the spy7 is a good radar, its an orphan in the American world and would be yet another type for Australia to integrate into its logistics system.
Remember Japan selected this system because they had already contracted LM for two Aegis Ashore installations. They later viewed that the fixed sites would be vulnerable to attack, and changed the plan to mount the contracted radar on a ship for mobility and improved survivability.
Had Japan started with a clean sheet of paper, I think they would have utilised a spy6 package and fitted it to an evolved Maya class hull, perhaps with a larger VLS capacity. If they wanted an extra powerful radar, then I'm sure RTX could have upsized the spy6 with more modules than the standard V1 configuration.
For Australia, I would view we either remain with the spy6 family or the ceafar family. Both are capable ballistic missile radars and they align with our knowledge and logistics.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I'll be interested where we go with the Hobart replacements. Now is the time to start planning and 6 instead of 3 would be the logical way to go.The ASEV seems a bit overkill for Australia. It makes a Hunter look small in comparison. It would be expensive to operate and require a lot of people.
While I think the spy7 is a good radar, its an orphan in the American world and would be yet another type for Australia to integrate into its logistics system.
Remember Japan selected this system because they had already contracted LM for two Aegis Ashore installations. They later viewed that the fixed sites would be vulnerable to attack, and changed the plan to mount the contracted radar on a ship for mobility and improved survivability.
Had Japan started with a clean sheet of paper, I think they would have utilised a spy6 package and fitted it to an evolved Maya class hull, perhaps with a larger VLS capacity. If they wanted an extra powerful radar, then I'm sure RTX could have upsized the spy6 with more modules than the standard V1 configuration.
For Australia, I would view we either remain with the spy6 family or the ceafar family. Both are capable ballistic missile radars and they align with our knowledge and logistics.
As you guys have mentioned before, the rule of 3 comes into play. One active, one in refit, and one working up.