Hypohystericalhistory's Guide to the Hunter Class Frigate

[@johnnyrocket80085]

One of the most articulated and informative videos i have ever seen on KZbin. You have a gift in presentation and a voice that commands every ounce of attention. Seriously blown away with your channel, well done mate 👍👍

[@kaiwillie1466]

I know it is pretty off topic but do anyone know a good website to stream newly released series online?

[@kaiwillie1466]

@Jack Rayan Thanks, signed up and it seems to work :D I appreciate it !

[@jackrayan6575]

@Kai Willie glad I could help :)

[@vMaxHeadroom]

Great analysis on the Hunter class....Also as a Brit and I am happy we are working together with Australia on this programme...We should be working on so much more together..

[@lewis211]

🇬🇧🇦🇺 🖕🏼🇨🇳

[@roberthurleyjr4762]

Australia has been riding on American Protection! Now that China is messing with Australia you have painted a very sad and stupid policy that was implemented by other “stupid” people. 11 Frigates/Destroyers as the “Base” for defending the Continent?? No decent submarines, no nuclear powered submarines?? Does Canberra actually think it can defend itself this way????? It’s RIDICULOUS! Australians now see how Myopic their defense planners are and continue to be. No surface to surface or air missiles? Crappy attack helos? A hand full of modern fighter planes?? (plenty M1 tanks tho 😆) Me thinks your government/defense agencies are morons! Is Australia going to continue to ask America and our military to protect Darwin on down while your “Premiers” deny ANY REALITIES?? We know self defense isn’t cheap but it IS a necessity! Q.: When or will Aussie leaders recognize their mistakes? All they seem to do well is IGNORE this dangerous world (the CCP). Hasn’t China’s actions directed at your nation begun to ring ANY alarm bells????? What happened to America’s partner down under? WE LOVE YOU, AUSTRALIA! But you must pull your collective heads from your asses!

[@snugglecity3500]

@@roberthurleyjr4762 anyone who says me thinks has no place to be giving opinions on defence

[@MagpieOz]

@@roberthurleyjr4762 What happened to America's partner down under? Trump is what happened and you have some work to do to get back in our good books

[@GARDENER42]

@@roberthurleyjr4762 The decision to go with SSNs kinda kicks your rant into the gutter... ...then there's the small matter of paying for any increase in capabilities.

[@hcodrum156]

Would like to see an updated video on this ship. A lot has happened in the last two years or so.

[@NBeaver-bx4yl]

Awesome ship ! So impatient to see the British, canadian and australian frigates side by side !

[@dan7564]

# Canzuk

[@williambroadstreet3353]

Nathan FYI.....www.navalreview.ca/tag/hunter-class/

[@asjeot]

@@dan7564 CAUK...

[@yorky2002]

@@asjeot Need to put an NZ in there as well mate - helps with Scrabble!

[@asjeot]

@yorky2002 Will New Zealand be getting the Hunter Class, too?

[@lucasberg4038]

Dude I've been eagerly awaiting your next upload! Love your videos!

[@YaMumsSpecialFriend]

Your subs will explode sometime soon mate, you’re the best out there on the subjects and well deserve legions looking forward to your next upload, 🖖🏼

[@nathan-ck3je]

Australia does spend a lot on maintaining our submarines compared to most countries. So the haul on the collins class will out do it's service life by a decade. But yes they need to be replaced soon. Many countries purchase a lot more equipment than Australia has. But they don't service them as often as Australia does because they can't afford to. Countries like India Russia and many others alike. All have ships and tanks that is just sitting there and haven't got the funding to be maintain them.

[@CDSAfghan]

@@nathan-ck3je He meant subscribers mate. Not the submarines.

[@robertbrazier5097]

@@CDSAfghan gonna be honest, I read it as submarines too XD but yeah we do need new submarines and this channel should have subscribers in excess of 7 digits

[@YaMomsOyster]

@@CDSAfghan 😂 the channel will explode, not Collins I hope.

[@henrybancroft9039]

@@nathan-ck3je He meant subscribers, not submarines lol I thought that too.

[@mitzyismad]

Great presentation. No politics or rubbish, just the reality.

[@pauledwards9493]

Wish we ordered 12. Go get'em lads! Love from the UK.

[@Cravendale98]

In an ideal world yes but cost is a big factor and these ships certainly don't come cheap. The Mod/RN argue that you don't need a super expensive/advanced warship to do lower end tasks, which is why the RN is getting 5 of the more budget friendly Type 31 general purpose frigates which will serve mainly on the less high end of operations. Im pretty sure It has also been announced that the RN will be getting 5 Type 32 frigates as well which is rumoured to be based on the 31 although there isn't a lot of info out yet. This would bring the total surface combatants to 24 probably by the early 2030's.

[@philmills4473]

Typ32, is going ahead. ASW, are high-end and much too much for drug busts . Just been looking at the type83. It looks interesting .

[@Cosmip]

Loving these videos mate! Keep it up

[@anthonykelly5352]

Again with the quality and content, you are going to give KZbin credibility as a source of reputable information in a well presented manner without plastic music and a mechanical voiceover. What are you thinking mate, if you set the bar so high, how are all the armchair warriors going to compete?? Seriously though, great material in a professional way, kudos

[@AugmentedGravity]

This is really shaping up to be a world beater

[@WWeronko]

The only limitation I see with the Australian Hunter Class is the same that is present with the UK's Type 45 destroyers and most other European navies. There just will not be enough of them. With the Australian large coastal area and Chinese rapid production of warship hulls, 3 Hobart class destroyers and 8-9 Hunters will not be enough for its needs. Only in combination with allied navies will the Australian have any hope of surviving any future conflict with a Chinese adversary.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

Given the AUKUS alliance it’s unlikely that Australia wouldn’t have the backing of the powerful British, Japanese and American navies. I say Japan because they’re booked into any war with China because of the US-Japan defence pact

[@Pax.Britannica]

If the Ozzie's are attack by the commies, we're all gonna get stuck in 👌🇬🇧 Also, they likely use the ships as escorts, hunting subs only at choke points.

[@MillerVanDotTV]

@@anguswaterhouse9255sure….rely on USA blood and money….🤨

[@MillerVanDotTV]

@@anguswaterhouse9255Aus should be buying some of those new Japanese “aircraft carriers”. Plus another 4-6 of these and another half dozen P-8’s

[@felocie9262]

@@MillerVanDotTV We buy these aircraft carriers with what money, crewed with what manpower, loaded with which aircraft acquired with what money. Australia cannot afford it

[@GM-fh5jp]

Well that was a pretty decent look at the new Hunter Class. What a pleasure it is to sit back and enjoy an interesting analysis and commentry of this very capable warship. Thanks for posting, your channel is all class.

[@chookywookiee3924]

This channel is absolutely brilliant. Sharing with all my military nerd friends.

[@lindsaybaker9480]

In the Royal Navy version there is a structure behind the large funnel that houses sea Centro missiles, this could be changed to 16 VLS cells for 64 ESSM leaving the forward 32 cells for SM6, LRASM and Tomahawk. The Mk15 CIWS should be replaced with 11 cell Searam system, which according to Australian Warship Review magazine is what the Navy is looking at

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

If an additional 16 VL cells were added forward then 16 SM2s could be added to that list, hence completing the whole array of desirable strike and AW missiles. I wonder whether the LRASM will be able to be quad packed? If not I’d keep them on deck in canister launchers instead. Or go with the NSM option.

[@nathan-ck3je]

That would give a displacement weight of 11.000 ton. They have already increased it from 9000 to 10.000. If they did all that she will be heavy machine

[@scottmccambley764]

Will the Hunter have full height VLS cannisters that can accomodate the Thomahawk? Nothing here says it will. The RCN will deploying 100 full height mk41 vls cannisters in 4 of the 15 hulls with Ageis and spy -7. The rest of the hulls will probably only have half height mk41 vls cannisters and the spy-7 focusing on the anti-sub role and general purpose role

[@lindsaybaker9480]

@@scottmccambley764 the 32 cells forward of the bridge will be full length Mk41 VLS initially for SM2/6 and ESSM. What anti ship weapon we get is likely to be LRASM, hopefully vertically launched and a a new strike weapon with a long range is sought and the bet is that it will be the latest tomahawk cruise missile variant. What I’m hoping is that the RAN keeps the structure behind the funnel that can House 16 vls cells end to end as I don’t think they’d fit side by side. This will allow the 32 cells forward to have a mix of tomahawk LRASM sm6 and if we’re smart asroc

[@nathan-ck3je]

@@scottmccambley764 Scott . I just looked them up. The SM-6 missile has a length of 6.6m and diameter of 0.5m. It weighs 1,500kg and carries a 64kg blast fragmentation warhead. Tomahawk (missile)TomahawkMass2,900 lb (1,300 kg), 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) with boosterLengthWithout booster: 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m) With booster: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m So the SM6 is 6.6m the tomahawk is 6.25m or 5.56m without booster it should fit. I'm not sure on SM3 though as they are larger again. Although the Burke class destroyer isn't any deeper than the type 26 hunter class Australia is building. They seem to be able to carry all 3 in the MK 41 VLS. I think the problem with the Hunter class is its weight from the start it's a hevy large ship. The increase from the 24 cell to the 32 cell has already increased the tonnage from 9000 to 10.000 ton. Giving the ship another 16 cell VLS would increase the weight again and it decrease the range and speed of the ship. I suppose they can have less SM2 on some ships and equipped with a mixture of ESSM SM2 SM6 and tomahawk and others with mixture of ESSM more SM2 and SM6. I suppose whatever the RAN will feel best for combination that suits them for each role they will serve at the time..but to my knowledge tomahawk are not cheap. Maybe Australia will be able to develop our own cruise missiles down the track. But SM6 missile is suppose to be of all missions. Anti ICBM in terminal phase, anti cruise missiles, Anti aircraft, anti-ship, and a land strike weapon all in one.. the tomahawk is a land strike weapon with a range of around 1000km. And I don't think the RAN would use as much as others. And of needed be the new anti ship missiles and SM6 would probably do that job anyway. Rough range of SM6 missile is of 460km depending on what booster version RAN ordered and that's still like the distance from Melbourne to St Helens in Tasmania that's beyond visual range of any radar and they will strike a hell of a lot faster than a tomahawk cruise missile will

[@andrewsmall6834]

Can you do a video on land 400 or Nasams 2 or one of the similar acquisition programs?

[@BenDaviesHe3]

Great video, was insanely curious about the Hunter class.

[@tony6834-h6h]

You have delivered a wonderfully informative overview of the next generation of the RAN, and i enjoyed it very much, Australia deserves to have cutting edge tech, as we know we are going to be going up against, You know who in the near term future, and will be able to in conjunction with our Dear allies, dissuade the territorial ambitions of such nation.

[@billhicks2001]

what an excellent 1st class presentation, thank you

[@mikejames4648]

Nice summation mate. Only suggestion is that you should have included the Government's consideration of the Hunters forming the base for the Hobart replacement capability when the nine hunter class build ends.

[@Harldin]

I don’t think either the RAN nor the RN will use the Baseline T26 for the DDG replacement(first ship for the RAN due 2044) we are probably looking at minimum 72 VLS but could be 100+ the T26 as is, is definitely not big enough and you can only stretch a design so far.

[@TheBooban]

@@Harldin i hope they manage it. Would be economical to keep the yard going with the same design snd maybe the UK will buy some to replace their type 45’s at this time. In exchange, Australia could buy some of their type 31’s or 32’s. UK and Australia would win alot of efficiency if they bought ships from each other.

[@andrewknox9360]

I’m consistently impressed by your well researched and detailed essays. Great work dude, keep it up.

[@garyhankinson5695]

Very informative as usual. Always looking out for any new videos Especially on Australian content. Cheers!

[@hgf334]

Great content, keep it going. Any chance you might do a video and analysis on the Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) and the different upgrades it has received throughout it's history within the Australian army. The US has recently approved upgrades for Australian MBT's. Perhaps you could cover the history of the Abrams MBT with information on any known Australian deployments as well. An overview regarding the different upgrades it has received over the years within Australia, I hope would be of interest.

[@stewartlowe4597]

I think you're being a bit hard on the earlier state of readiness of the ANZAC class of ship. Truly, they were not much more than a large patrol boat, but Kim Beasley, Defence Minister at the time had a choice, he could build three "totally capable" ships, or put eight much less capable ships in the water for the same money. The eight hulls would be launched on the understand that they will all be raised to their full potential in future defence budgets.

[@BeKindToBirds]

Did they take the second option then? 8 hulls ready for future expansion seems the more prudent option these days but I know that everyone in the area is feeling the pressure of chinese ship building

[@nerdbane9376]

As always, a great video. It'd be great to see even more videos about the modern Aus military or strategic environment. Some armchair ideas LAND 400, the future subs, new missiles, new drones, discussion of the Aus defence industry... Consequences of a proper Aus nuclear industry in the context of defence, scenarios that might play out in a regional hot war, discussion of the RAND corp report on Australia's preparedness for war...

[@philmills4473]

As far as I am aware there has been progress on Australia having its own submarine building facility. It's maybe still in design phase but will be happening. Stay safe, 🇬🇧🇦🇺

[@FirstDagger]

7:50 That container storage / mission area and crane are ingenious.

[@dan7564]

Apparently that mission bay is the big feature that will define a lot of the future frigates around the world. I wonder if it's possible to outfit it to just store more missiles.

[@johnortner]

A precise and in-depth analysis, congratulations! You are certainly getting the right attention and looking forward to the next analysis. Thank you!

[@brocclark2196]

Awesome Videos mate. As a suggestion, could you please do a breakdown on the capabilities of the Australian Army's new Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

[@nickbond7787]

Great channel mate, as I understand it some of the design delays is due to the already expanding size of the ship which is rumoured to be approaching 10,000 ton displacement and an increase in length. Vice admiral Noonan has also hinted at a surprise which may well be the increasing of missile numbers.

[@philmills4473]

Makes me wonder what Australia might do when the type83 destroyer comes out? Will we see an australianised, T83? Also wondering what class of submarine aus is going to build on their new submarine facility they're building. Least aus is taking the Chinese dominance and monopoly serious.

[@iffracem]

All these wonderful toys are, ultimately, only as good as the people that operate them, and the commanders of those people. I only hope our development of competent commanders is keeping pace with the toys we're acquiring.

[@BA-el9jy]

Outstanding video. Please keep up the good work.

[@chrisbeecraft]

Great work again, very informative and exceptionally well presented. if 2020 proved one thing, it was that local production is imperative. So the production of LRASM-SL's within Australia is a must, could you imagine trying to get supplies during a Pacific or Indian Ocean conflict. We had better have a complete supply chain for these and maybe after the experiences of 2020, we should look at other local manufacturing as Strategic National Defence needs like; Petroleum, Computer Chips, Medical Supplies even Engines and Vehicles.

[@ikabody]

You may need to review your analysis of the Hunter program given recent developments.

[@patrickd7890]

Hypohystericalhistory, you do amazing work, every video is very informative, well researched and not very biased. Please do more, hoping your channels gets the thousands of subs it deserves

[@luke_c2219]

I'd love to see a future breakdown for hypothetical fleet of the ran such as replacements how the hobart class destroyers, what the AUKUS treaty means moving fowards for the ADF, would australia ever yeild aircraft carriers again and identify weak links of our naval fleet that will need to be upgraded or replaced

[@dan7564]

I mean he sorta addressed the aircraft point in his F35B video. Australia would probably get another Amphibious Carrier before it get's an Air craft Carrier. For defence purposes we need it to kick people off nearby islands fast so they can't use it as a staging area. jet Aircraft carriers would be more for power projection. And we don't really have any far from home interests that we wouldn't automatically slip in with a force that does and has aircraft carriers for those purposes.

[@justsmallstuff4994]

Great upload very insightful

[@chesterlynch9533]

I hope they can still add a self-defense length Mk41 VLS or s Mk56 VLS with ESSM on top of the mission bay similar to how Canada and UK installed CAMM on their version. 32 Mk41 VLS is still somewhat light loadout for a vessel at around 8,000+ tons. For cannister anti-ship missile, they should select NSM or LRASM.

[@haldorasgirson9463]

Great, in-depth review. RAN should be well served by these ships. Very forward thinking, the combination of diesel generators and direct drive gas turbines means they could have sufficient electrical generation capacity to power advanced lasers/rail guns in the future.

[@andysneikus380]

The best KZbin military channel

[@199diesel]

4 missiles in one pod is a fantastic idea. Whoever figured that one out is potentially a war winning mind.

[@darrensimpson6555]

Love your work. Informative, and explains our country's requirements well. I look forward to your next installment

[@rhysiieboii]

God damn this ship is a beast. Can't wait till we get it

[@williamjpellas0314]

As with the Australian Army, the RAN's upgrades are both overdue and welcome. For sure, the ADF is now more lethal, top to bottom and across the board, than it has ever been in its entire history. But it is still too small. This is particularly true of the Army, but the Navy also needs a significant expansion. The planned 12 submarines of the Collins replacement class (French designed Shortfin Barracuda) would go a long way towards resolving the shortfall in raw numbers of hulls, but the program to build them is catastrophically over budget and badly delayed. If it were up to me I would have started by building a fourth Hobart DDG, but this is now off the table. Therefore, as a stopgap, I would do the following: 1) Retain the four (4) newest and/or best maintained ANZAC frigates as a standby reserve. These would be kept in a state of advanced readiness and refitted with an expanded battery of antiship missiles. The rest of the class would be cannibalized for spare parts, some of which could be sent to New Zealand to keep their own ANZACs going for a bit longer. 2) Design a new, smaller missile frigate or super corvette that would be around the same size as the ANZACs but with a much heavier missile battery. This would probably be mostly SSMs, though a small VLS package with ESSMs could be fitted to provide a basic self defense capability. But their primary purpose would be to serve as antiship platforms in the event that China decided to try something stupid. These new ships would ultimately replace the ANZACs I mentioned earlier. I would build between 8 and 12 of them. 3) Junk the existing deal with France and purchase new Astute or Virginia class SSGNs and have done with it. There would probably have to be fewer than the planned 12 Barracuda boats, but 8 nuclear hunter-killers would do just fine for Australia. . Expensive, yes. Unaffordable, no. PS Buy the F-35B for the Adelaide and Canberra while you're at it.

[@shenghan9385]

Agreed

[@bigman23DOTS]

Perhaps the b21raider instead of f35bs

[@bartandaelus359]

@@bigman23DOTS You want the F35-B on these crafts for their compatibility with our allies and their incredible integration with OTH strike systems, not for their combat ability. To be honest I would settle for Harriers that could be deployed abroad in our pacific neighbours and make use of their small airfields that a normal fighter cannot deploy from. The Harrieer is ancient now but that just makes them all the cheaper.Handy reserves to have that can be mounted and redeployed on the Canberra class as needed.

[@longshot6566]

Love your videos mate. Would be great to see something detailing the malayan emergency at some point. It’s something you don’t hear much about. Keep up the good work

[@shanehansen3705]

the importance of the Hunter class is the teaching of naval ship design through the uni's in SA and rebuilding our ability to build our own navy

[@MagpieOz]

When have we ever "built our own Navy" ?

[@jacklang3314]

@@MagpieOz 1940s, built 15 frigates in 2-3 years. Since then, not so much.

[@XxBloggs]

32 VLS is not enough for a major warship in Asia.

[@chrispsackett]

Australia won't be alone.

[@alexdunphy3716]

Doesn't matter ​@@chrispsackett

[@ianrobinson8974]

12/05/2121 Thank again HHH another load of information for this ole bloke to get his head around! I am very interested in a Roll on v's Phalax System analysis (spelling?). Also, what sort of upgrade would the OPV's be able to handle as their size should allow something heavier than the current planning.

[@thomasromanelli2561]

Very informative, and when watched with your excellent video summary about the Hobart class this really clarifies the intent of the Australian defense industry to create a near-continuous cycle of naval construction. Do you have any information about the potential for program delays, cost overruns or the reduction in number of planned Hunter hulls? Per Wikipedia, the first-in-class keel won't be laid down until 2022, with expected commissioning in 2031- and it's not as if the PLAN is slowing down anytime soon...

[@anon4214]

Excellent video as always, would be nice to see a video on foreign warships if that's also your area of expertise

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Yeah I was thinking QE class carrier maybe?

[@anon4214]

@@hypohystericalhistory8133 That would be a great choice, lots to talk about with the first CSG21 deployment happening and its very unique design.

[@goldcoins4109]

Your doing wonders kid!

[@JoshSmith-ok7jh]

Fantastic video. Would you be able to do a video on Falklands war around submarine involvement - both sides. Interested to see Argentina’s side

[@berwandekker2559]

The one dislike is the military chief trying to plan an invasion of Australia

[@BenDaviesHe3]

I like the idea of generals doing research on KZbin and getting peeved enough to dislike a video 😃

[@somebloke3869]

Or could be an old WWII destroyer captian scoffing at that speed, 27 knots isn't very impressive. Battleships of that time could get up to those speeds.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

@@somebloke3869 And they'd be as loud as that statement is ignorant... No offense. Lol

[@robd8577]

@@aymonfoxc1442 what's so ignorant about it. Exactly?

[@TheFlutecart]

A P-3 Orion in the air will turn that little tin can into a monster with a thousand eyes. Aussie's are building a very fine Navy. I love that propulsion system. Switching from electric to shaft driven is an interesting capability that lends it's self to high powered laser defenses as well.

[@BeKindToBirds]

Australia's navy is really becoming something awesome. I'm really glad to see wise moves from down under. Australia is looking pretty damn buff in fact. Real glad to see it.

[@raymondstuart1899]

The Hunter Class will evolve into an excellent acquisition for the RAN . If only the Federal Government has the foresight to bite the bullet and authorise the construction of at least another six vessels , bringing the ship line to 15 Hunters , however , manning issues are of a concern and a vigorous recruitment drive is needed for our young people to encourage our youth to have a career in the Navy, and maybe , just maybe , down track use the Hunter hull for the development of an AAW Destroyer varient to keep Oz shipbuilding and skills ongoing. I`m hopeful that these vessels will eventually have 48 cell VLS or more as the design evolves. With the ominous outlook of a future war with China in the South China Sea , we will need these vessels and i wish our Government would fast track their construction to stand up against the bully and confront Xitlers PLAN.

[@BeKindToBirds]

Announcing a 15 ship class is a lot more aggressive than a smaller class. Even if Australia wants 15 (no idea myself what # is appropriate) isn't it a better decision to instead add more later quietly? Not that I'm not for showing the Chinese strength but maybe it was done this way to make sure the Chinese didn't feel the need to up their ship building to compensate? Again, I'm totally ignorant of Australian politics so if this is straight up something else then sure. But it does seem prudent to build and deployed before announcing more, stops the one up loop from forming maybe.

[@alanbstard4]

@@BeKindToBirds Chinese are building their fleet regardless. They know what we're building and vise versa. Can't hide it

[@RobBank1985]

Love the vids. Wondering if you watched Sub Briefs video on the Attack class acquisition? And your thoughts on the situation.

[@RobBank1985]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWPZn5afp854lbM

[@jordan8538]

I asked the same thing in his last video, I hope he does a video on the subject.

[@stevebell7288]

So far it appears scandalous, especially EY

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Thus far, it's a great comedy and beacon of why domestic and party politics shouldn't play a pivotal role in acquisitions.

[@ajvanmarle]

I love your optimism. Let's be honest. Already, the procurement is down from 9 to 6. By the time the Australian government is done, you'll be lucky to get 3 of these ships at all. Never mind 3 for every Hobart.

[@mingming9604]

the amount of electronic software and hardware in term of complexity is mind boggling nowaday!

[@ricardjonama5986]

The Navantia's sea 500 design also has two hangars for ASW helis/drones.

[@RelativeGalaxy7]

Would it be possible to get a video on the Canadian CSC version of the Type 26? Thanks love your content.

[@sarcasmo57]

I wonder how many missiles they plan on producing and would they only be for domestic consumption or would they export?

[@alexandermarken7639]

When i saw the type 26 being aquired the first thought i had was ASW due to the type 23 and type 22 excellence in the ASW aspect. I just wish we had bought the Attack class boats instead of the alternative.

[@kryts27]

The propeller shaft has to be exceptionally well balanced to minimize vibration at any ship speed and enhance submarine hunting

[@MattWeberWA]

Great video, thoroughly enjoyed.

[@combatbeanbag]

Love your vids, thank you for the content. Subbed!! Just to add: Thales is pronounced tal-less (like tally)!

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

Oh my friend, I know it is, I’m just trolling people

[@aymonfoxc1442]

I think you'll find it's "Th-ails" mate. Jk

[@dan7564]

I was not expecting a profile on this ship until we had launched one but I'm glad you have. I'm in love with this ship. HOWEVER You're getting caught up in the romance more than I am. There's been numerous troubling reports sprouting up which you should have mentioned. I most obvious one being that the cefar 2 radar is very heavy and is causing them to enlarge the vessel to accommodate. Which means louder cruising speed, which means more distortion in the sonar which reduces it's effectiveness in it's primary role as a submarine hunter. I really hope they can design these problems away. But our choice to go with an unproven ship may very well bite us in the ass.

[@williambroadstreet3353]

bigger the tonnage the more power needed as is the case with the combat systems and missile options.

[@GSteel-rh9iu]

👍 Excellent presentation; compare with the AUS-FR sub shenanigans that Sub-Brief channel went over. Hunter includes Aussie homegrown CEAFAR2 radar but will take some time to deliver. Maybe build 6 more Hobarts first? Also 24 more P-8 Poseidons.

[@bigman23DOTS]

I am absolutely certain The Australian hunter is extremely well thought out.I believe the radar can pick a speck out on the horizon to an amazing degree.The feature I like the most is room for containerised nuclear power plants to power potential future energy weapons

[@jamieshields9521]

Enjoying n couldn’t wait for this vid👍well detail can’t wait to see final layout of Hunter n how different to UK n Canada versions as Canada still deciding on final layout. Canada I hear will be going for different 5 inch gun maker. I am hoping NZ will buy into T26, even if only 2 warships with different layout to Hunter, maybe close to Canada design.

[@gregs7562]

The Type 26 is probably too big & too expensive for the RNZN. More likely you'll see something similar to the RN Type 31

[@nathan-ck3je]

I doubt NZ will be able to afford the hunter class. Maybe the type 31E. The type 26 hunter class are to big and expensive for NZ to operate.

[@jamieshields9521]

NZ needs pull there weight within the five eyes. If NZ choose the small frigate like T31 what helicopter will replace Sea Sprite? Going for T26 will give great capabilities for stand-off, larger helicopters to operate defence n human aid to island without having send LDS ship, sharing common helicopters with RAN like Seahawks will save money, time especially in parts availability. NZ will need make some tough decisions especially in military spending n staying communicated with in 5 eyes, gone are days of buying different equipment n trying fit in alliance.

[@gregs7562]

@@jamieshields9521 the UK spec t31 can accommodate up to a Merlin size i believe though RN ships will most likely embark a Wildcat . So NH90 or Seahawk won't be an issue.

[@gregs7562]

@@jamieshields9521 Type 31 isn't exactly small either given its base design is a Danish Airwarfare frigate. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate

[@xchazz86]

Excellent capabilities and extremely versatile vessel, it would be the ideal compliment to aircraft carrier group, just a pitty Australia has no super carriers of its own. I suppose the lack of VLS capacity can be addressed by upgrades later or resolved by having supply ships carrying missiles to rearm the vessel while at sea.

[@philmills4473]

Rumoured aus, is going to have a heavier armed ship than UK t26 design.

[@AugmentedGravity]

I’d honestly go for the NSM over the LRASM. The NSM offers every capability listed on the LRASM but at the same time being off the shelf and prooven. Its also more stealthy as i’ve understood.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

I really believe that the force structure should include at least 15, and probably 18 destroyer sized ships: to that end I’d engage with Navantia for another 3 Hobart class warships to be built over the course of this decade in Williamtown and Newcastle yards, with a potential for another 3 ships takes onto the end of the Hunter class build program. Although the Hunter class will be either as capable or even more capable than the Hobart class across its multi mission array, they will not be entering in service until the 2030s, and will not deliver the last ships in class until the late 2040s: having 6 - not just 3 - Hobart’s in operational service over that time span will ensure that there is no capability gaps once the ANZACs reach the point where further upgrades in capabilities are not possible. Having a fleet of 15 to 18 destroyers [5 to 6 destroyers per group] means that fully two battle groups can support an amphibious expeditionary force and an air support battle group (and I fully support the idea of acquiring F35Bs and navalised autonomous drones for that purpose and placing them on either the existing Canberra class LHDs and /or a third medium sized flat top [which could be a third Canberra class or one of the two flat tops that the Italians have or are bringing into service]), plus having a spare 5 destroyers available for lone or special missions.

[@stevebell7288]

Probably better to go with a new class of larger destroyers with 100 - 150 vls. Budget permitting. But 20 - 25 surface combatants and 12 - 18 subs wouldn’t hurt

[@carltanner9065]

@@stevebell7288 Another thing we could do is start to design a cruiser sized ship.12000-16000 ton in size with a similar number of VLS. However, also with 4x quad MAC launch tubes on the front of the ship, carrying 16 C-HGB missiles. As they're thinking about putting on the Zumwalt "destroyers" of the US Navy. Each missile has a 2500-5000 mile range, so they could stand way outside the range of any antiship missile, including the Chinese df21 and df26 ASBM's. Have a high degree of automation on the ships to keep down crew requirements. 6 ships of that sort of class would provide a very credible strike force and deterrent for the navy. Scare the hell out of the Chinese!!.

[@Bbouy1HD]

Yeah good luck manning all this.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@Bbouy1HD With a population base in excess of 26 million - on to of decreasing crew sizes due to increasing automation - then the relevant increases in ‘manning’ (RAN personnel) is pure a calculation of increases in resources (ie. injection of money) and time to train up new recruits. Expanding the force structure from 12 Frigates/destroyers to 18 destroyer sized ships would be the task of about 15 years: thats how long the government would have to provide the RAN with the resources to expand the personnel by approximately 40% (ie. 50% less HR savings due increased automation). Douable.

[@45641560456405640563]

@@Bbouy1HD Agreed, some people write out shopping lists without thinking about manpower limitations...

[@carisi2k11]

I think an update on this is needed since apparently our hunters will be 10,000t. EDIT BAE have just released videos showing the first block being finished.

[@dogsnads5634]

It's a good video but it ignores 2 of the T26's (and Hunter Class') biggest improvements. 1) Habitability - Vitally important for crew comfort, but also in todays day and age, retention of crew. Basically decent living conditions onboard make a big difference to long term retention of very expensively trained crew. The RN made a big move on this with the T45's, Astute and QE Class and its paying off. Albeit by all accounts T26 won't be as comfortable as T45 (but still much nicer than anything else..) 2) Flexible Mission Bay - The big one. This really seperates the T26 design from other vessels. The huge, flexible space means that the RN, RAN and RCN can tailor the ship to lots of different scenarios quickly and cheaply. It means the ship is far better prepared to support unmanned systems than any other major combatants out there. The Navantia and FREMM were massively deficient in this regard. Also means the ship is far more future proofed than other designs.

[@simwilliams5358]

The British and Americans need to work more together on military projects

[@chrisspulis1599]

That was a treat. Awesome job.

[@supernova_explosion2757]

I really would love to see the Hunter frigate with 48-64 VLS Cells, with the CIWS replaced with Rim-116 Block 2 and Loyal Wingman adapted to operate out of the multi mission bay. I would also love to see all the power problems solved whilst keeping it's 27+ knot and 7000NM range. (So I just want a perfect vessel)

[@AugmentedGravity]

I wouldn’t replace the CIWS with the RIM-116

[@supernova_explosion2757]

@@AugmentedGravity CIWS is very bad. It has shown at numerous times to be unreliable and inaccurate however the RIM-116 is a joint-developed defence system by the US and German navy designed for close proximity air defence which have been installed on many ships from different countries (Which to be fair CIWS has accomplished too) but RIM-116 has just been shown to be more accurate and reliable than the CIWS.

[@jfg7331]

Better dream. Hunter class are a disgrace

[@AugmentedGravity]

@@supernova_explosion2757 ehm no.

[@supernova_explosion2757]

@@AugmentedGravity ehm yes.

[@Kenny-yl9pc]

incredible content please keep it up

[@ronmaximilian6953]

Assuming that the Type 26 class frigates and its derivatives, the Canadian future combatant and Australian hunter class work as advertised, The American constellation class forget will look quite under armed and limited in anti submarine roles.

[@shenghan9385]

In the meantime, just keep building more Hobart Class ships PLEASE!

[@jaysonlafaber2995]

Great content.. Keep it coming!

[@BobfromSydney]

The combined propulsion system sounds great in theory but I hope we don't end up with the same problems that the Freedom-class LCS had with their combining gears.

[@valenrn8657]

Three Anzac class ships have CEAFAR2-L radar upgrade in addition to the existing CEAFAR1-S. Hunter class's CEAFAR2 is larger than Anzac class's CEAFAR2-L radar upgrade.

[@Andy81ish]

I just wish the Hunter Started with 48x Mk41 cells. If the Hunter is intended to be Anti Sub, I would expect 10 or more VLA Anti Sub rockets as the Helicopter can't always be in the air all the time and this will limit the number of cells available for SM2's, ESSM's and other VLS launched munitions.

[@jakerubino3233]

Nice work bro! 🇦🇺

[@Yxalitis]

Great video, well researched and excellent presentation! Now, about those Apaches the RAA is buying...

[@seventytwo1001000]

Unlike the RAAF and the RAN, for the army is just Australian Army, not Royal, No idea why, but of course the Army always has to do it differently from everyone else

[@thealvatar6181]

I was wondering what RAA meant.... also yeah that is weird, never thought about it before...

[@ScaryMedic86]

RAA= Royal Australian Artillery. The Australian Army doesn't have the royal in front of it because all corps haven't been granted the Royal status by the Queen. As such the Australian Army hasn't been granted the title of Royal by the Queen.

[@lostinsauce4515]

Top notch content mate

[@mattross83]

32 vls cells!?! You gotta pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers. I wanna see 64 mk57 cells on this bad boy!

[@mattross83]

Also I wanna see that inflatable boat crane rigged up for collecting airdropped supplies, no more waiting 3 days for a supply ship! c130, 5 hours, job done!

[@thealvatar6181]

Love your vids. Can you do a video on the HMAS Melbourne? She’s got quite the history and a stunning kill count.... (forgive the dark joke if you get the reference) (you probably get it)

[@nathan-ck3je]

Australia should build more than 9 of these. I would thought they would had proposed atleast 15 of these ships. And build 3 more F100 class air warfare destroyers also.

[@dan7564]

If tensions with China keep rising, by the time they fulfil the order they will probably just keep making more.

[@nathan-ck3je]

@@dan7564 Going by the looks of things. War might break out before Australia gets to complete the first 2. The RAN will have to give more VLS cells on the Anzac class if it does. Or we be in serious trouble

[@dan7564]

@@nathan-ck3je I guess it depends what channel you watch. If you watch sky news, the sky is falling, so to speak. Realistically I don't think China wants world war 3. They are more likley to let their economy keep growing and over take America and have an Economic Victory. They know businesses are A moral and want nothing but money, and they are a dictatorship who don't have to worry about their citizens being too happy so they will probably just buy Americas influential corporations, even just by letting them sell their shit in china.

[@nathan-ck3je]

@@dan7564 I have to admit that would be a smart move by China. But it's a bit hard for China to take over economically now when majority of the most wealthy natations are now looking for other alternatives than to rely on trade with China. So time is what China is hoping for to economics out do the US. You'll find it will go in the other direction. China has messed up. China pissed too many countries of over the south China sea dispute in Asia. And the economic downturn China played with Australia has made many others think twice of being put in the same trap. Europe won't welcome a China as a new superpower either. And they will go to great lengths to make sure they set up its investments and development opportunities elsewhere as many are doing now. Money don't grow on trees. And you need customers to keep your industry and wealth. Many countries already trying to set up manufacturing in other places and already given China the flick. So dispite what you think is listed on any news outlet about war. Xi jinping dreams is nothing but a future fantasy. And he won't reach his achievement by 2050 as he so thinks. it isn't of that fact because of USA either. As many countries would like to see the USA vanish too. It's the way China handle and Lied about the pandemic and the way they approach with its policies. Belt and road scams. Wolf warrior tactics. Deliberately gave defective medical supplies to the world during the pandemic. The threats it made on Taiwan. The forceful approach and dealing in HK. The man made military islands it made in international waters and claiming sea that runs into other countries sovereignty. Bully tactics they using against other Asian natations. The sanctions and tariff it did on Australia. The human rights abuse that's been reported. The deliberate attempt to try claim indian soil. The threats China made to other countries. Does China really think the world going to trade with them as they did before? You be serious delusional to think China will be the world's superpower. China dream is finished. China will decline as the years go by. Rome wasn't built in a day. China will have the shortest story to tell of them all.

[@jamescotton01]

6:08 Using the mission bay, it is possible to fit two full size helicopters on a Type 26 GCS. Though you wouldn’t have room for much else and it isn’t as convenient as two hangers.

[@johngodden4363]

I’m concerned that for a ship of this size it only has a modest type 41 VLS missile complex. (32 cells) There is no redundancy if that complex is damaged leaving the ship highly vulnerable. Given the sheer number of ships in the Chinese fleet it must be seen to be necessary to sacrifice the multi mission bay to another large type 41 VLS complex. It could easily house 64 VLS cells - making it identical in firepower to an Arleigh Burke Destroyer in capability

[@scottsauritch3216]

In any campaign the VAST MAJORITY of Chinese ships will be taken out not by surface combatants firing AShM at long ranges not by CV Strikes, but from ~30-40 Km out where Virginia's/Seawolf's/LA's can sit unseen and shoot and shoot and shoot some more. Then when depleted ADCAP shots, on the out of AO launch all Blk IV Tomohawk with AntiShip Capability reboot... And I forgot by the time we fight China all Vrginia's will have some form of TBG and possibly HAWC hypersonic Anti-Ship missiles onboard in the Rotary VLS(Virginia Payload Module...)

[@moisty1874]

Excellent informative and enjoyable video Mate. You ever considered doing Royal Navy vessels and or other Allied Navies?

[@joshreynolds72]

Exceptional video. New sub here. Keep it up.

[@lindsaybaker9480]

They could create a air defence variant by designing out the mission bay and installing a further 32 VLS or 48 VLS cells depending what fits giving a total of either 64 or 80 cells

[@colinflenley8601]

Top vid Hypo, keep it coming

[@OleBrumHonning]

NSM do have a advantage over lrasm is that it can also be used for targets on land.

[@andrewhayes7055]

A much better presentation than the usual rubbish UK naval videos with their computer generated speech, very informative.

[@hypohystericalhistory8133]

I’ll do some uk vessels soon, QE class maybe

[@ianmcsherry5254]

You'll find those "UK" videos originate in Asia or South America, more often than not. Hence the text-to-speech.

[@maxt7525]

Brilliant mate

[@Birch37]

Great update thankyou. Unfortunately, 10 years TOO LATE. The ADF should have started immediately after Perth III.

[@scottcallow4593]

Hi Hypohystericalhistory, Could I grab a link for the source about the 30dB decrease in the Akulas, as it seems a lot but need to know what it is down from. In general if you could list your sources in the description I would be eternally grateful as I'd love to have it to reference in my own discussions

[@galliman123]

The Sierra class story will give the background as to why

[@JonWickham]

Another great video. I would like to see one on the New Zealand Defence Force.

[@anderms1234]

Austrlia has a underline contract for 17 of these but will only build 9, so more then likely will be building a few for our close neighbours. Which is awesome will end up something like the Anzac procurement.

[@nathan-ck3je]

@@anderms1234 NZ wouldn't be able to afford them. They had no other choice but to go with the cheaper option upgrade on the 2 Anzac class frigates they already got. .NZ will eventually replace them but it won't be with the hunter class ships. Be more likely be a smaller FREMM or The latest MEKO 200A class. The Hunter class is out of NZ price range. They couldn't afford to purchase all the missiles for them either

[@anderms1234]

@@nathan-ck3je I guess we are both just speculating key board warriors at the end of the day. 🍻🍻

[@nathan-ck3je]

@@anderms1234 just being realistic as much as I can mate.