Talk:Hobart-class destroyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Given that the names of the three units have been announced, is it likely that they will be named for the first ship (apparently Hobart). Hammersfan 23/01/06, 10.15 GMT

Annoyingly, the press release didn't specify what order the ships would be built in. That the names weren't listed in alphabetical order does suggest that the Hobart will be the leadship, and hence the AWD will be the Hobart Class. --Nick Dowling 10:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hobart will be the lead ship. (spanker911) More annoyingly, for a resident of the City of Greater Bendigo, the promised HMAS Bendigo (III) appears to have been renamed. It was supposed to be one of the new destroyers, as promised when HMAS Bendigo (II) was being decommissioned. I seem to recall the Chief of Navy telling us all how lucky we were... - (Vainglory) Since Bendigo isn't a state capital, and is not nearly as big as Newcastle or Wollongong, I would be surprised to see a major RAN ship named after it. The Gold Coast has a population approaching half a million and there has never been a HMAS Gold Coast ;-) Grant65 | Talk 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) All the same, I was there, and it was announced. Where does the information about the Spanish design come from? Hammersfan 30/01/06, 15.23 GMT

The DMO website. While the Burke is the 'prefered design' and it looks like all development of AWD will be focused on the Burke design, the Spanish design is still on the cards 'in competition' with the Burke (presumably if the Burke is more expensive/complex then expected it the Spanish ship will be the fall-back). I don't understand it either. --Nick Dowling 06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest then that any images of existing ship types be removed, just leaving the CG image, to avoid any confusion. From what I've read on the DMO website, there doesn't seem to be any prospect of a concrete design for around 18 months anyway. We may well end up seeing a kind of Gibbs & Cox/Navantia hybrid at the end of all this Hammersfan 13.11 GMT, 31 January 2006
I think that keeping both images is valid - the AWD is definetly going to be one of the two ships, and will probably be the Burke. --Nick Dowling 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, but I've put them into a gallery view - I think it makes the page look a bit neater. Hammersfan 16.20 GMT, 01/02/06
Good idea. --Nick Dowling 07:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is no longer a stub, and as such I have removed the tag. Bobby1011 12:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC) It appears the "Crew" section in the Comparative statistics table is in the wrong order. Shouldn't the F100 be 180 and the Evolved Burke class be 220? tc 05:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC) To help clarify: DMO's 2nd pass process involves chosing a ship design between two competing designs the "existing" (or Military Off the Shelf MOTS) design which is the Navantia F100 frigate and the "evolved" design which is the G&C designed AWD. It is not an Arleigh Burke. G&C experience with the burke can lead to a conclusion that the AWD evolved design may be based on a burke, but they will be significantly different. (spanker911)

"Kinnard selection process"[edit]

A what? Anyone? My Google search turned up only this article for that phrase. I think it needs to be reworded and/or linked to relevant article. Grant | Talk 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably it's the procurement process recomended by the Kinnaird Review which lead to the formation of the Defence Materiel Organisation. There's a link to a PDF of it on the right of the screen at: However, I've got no idea what this process actually is and this term needs to be clarified. --Nick Dowling 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"See also" list[edit]

I'm not certain that the "see also" list in the article is of much use. At the moment, the two 'origins' of the design are mentioned and discussed in the article, and the section appears to be becoming a laundry list of modern destroyers. As such, I think it should be removed, or at least, pruned aggresively. -- saberwyn 21:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As there have been no comments in six months, I've removed the list. -- saberwyn 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fourth AWD[edit]

I've just reverted IP edits suggesting that HMAS Melbourne (AWD 4) is on the cards. While the ABC source makes this claim, a near-simultaneous and more detailed AdelaideNow article quotes the same minister as saying " a point in the future, government will consider whether it will build a fourth.", which, combined with other statements in the article, makes it appear that the fourth ship is not on the table at the moment. Neither of the new articles names the potential ship, so any treatment of the 2006 Navy League of Australia suggestion as fact is incorrect. -- saberwyn 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Government was seriously considering ordering a 4th destroyer in 2008 (in part in response to the economies of scale being offered by the manufacturers of the radar system if a 4th system had been ordered) and the Federal opposition was pushing for this (though they signed the order for 3...) but this was ruled out as a result of the Global Financial Crisis. The window of opportunity to obtain a relatively cheap - though still very expensive - ship closed a while ago. Given the cost of buying 12 new subs and 8 large frigates as specified in the Defence White Paper there's next to no chance that there'll be a 4th AWD. I'd bet money on the 'future frigates' being the Melbourne class though. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A fourth AWD is still on the cards, ASC needs to keep going and keep the skill set until the commencement of the new subs, a fourth AWD will fill that gap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talkcontribs) 08:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Without the context (and working from what looks like a blog copy of a paywalled article), I don't think this makes a strong enough claim for the article to say that AWD 4 is under consideration. To me, Smith's reply to the unspecified question is politicalese for "We're not looking at it at the mo. We might, but we haven't yet". -- saberwyn 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Article in The Oz[edit]

Overdue and over budget: $8bn destroyer plan in crisis. Not sure how to best integrate the info from this story into the article, so flagging it here. Probably going to be pretty important in regards to the redistribution of hull blocks (including up to five overseas to Spain). Is this a case of "here we go again"? -- saberwyn 09:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, though anything in The Australian about the current government needs to be be taken with a lot of salt, so I'd be a bit cautious about labeling the project in 'crisis' at this stage - especially as it's normal for large-scale military projects like this to run into problems and be delayed (the DMO's side of the alleged dispute with BAE is missing, for instance, and it isn't noted that BAE only got the work for this project at short notice when the original contractor in Cairns admitted that they couldn't actually do the job - after being selected for it!). The change in the construction arrangements should definitely be included in the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


The ship is described as 7000 tonnes, 6,250 tonnes, and 5,800 tonnes. That's just not right. Someone who knows more than me needs to fix this. And if these are different measures (standard vs fully loaded, for example) that should be made clear. Because right now it's not right. Kitplane01 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I got rid of one and flagged the other two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oosh (talkcontribs)
Depending on context, all three values can be correct. 5,800 is the displacement of the Spanish design, 6,250 corresponds to the full load displacement of the Hobarts at launch (because of a bunch of added shinies the Spanish didn't have), and the 7,000 figure is the theoretical maximum displacement (including any post-construction additions/upgrades/etc). -- saberwyn 02:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently it says 6250 metric, 6890t (long tons?) But those aren't equal. 6250 metric = 6151 long tons. I realise these ships aren't yet built so it's speculative, but can we get consistent figures at least? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The conversion generator appears to have been defaulting to short tons as the output: 6,250 tonnes (6,150 long tons; 6,890 short tons). I've changed this and other conversions in the article to specify both the long ton and short ton conversion value. -- saberwyn 14:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Major rewrite[edit]

I've just uploaded a rewrite of the article. In addition to the expansion, addition, rearranging, and copyediting of material, most of the major changes include

  • Citing material to third-party sources instead of the AWD Alliance, RAN, Aus Govt, andor manufacturer of the cited component
  • Removal of the ship list (because anything we can put in that table at the moment is going to be inaccurate and speculative, or at best cited guesswork)
  • Removal of "See Also", as its just a short list of other destroyers
  • Removed much of the "External Links", as they either had little-to-no relation to the subject of the article, didn't contain anything that wasn't in the article, or in one case was so specialist and obscure that, although related to the Hobart class, would not help readers in understanding the subject any better.

If I've missed anything, or you think something I've pulled out should be put back in, feel free to do so. This is the last revision of the page before the rewrite. -- saberwyn 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Those changes look fantastic - great work. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just added back in the ship list since it has been confirmed. Destroyer39 —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of non-free-use image[edit]

I've just removed File:Australian AWD.jpg from the article and tagged it for deletion as an orphaned non-free-use image. My reasoning is that this copyrighted image is a low-quality CGI render of a warship that bears no connection or resemblance to Hobart class beyond being a "this is a futuristic destroyer" placeholder used in the early stages of the project, before designs were even solicited. -- saberwyn 10:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


Older forms of the terms antiaircraft, antisubmarine, antiballistic missile, antiship, and antitank are now completely outdated and ignorant to use anymore. Just ask people from the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Navy, the RCAF, and the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, and the USAF, and the manufacturers of the AEGIS Defense System, the Standard Missile, the Harpoon missile, the Tomahawk missile, the Sikorski SH-70 Seahawk helicopter, the Sea Sparrow missile, the Martin Mk-41 MLS, and so forth. (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)