Redlands18
Well-Known Member
A Kamikaze tried hes Darndest off Leyte Gulf in 1944, hit the Bridge killing 30 including the CO
Last edited:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Maybe not, but Australia has lost a number of its ships that have been named after its capital cities. The Sydney was sunk by a German Merchant Raider. The Canberra was sunk in the Battle of Savo Island, The Perth was sunk after running into a convoy of Japanese warships.
There seems to be a very blurry distinction made between destroyers, frigates, corvettes and even cruisers these days.
The Hobart is based on a Spanish frigate. The Japanese ASW helicopter carriers are called destroyers and as you said the US redesignated its Cruisers to frigates and then back again. Damens Sigma class can be either frigates or corvettes.
Australia seems to define destroyers as AAW vessels and frigates as ASW or GP ships.
It is all very confusing.
Some of those pics show the proposed Canadian iteration, Searam in lieu of Phalanx and no SeaCeptor cells behind the funnel.
The cells behind the funnel are directly above the forward end of the Mission Bay so no room for Mk41 cells.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think Thales is part of the LM BAE team so the APAR 2 is the pick.
None of them "capital ships", just ships named after capitals. The only four Australian "capital" ships would be HMAS Australia (I), and the three aircraft carriers.
oldsig
Or at any point. In the days of sail, a frigate was also called a cruiser - a ship smaller than a ship of the line, but large enough and powerful enough to police the seas alone rather than in a flotilla. Definitions have changed for centuries and varied between navies. Currently frigates better equate to the Napoleonic sailing ship definition than to that starting (in the RN and RAN and anywhere else using UK designs) late in WW2 as an escort ship, usually anti-submarine and smaller than a destroyer.
oldsig
Folks ..... seriously, We are trying to redesign the ships already. Why Seaceptor when ESSM block II will provide the same fire and forget capabilty at greater range and the combination of ESSM and the SAAB/CEA systems (as a tactical interface) has a spectacular capability against fast moving missile targets.
I note the desire for millennium guns but would point to the fact that the autocannons on the Hunter class are 30mm and suspect they will be the same units as will be fitted to the Land 400 vehicles. If so these have the ahead ammunition which is very effective against a range of targets when tied into the combat system.
If you wanted to fit missiles to the large units the SeaRAM would be the logical option ...... but this is not on the radar as far as I am aware. These ships with 32 cells holding ESSM (with block II eventually), SM2 (and SM6 eventually .... and maybe SM3), Phalanx and 30mm autocannons are going to be very air capable.
I suspect what you see in the renderings is what you are going to get and it is a pretty good package. I simply request we not start proposing cutting large holes in the vessels to fit more.
The Spurcans are an example of how this can screw up a hull. The 48 cell Mk41 cut into the front of these ships had a significant impact on longtitudinal strength after permenent ballast was fitted. It is not a simple task to ‘cut a bigger hole’ as it messes with the design through a number of decks.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
I'm being bombarded with e-mails about this FRIG that ATE ASW so bear with me if'n youse already know the names of same:
Eyeing China, Australia Busily Buys Up Frigates, Drones, and Sub-Hunting Planes
RAN official VIDEO below plus more CELL (24) details here:
Eyeing China, Australia Busily Buys Up Frigates, Drones, and Sub-Hunting Planes
Last edited:
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Missed the editing cut by that much to post this URL for new HMAS Stirling SHIP ZERO (HMAS Zorro?) for the 'Frig that Ate ASW':
Ship Zero: Australia investing AU$670m in Future Frigate hub 29 Jun 2018
Ship Zero: Australia investing AU$670m in Future Frigate hub 29 Jun 2018
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
please ignore post
Last edited:
Forgive my ignorance, but what makes the Hobart class a destroyer and the Hunter class a frigate?, similar sizes and armaments?
Looks as the Type 26 can do nearly everything the Hobarts can do as well as hunt subs more efficiently.
Looks as the Type 26 can do nearly everything the Hobarts can do as well as hunt subs more efficiently.
Unsurprisingly the Italian forum is now full of conspiracy theories.
I post this not to show that they are understandably disappointed, but to remind us just what a lot of crap the poor beggars doing the tender evaluation have to endure. So long as necessary security and commercial confidentiality means that the whole process can't be dissected by the public at large, they have to expect a barrage of accusations from the losers and sundry anti-defence politicians. I for one am willing to give them their due; I wouldn't want their job for anything.
oldsig
In fact, I think the T26 is markedly larger. As this has already been discussed over the last couple of pages I don't have much to add, except that the post WW2 role of a "Frigate" has - in RN and associated navies - been associated with a primary ASW role, and a destroyer with a primary surface and AAW role
oldsig
Can't help be feel that politics might have something to do with it. Frigates sound less threatening than destroyers and are there for less likely to upset the neighbours.
In my opinion though as soon as the decided to incorporate the Aegis weapons system into the design it effectively became a destroyer.
I'd see Arrowhead 140 as being a way better bet than Type 26 for the Kiwis, and quite a few other countries beside.
You might be able to get SDS length cells in there Not as many as MK41 is heavier but maybe a row of 8?
Might be a good place to park Nulka or whatever otherwise.
I think we’re long past caring what the neighbours think. Considering all the capabilities Australia has recently bought, and will soon buy, I don’t think what we call a ship is going to raise any eyebrows. I think the new ships will be called frigates just because there is no reason to call them anything else. It is just a label after all.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
At least we haven't had a Clueless Reporter call them Battleships yet.
The name Frigate is really starting to get blurred in what is a Frigate. At one end you have the 2500 ton Damen Sigma family as used by Indonesia being referred to as a Frigate, at the other end you have the Type 26, both great Ships but poles apart in capability and size.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Is theat the Club that Sweden, Germany, France and Spain belongs to, selective memories over there.
- Status