That makes sense. I can't see how hangar space for a second helo could be fitted in but one helo and a VTUAV like the Fire Scout would provide a reasonable capability.
Cheers
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Cheers
You could probably fit a few smaller VTUAVs aboard, e.g. Skeldar, alongside the main helicopter.
Not being an expert in matters naval, at what point, size wise, does a frigate become a destroyer. I followed the debate after the AWD selection and had the feeling that most felt the F100 was a frigate and not a true destoyer. Our previous DDG's were 4900 tonnes displacement and the selected F100 are 6250 tonnes or may end up being bigger, so whats the problem?. Are they classed purely on size alone or does some other factor come into it? As Pauline would say "please explain?"
It’s all semantics and hopelessly confused. The USN has a new ‘destroyer’ that is 12,000 tonnes… The USS Zumwalt.
But historically the name destroyer came from a new class of ships that appeared over 100 years ago called ‘Torpedo Boat Destroyers’ that were fast vessels with guns designed to escort battleships and destroy torpedo boats that attacked them. Since they were grown torpedo boats they carried a torpedo battery and it was found to be very useful to have an escort for a battleship fleet that could also launch torpedo salvos against the enemy. During WW1 and especially WW2 Destroyers also gained an anti-submarine role and later enhanced anti-aircraft. But after WW2 the classical Destroyer with heavy gun and torpedo armament for escorting the battlefleet went the same way as the battleship. However the class name lived on as a general purpose ship that carried out the ‘fleet escort’ role protecting carriers against submarines (primarily) and also air threats. The USN specialized the role and even fitted Aegis to its latest destroyers. In US terms a destroyer has also come to mean a land attack ship. Ship size is usually over 4,000 tonnes to qualify as a destroyer.
The name frigate is much older and dates back to the time of sail fleets. A frigate was a vessel that operated independently or as an escort and was usually the second class of ship after ‘ship of the line’ or battleship. Frigates became obsolete with iron hulled ships and the type were replaced with ‘cruising ships’ or ‘cruisers’. The name was resurrected during WW2 to describe purpose designed ASW ships with long range, good sea keeping and little or no fleet role. These frigates were used to fight the U-Boats in the North Atlantic. After the war frigate became the term for ASW escorts and other ships built by NATO navies to keep open the Atlantic against the Soviet threat. It subsequently became the name of choice for most European NATO nations for all their sea going surface combatants.
In many ways frigate is probably a better choice of name for any sea going surface combatant short of a USN Zumwalt type destroyer. As the modern role is very similar to the classical Nelsonic frigate. Ship’s like the Zumwalt are really modern battleships.
But historically the name destroyer came from a new class of ships that appeared over 100 years ago called ‘Torpedo Boat Destroyers’ that were fast vessels with guns designed to escort battleships and destroy torpedo boats that attacked them. Since they were grown torpedo boats they carried a torpedo battery and it was found to be very useful to have an escort for a battleship fleet that could also launch torpedo salvos against the enemy. During WW1 and especially WW2 Destroyers also gained an anti-submarine role and later enhanced anti-aircraft. But after WW2 the classical Destroyer with heavy gun and torpedo armament for escorting the battlefleet went the same way as the battleship. However the class name lived on as a general purpose ship that carried out the ‘fleet escort’ role protecting carriers against submarines (primarily) and also air threats. The USN specialized the role and even fitted Aegis to its latest destroyers. In US terms a destroyer has also come to mean a land attack ship. Ship size is usually over 4,000 tonnes to qualify as a destroyer.
The name frigate is much older and dates back to the time of sail fleets. A frigate was a vessel that operated independently or as an escort and was usually the second class of ship after ‘ship of the line’ or battleship. Frigates became obsolete with iron hulled ships and the type were replaced with ‘cruising ships’ or ‘cruisers’. The name was resurrected during WW2 to describe purpose designed ASW ships with long range, good sea keeping and little or no fleet role. These frigates were used to fight the U-Boats in the North Atlantic. After the war frigate became the term for ASW escorts and other ships built by NATO navies to keep open the Atlantic against the Soviet threat. It subsequently became the name of choice for most European NATO nations for all their sea going surface combatants.
In many ways frigate is probably a better choice of name for any sea going surface combatant short of a USN Zumwalt type destroyer. As the modern role is very similar to the classical Nelsonic frigate. Ship’s like the Zumwalt are really modern battleships.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is very good news to hear that a 4th AWD is now on order. Can't wait to see more about what the specs will be. Personally I'd like to see ERGM a la Mk 45 Mod 4 for the main gun, for a number of reasons. More details on the hangar modifications would be good as well.
It will be interesting to see if RAN exposure to phased arrays in the AWD will lead to more developments in Oz. Perhaps fitting of a CEA phased array to the "Son of Anzac" class?
-Cheers
It will be interesting to see if RAN exposure to phased arrays in the AWD will lead to more developments in Oz. Perhaps fitting of a CEA phased array to the "Son of Anzac" class?
-Cheers
Some guys in Spanish forums next to the shipyard say that Navantia is working now in the design of a vessel larger than F-100 (or, may be, an enlarged F-100). We discuss if this would be a future replacement for our F-80 FFG’s but, may be, it’s related to the Aussie program…
In its actual form is not easy to gain room for a second helo without a vast redesign of the aft section. One possibility is remove and relocating some stuff in that area thanks to the less crew needed in F-105/106 (and AWD, I suppose). One larger hanger would be a better solution than two segregated.
Increase on VLS cells seems even more difficult without enlarging the overall dimensions of the ship.
The F-105/106/AWD will have more powerful diesels. It seems that actual F-100 ‘s have some problems to attain 20 kn cruise on diesel, so they need to change to GT’s, that are less fuel efficient (AEGIS on action is a thirsty system!). I read time ago that F-100AWD would has a 100 ton increase in fuel capacity but I can’t confirm that info…
Operating along Burkes, F-101 has shown to be on a pair in a lot of areas. Not, of course, in cell numbers or top speed, but her taller AEGIS makes the difference versus seaskimming targets.
In an exercise F-101 was capable of hit a seaskimming subsonic drone with a single shot of her Mk-45 linked to the DORNA FCS…..
Cheers
In its actual form is not easy to gain room for a second helo without a vast redesign of the aft section. One possibility is remove and relocating some stuff in that area thanks to the less crew needed in F-105/106 (and AWD, I suppose). One larger hanger would be a better solution than two segregated.
Increase on VLS cells seems even more difficult without enlarging the overall dimensions of the ship.
The F-105/106/AWD will have more powerful diesels. It seems that actual F-100 ‘s have some problems to attain 20 kn cruise on diesel, so they need to change to GT’s, that are less fuel efficient (AEGIS on action is a thirsty system!). I read time ago that F-100AWD would has a 100 ton increase in fuel capacity but I can’t confirm that info…
Operating along Burkes, F-101 has shown to be on a pair in a lot of areas. Not, of course, in cell numbers or top speed, but her taller AEGIS makes the difference versus seaskimming targets.
In an exercise F-101 was capable of hit a seaskimming subsonic drone with a single shot of her Mk-45 linked to the DORNA FCS…..
Cheers
I think you will find the AWD's will be over 7,000 tons and will incorperate many of the latest F-100 improvements, and a few other special improvements. However I don't think the number of cells will increase.
But given they will travel in pairs, that 96 cells already. Add a frigate and theres more than enough to counter even very high threat enviroments.
The hanger area will be tight, but given most of the time they will be escorting a LHD, it should not be a big issue. Carrying two helos is the key point. These AWD can operate in the frigate role with two helos.
I think the AWD will be an extremely capable ship. I think they will be more capable (and suitable) than the T-45's the UK is building. They are only getting 6, to look after two full sized carriers, and a large number of amphibious ships (ocean etc). We have 4 to cover two LHD's. UK will have more issues intergrating with US forces. Australia can plug right in.
Take timor, the US spared us a Cruiser. We can plug into that. But if we don't need it (I think if we had these AWD in Timor we wouldn't) that gives us a lot more flexability of how we conduct the mission. As protecting the cruiser tied up pretty much our entire fleet. We can play a bit more free ball with out own assets.
But given they will travel in pairs, that 96 cells already. Add a frigate and theres more than enough to counter even very high threat enviroments.
The hanger area will be tight, but given most of the time they will be escorting a LHD, it should not be a big issue. Carrying two helos is the key point. These AWD can operate in the frigate role with two helos.
I think the AWD will be an extremely capable ship. I think they will be more capable (and suitable) than the T-45's the UK is building. They are only getting 6, to look after two full sized carriers, and a large number of amphibious ships (ocean etc). We have 4 to cover two LHD's. UK will have more issues intergrating with US forces. Australia can plug right in.
Take timor, the US spared us a Cruiser. We can plug into that. But if we don't need it (I think if we had these AWD in Timor we wouldn't) that gives us a lot more flexability of how we conduct the mission. As protecting the cruiser tied up pretty much our entire fleet. We can play a bit more free ball with out own assets.
I was under the impression the an extra 2 T-45's were now a certainty, I thought it was indicated that the extra 2 were agreed (but not ordered) when the carriers were confirmed.
That is also my understanding. This is a similar situation to the 4th RAN AWD. I believe that whilst the 4th ship has been foreshadowed by the Defence Minister (as reported by Ian McPhedran) and the South Australian Premier (it will be built in SA) it has not yet been ordered. It is expected that an official announcement and the signing of a contract will occur prior to the election which is due later this year.
To date there has been no comment about the fourth ship on the ADF website or from the Minister's Office.
Cheers
Thanks for the gouge on the frigate v destroyer saga AGRA. I had thought that there were clear boundaries in relation to size and weapons fit that defined what type of ship it is. Seems the definition is a lot more loosely based and has plenty of other factors involved.
Hints of a fourth AWD is great news for Navy. However it is an election year and lets hope that contract for #4 is signed and sealed before we go to the polls. Historically Labour has not been that kind to Defence, but we won't go there.
Hooroo
Hints of a fourth AWD is great news for Navy. However it is an election year and lets hope that contract for #4 is signed and sealed before we go to the polls. Historically Labour has not been that kind to Defence, but we won't go there.
Hooroo
UK really needs 8 destroyers. Two large CVF's would require atleast 2 or 3. Then cover for Ocean or other vessels means theres another 2 easy. They are most likely going to have to share there destroyer pool with France to ensure they have enough.
Just like Australia needs 4. I don't think Labour can decline it even if it wants to.
4 and we have are real world class navy.
Just like Australia needs 4. I don't think Labour can decline it even if it wants to.
4 and we have are real world class navy.
One of the biggest pushes for the 4th destroyer has come from the Labor Party South Australian Premier. From comments made by the Opposition Leader I believe that there is unlikely to be a political problem with the extra ship.
Cheers
StingrayOz – I strongly disagree with you comments, the Brit’s would never plan their navel strategy around ‘pooling with the French’. The latter are far too contentious when it comes to force projection (endless caveats would have to be agreed in advance). The British policy has and always will be to maintain an independent ability to send an Amphibious Ready Group. In future, once the carriers are built, Ocean will always be part of an ARG comprising 1 x Queen Eliz Carrier, 2 x Bay, 1 x Albion class, 2 x T45’s, 1-2 Astute’s plus escorting frigates, mines sweepers and associated RFA’s providing RAS support. 8 T45's are enough to protect such deployments and still have a few left over to provide area defense for a second smaller carrier group. If anything we are more likely to be supported by the Dutch who form part of the UK’s 5 Commando Brigade. (1 x Dutch SBS Squadron and Marine Corps).
Yes, there is no way the UK is going to work a pooling system like that. They could come about with some good defence contracts together and cut some costs on asset purchases etc or on a long term submarine contract to replace the Tridents. I think there is room for this type of proposal but i think projection on deployment or asset sharing isnt going to happen. The French are also best at an individual defence policy thats seperate to NATO. Weve seen this in the past. However they are a large contributor to the overall european alliance.
I do think that the UK need a min. of 8 T-45s to make a difference to the operational and forseeable policy of the RN in the forseeable future. I think you will find that the UK will want to maintain an individual policy of Naval operations thats seperate to other European Nations such as Holland although contribute to the overall NATO defence mechanism whether in peace or war.
I do think that the UK need a min. of 8 T-45s to make a difference to the operational and forseeable policy of the RN in the forseeable future. I think you will find that the UK will want to maintain an individual policy of Naval operations thats seperate to other European Nations such as Holland although contribute to the overall NATO defence mechanism whether in peace or war.
Excuse me for being cynical but the opposition usually make all sorts of promises and noises about what the Government should and shouldn't do. What happens after they are elected is often another matter. They often blame the previous Govt. for leaving the countries economy in a mess and then renig on all of their own promises. I certainly hope your faith is not misplaced, but I will feel better when it is locked in. It has been rumoured that an anouncement will be made during the election campaign so we will have to wait and see.
Hooroo
Nothing in politics is certain (except perhaps opportunism). However, the main reason for the SA government supporting the 4th AWD is the benefit to the SA economy and the ongoing work it will provide at ASC. This will make it difficult for any future government to cancel the deal. Like you I hope that the contract is "signed and sealed" before the election.
Cheers
Yes thats right it isnt certain and i would even at this point suggest that Defence is somewhat uncertain too until Labour puts out its Defence White paper. From what information i have been able to glean so far on Labours Defence policy is in someway rather "murky" in its forward defence policy at this point.
Rudd has openly come out and supported the Amphibious Ships which is a good start, but his absence of a more global role for the RAN seems to diminish into his rhetoric of having more emphasis on self Defence of Australia than what he called aggressive approach that the Liberals are taking on their defence options. So there are some mixed messages coming out from the Rudd party right now in relation to how he sees the ADFs role in being either a global policeman, or one that looks after his own back yard. He does suggest that his relationship with the US is paramount along with his other allies but as to how far that goes is another debate. We may need to put on hold those F35Bs guys, as Rudd wants to use the Amphibious ships for alot of in our own humanitarian roles, and support roles and meet Australias commitment to a more "back yard" defence policy.
There is no information as to whether Rudd supports the Destroyer programme anywhere from what i can find unless someone can help me on this with some information. He does support the business part of the programme for SA and the defence industry as a whole but its hard to gauge what his thoughts are with the long term option of the programme. It could be well possible that the Destroyer option through Rudd may be trimmed back to either 3 or 2. Something id hate to contemplate. If the Liberals sign that contract then its a done deal, but im afraid in politics contracts can be moved around and played with till they are at the point of no return, and it maybe possible that due to the big order with the Spanish Navantia that Rudd may want to do some political manuevering and side banting to cut costs . And he is very keen on trimming where he can find trim. He is very unhappy with the current governments handling on the current 254 defence projects so far due to the high percentage of projects not finished on time. This accounts for 30% of the projects and he sees waste in the system due to this problem. He is also somewhat unhappy with the F18F/G contract and believes alot more could be done to look at our longer term options than what he called "lack of adequate thought" by the Liberals on this project.
So despite his words on supporting the current governments policy on Defence purchases, it would be clear to me that he has priorities of his own especially the Army which he wants to focus his attention on and i get the feeling its going to be a watered down version of Howards Defence policy. So its a wait and see approach i think and will be interesting to see what priorities will be placed where. Cheers.
Rudd has openly come out and supported the Amphibious Ships which is a good start, but his absence of a more global role for the RAN seems to diminish into his rhetoric of having more emphasis on self Defence of Australia than what he called aggressive approach that the Liberals are taking on their defence options. So there are some mixed messages coming out from the Rudd party right now in relation to how he sees the ADFs role in being either a global policeman, or one that looks after his own back yard. He does suggest that his relationship with the US is paramount along with his other allies but as to how far that goes is another debate. We may need to put on hold those F35Bs guys, as Rudd wants to use the Amphibious ships for alot of in our own humanitarian roles, and support roles and meet Australias commitment to a more "back yard" defence policy.
There is no information as to whether Rudd supports the Destroyer programme anywhere from what i can find unless someone can help me on this with some information. He does support the business part of the programme for SA and the defence industry as a whole but its hard to gauge what his thoughts are with the long term option of the programme. It could be well possible that the Destroyer option through Rudd may be trimmed back to either 3 or 2. Something id hate to contemplate. If the Liberals sign that contract then its a done deal, but im afraid in politics contracts can be moved around and played with till they are at the point of no return, and it maybe possible that due to the big order with the Spanish Navantia that Rudd may want to do some political manuevering and side banting to cut costs . And he is very keen on trimming where he can find trim. He is very unhappy with the current governments handling on the current 254 defence projects so far due to the high percentage of projects not finished on time. This accounts for 30% of the projects and he sees waste in the system due to this problem. He is also somewhat unhappy with the F18F/G contract and believes alot more could be done to look at our longer term options than what he called "lack of adequate thought" by the Liberals on this project.
So despite his words on supporting the current governments policy on Defence purchases, it would be clear to me that he has priorities of his own especially the Army which he wants to focus his attention on and i get the feeling its going to be a watered down version of Howards Defence policy. So its a wait and see approach i think and will be interesting to see what priorities will be placed where. Cheers.
I think Labour is still testing the defence waters.
I think defence spending among the general population is widely supported. People know Australia has a role to play in the region and the world, and we should have the most capable forces we can for any number of missions.
I think Labour will end up supporting defence spending, but a different focus. They are less likely to look at things like Tomahawks, F-35B's, which are more projection than defence etc. But they are certainly looking at improving the army, navy and airforce where possible. I don't think they will overturn the 4th AWD as it is absolutely critical to keep ASC healthy and then be able to sell it hopefully to the poms or the yanks. Not to mention its critical to the navy to escort its own ships. If they cancel that will be very bad and draw lots of fire, from premiers, from opposition, from the navy etc.
Superbugs could get iced. But that would free up money for other improvements in defence. Superbugs are not hugely supported, and was done in murky waters. If the money was rolled into more popular defence projects then Rudd could make political ground on the issue.
There is a lot of bad defence decisions being made. Seasprite, M113 etc. So Rudd should go after this area, but clearly state he is looking for improvements and improving management not reducing capability.
I think defence spending among the general population is widely supported. People know Australia has a role to play in the region and the world, and we should have the most capable forces we can for any number of missions.
I think Labour will end up supporting defence spending, but a different focus. They are less likely to look at things like Tomahawks, F-35B's, which are more projection than defence etc. But they are certainly looking at improving the army, navy and airforce where possible. I don't think they will overturn the 4th AWD as it is absolutely critical to keep ASC healthy and then be able to sell it hopefully to the poms or the yanks. Not to mention its critical to the navy to escort its own ships. If they cancel that will be very bad and draw lots of fire, from premiers, from opposition, from the navy etc.
Superbugs could get iced. But that would free up money for other improvements in defence. Superbugs are not hugely supported, and was done in murky waters. If the money was rolled into more popular defence projects then Rudd could make political ground on the issue.
There is a lot of bad defence decisions being made. Seasprite, M113 etc. So Rudd should go after this area, but clearly state he is looking for improvements and improving management not reducing capability.
Jezz man this is a typical ill informed view point on defence. Talking about Tomahawk and F-35B not being options if Labor are elected. They are not options NOW with the Liberals elected!
The Super Hornet purchase being cancelled because it isn’t popular? The Opposition and potential Government does not base its assessment of the Super Hornet on what may be read in the tabloids. They are taking advantage of the hugely ill-informed public hoorah over the Super Hornet as it damages the govt. but both Fitzgibbon and Rudd have said they won’t cancel the deal that is already done nor cut the forward budget outlays that fund the extra fast jet squadron for the RAAF.
If they did cancel the Super Hornet then they can explain to the public why the RAAF’s fighter force collapses between 2010-2015 due to air worthy aircraft shortage. You suggest they could roll the money into more popular decisions! Popular with kids and retiree enthusiasts – but what about the RAAF? Super Hornet is as popular as you can get inside the Air Force. If a govt. was to overturn it and go for the recommendations of those cranks in Air Power Australia you could potentially face a mutiny and certainly a lot of resignations.
And overturn the 4th AWD? Overturn What!
Man some people live in a fantasy world when it comes to Defence… If you actually care about it can I suggest you get up to speed with what is actually going on in Defence…
For the record Rudd said the three ‘core’ priorities to fuel Labor’s new defence white paper were regional instability, militant Islam and potential WMD proliferation in Asia Pacific. To develop the force structure to counter these threats would mean more force projection capability (amphibious lift), more rapid strike and army firepower and some kind of ballistic missile defence system.
The Super Hornet purchase being cancelled because it isn’t popular? The Opposition and potential Government does not base its assessment of the Super Hornet on what may be read in the tabloids. They are taking advantage of the hugely ill-informed public hoorah over the Super Hornet as it damages the govt. but both Fitzgibbon and Rudd have said they won’t cancel the deal that is already done nor cut the forward budget outlays that fund the extra fast jet squadron for the RAAF.
If they did cancel the Super Hornet then they can explain to the public why the RAAF’s fighter force collapses between 2010-2015 due to air worthy aircraft shortage. You suggest they could roll the money into more popular decisions! Popular with kids and retiree enthusiasts – but what about the RAAF? Super Hornet is as popular as you can get inside the Air Force. If a govt. was to overturn it and go for the recommendations of those cranks in Air Power Australia you could potentially face a mutiny and certainly a lot of resignations.
And overturn the 4th AWD? Overturn What!
Man some people live in a fantasy world when it comes to Defence… If you actually care about it can I suggest you get up to speed with what is actually going on in Defence…
For the record Rudd said the three ‘core’ priorities to fuel Labor’s new defence white paper were regional instability, militant Islam and potential WMD proliferation in Asia Pacific. To develop the force structure to counter these threats would mean more force projection capability (amphibious lift), more rapid strike and army firepower and some kind of ballistic missile defence system.
AGRA, i wouldnt push out the door the option of the Tomahawk just yet, as the RAN did win a contract for the Combat Control System (CCS) Mk 2 weapons control systems for the Australian Navy's Collins-class diesel submarines; an integrated test and training facility; and land-based development systems. This award represents Raytheon's work share of the HMAS Collins Replacement Combat System and represents the first deployment of Raytheon's proven submarine combat control system on an
international submarine platform.
CCS Mk 2 is the U.S. Navy's combat control system, recently designated the
baseline system for the entire U.S. submarine force. CCS Mk 2 integrates
sensors, combat control, and weapons launch capabilities for submarine
payloads, including Tomahawk, Tactical Tomahawk, and Harpoon missiles, as well as Mk 48 Advanced Capability torpedoes.
Just keep in mind that what has been written so far was from Rudd himself off the Labour Partys website and based on his recent Defence address and none of the points raised is a "personal" view of defence matters. They are from Rudds own view point. The Super Hornet option is a purchase that Rudd isnt so happy about and from what i have read Labour want to look at reviewing the replacement for the F18. So its all there written in black and white.
Also about the AWD you dont need to argue about that to me, as im all for the AWD, so dont need to get testy on that, any arguments or head bashing just take it to the top where it belongs.
international submarine platform.
CCS Mk 2 is the U.S. Navy's combat control system, recently designated the
baseline system for the entire U.S. submarine force. CCS Mk 2 integrates
sensors, combat control, and weapons launch capabilities for submarine
payloads, including Tomahawk, Tactical Tomahawk, and Harpoon missiles, as well as Mk 48 Advanced Capability torpedoes.
Just keep in mind that what has been written so far was from Rudd himself off the Labour Partys website and based on his recent Defence address and none of the points raised is a "personal" view of defence matters. They are from Rudds own view point. The Super Hornet option is a purchase that Rudd isnt so happy about and from what i have read Labour want to look at reviewing the replacement for the F18. So its all there written in black and white.
Also about the AWD you dont need to argue about that to me, as im all for the AWD, so dont need to get testy on that, any arguments or head bashing just take it to the top where it belongs.
- Status