Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
No need to lengthen Type 26 warship to meet Canada’s needs, says DND
Industry representatives have been talking about the possibility that the Type 26 design will need to be altered significantly to meet Canadian requirements.…
ottawacitizen.com
There was industry chatter last year about whether Canada would want to lengthen the CSC by 10m to accommodate Canada's increased crew size compared to the British Type 26, but DND said the lengthening wouldn't be necessary to meet size and speed requirements. A larger CSC would be useful since some CSC will need to embark a Task Group Commander and staff whereas I believe Australia and Britain accommodate those on the Hobart and Type 45-classes respectively. But now if Australia is actually looking at lengthening the design I wonder if Canada would want to join? If both countries find enlarging the Type 26 useful but have concerns about the time and cost of doing so individually, pooling their resources could make the task of enlarging the Type 26 more viable. And as John Fedup points out, even Britain might want to assist in order to explore hull design options for a Type-45 replacement.
Last edited:
protoplasm
Active Member
I had noted the rather large mast volume, and if the additional length was around that area I could see how this would easily integrate into the overall design. It will be interesting to see how the design resolves given the likely specced requirements of CEAFAR 2. I agree that the focus appears to be on more powerful sensors rather than more kinetic options.
Not really, the modern frigate is generally twice the size of WW2 frigates etc. Frankly I don't care what designator it's given, as long as it's fit for task and so far it looks like the Hunters will be a potent platform.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I think the Frigate designation has more to do with the role than the displacement. Mind you at 10,000t they ought to be one hell of a Frigate!
Size never mattered. Nelson's frigates displaced just a couple of hundred tons.
A Frigate is whatever the navy defining it to be a frigate says is a frigate. Some do it by size, some by role, some, it seems, just because it sounds right. More information can be found by reading back over the dozen or more times this has been discussed on the various naval threads on this site in the last couple of years!
oldsig
I have always assumed that designations of frigates and destroyers have more to do with tasking. However in the case of the Hunter class exactly what is its task? It was originally intended as an ASW vessel but then it evolved and will be equipped with Aegis. So does that make it a hybrid frigate/destroyer?
Irrelevant. The Hobarts are classed by the RAN as Air Warfare Destroyers but still have sonar and an ASW helicopter. Does that make them Frigates? So do the Arleigh Burke class. Frigates?
A frigate is whatever the host navy says is a frigate. Not everything is a binary choice between one state and another
oldsig
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Spoz, the most sensible comment about the AFR article so far.
Whenever I read a Fairfax, News Ltd or ABC defence related article my eyes automatically start to roll to the back of my head.
I also noticed that the journalist who wrote the piece is listed as their Political correspondent too (another roll back of the eyes), and to top it off all through the article the so called journalist referred to the ships displacement as weight (I almost fell completely over backwards at that point), can these people at least use the correct terminology? Is that too much to ask?
Anyway .....
It's probably worth looking back a little bit to the Hobart class DDGs, from what I remember at the time, their full load displacement at launch was quoted as being 6,250t, and that their eventual theoretical full load displacement was 7,000t, eg, a growth margin of 750t, or an additional 12%.
I have no idea if those were the actual numbers at time of launch, but it was reported at one time in the past, and lets not forget that the DDGs were delivered 'fitted with' and not the old 'fitted for' as was the case with the Anzac class FFHs and we all know of the top weight issues that class has had to deal with.
As for the Hunter class FFGs, all that has been reported is a full load displacement of 8,800t, and it would appear they too, like the Hobart class, are to be delivered fitted with and not fitted for.
What isn't clear is if the 8,800t figure quoted so far is the 'at launch' number or a theoretical full load displacement number, including life of type growth margins. One would assume that the RAN would require a life of type growth margin in the design.
If, and I say 'if', the figure of 8,800t is the full load launch displacement, then it might be fair to suggest that with an approx. 10% growth margin, they may well eventually end up at approx. 10,000t later in their services lives, but who knows??
The one paragraph in the article that did prick my attention was the quote attributed to the ASC Managing Director where he is reported to say:
"It might end up we move the weight parameters, that we move the margin parameters. They are all part of the design process, he said: We might get to the point where we have to make some hard decisions and give some hard choices back to the Commonwealth to stay within those characteristics."
That quote (if accurate?) reads more to me that the growth margins might be eaten into earlier than later, not necessarily that the ship will be overweight from day one.
We'll just have to wait and see if a more credible report appears in the near future.
Cheers,
John Newman
The Bunker Group
This discussion of what is a Destroyer and what is a Frigate has done the rounds here on DT many times in the past (and will probably continue to do so into the future too).
The last time this came up, the general consensus (in relation to RAN ships) appeared to be that a DDG has a primary role of air warfare and a secondary ASW role, and an FFG has a primary ASW role and a secondary air warfare role, regardless of displacement.
That still is a how long is a piece of string question/answer, or the old opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one!
Cheers,
Pointless looking at size for ship classification, destroyers in their history have ranged from just over 100 tons to 19,000+ tons while frigates have ranged from hundred tons or less to an ever increasing size. History is always enlarging ships with each new generation, some times a class will disappear and a new one will be created but simple rule of life is they are forever growing and evolving. Don't care what we call them as long as the ships them selves can do what is needed of them. But hey if Australia wants to play funny buggers with the world let's reclassify them as patrol boats 
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
They will be much closer in size to HMAS Australia(1) than a Fremantle so lets call them BattlecruisersPointless looking at size for ship classification, destroyers in their history have ranged from just over 100 tons to 19,000+ tons while frigates have ranged from hundred tons or less to an ever increasing size. History is always enlarging ships with each new generation, some times a class will disappear and a new one will be created but simple rule of life is they are forever growing and evolving. Don't care what we call them as long as the ships them selves can do what is needed of them. But hey if Australia wants to play funny buggers with the world let's reclassify them as patrol boats
instead
Don't encourage him.They will be much closer in size to HMAS Australia(1) than a Fremantle so lets call them Battlecruisers
5.5x20.8x10 gives you 1144 tonnes (based on fresh water displacement) ..... but you need to take into account the block coefficient of the structure (it is not square)...It will be less than that. You also have to remember draft is variable based on load.
However, I suspect the journalist has no idea of any size increase and is spit balling. Unless there is other sources I am not inclined to take the Australian Financial Review at face value.
Last edited:
Nope. There's only one place for a spare rum ration and that's in my tot mug.
So the RAN never issued a daily tot of rum at all, unlike the RN and RNZN?
- Status