Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Losing a capital ship named after your country is not a morale booster during a national crisis.
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.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
THE Americans did build 2 Nuclear powered 9000 odd ton "Frigates" in the 60s, the Bainbridge & Truxton along with their conventionally powered half Sisters of the Leahy and Belknap Classes. Which for a long time were called Frigates.
Someone finally woke up to themselves and re-designated them as Cruisers in the mid 70s
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.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Looking at the photos of the models of the Type 26 here: Type 26 GCS , on the surface, I could imagine up to 72 VLS (I don't know the things occupying the depth of the ship, but length and width, replace the the space for the Sea Cepter missiles launchers with Mk 41 VLS, and it's about 72- 48 behind the main gun, and 24 about the middle fo the ship, behind the ..funnel?

Also space up top for 24 deck mounted ASM's, although the RAN will probably put x8 (seems to be the standard).
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
Unlikely IMO, as it is Lockheed Martin Canada (as opposed to Lockheed Martin) which is a participant in the Type 26 CSC bid. Also Indra which is the Spanish company LockMart is working with to develop the new radar is not, to my knowledge at least, a partner in the CSC bid. I do find it curious that the radars for the other two CSC contenders are known, but this is really more something for the RCN thread.
I think Thales is part of the LM BAE team so the APAR 2 is the pick.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
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
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There seems to be a very blurry distinction made between destroyers, frigates, corvettes and even cruisers these days.
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
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The officially released specs don't give any indication of how many cells the Hunter class will have. I would interpret that as them not being entirely sure themselves. Even some of the actual weapons these ships will be fitted with are just speculation at this point.

Are seaCeptor missiles necessarily out of the question for Australia?

It seems to me that they are a different class to the ESSM and could give the Hunter class that extra layer of air defence. It could be cheaper to just mount these missiles on the new frigates rather than having to deal with the engineering problems of fitting additional MK41 launchers.

They could also be ideal for other ships such as the LHDs.
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:
"...In a signal to all navy personnel, Royal Australian Navy Vice Admiral Barrett said class name was chosen to reflect the tradition of naming RAN ships that promote Navy’s bond with the Nation. In this case, the first three ships of the Hunter class will carry the names of three major Australian regions, all with strong historical maritime and naval ties.

The first batch of three will be named HMA Ship Flinders (II) (SA region named for explorer Captain Matthew Flinders – first circumnavigation of Australia and identified it as a continent); Hunter (NSW region named for Vice-Admiral John Hunter – first fleet Captain and 2nd Governor of NSW); and Tasman (state and sea named for explorer Abel Tasman – first known European explorer to reach Tasmania, New Zealand and Fiji)…." & details of design follow such as 'first bow to stern specific ASW FrigATE'
BAE Systems picked to build Australia’s nine Future Frigates
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
"A new training and capability center at HMAS Stirling and Henderson which will support the Australian Navy’s new SEA 5000 frigates – to be built by BAE Systems – will benefit from an AU$670 million investment, the Australian government has announced....

...These upgrades to HMAS Stirling are in addition to the $300 million upgrades associated with the selection of Stirling as ‘Ship Zero’ for the Offshore Patrol Vessels, the $150 million upgrades to support the new Maritime Operational Support Capability vessels and the $367 million redevelopment of HMAS Stirling infrastructure...."
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Forum Difesa - Una stanza per parlare di politica estera e difesa con attenzione e serietà

But the specific post is written in Italian jargon in marine section.

If you check the forum they/we have a really good section, made by the forum experts, with really good insights and articles (It is called approfondimenti).

If you need help navigating/translation I'm at your disposal.
Unsurprisingly the Italian forum is now full of conspiracy theories.

They would never have trusted someone outside the club they belong to, and why? just because at the moment we have a beautiful ship?
Come on, it is useless to look for complex explanations to a simple question. The Australian Navy wanted the Fremm but the political and lobbyist weight of the English pushed politics to choose the 26.
It is the Australian way of not taking into account the will of the insiders (behavior to which here we are unfortunately accustomed for some time).
For them Fincantieri has lost despite the proposal was the cheapest and the most advantageous from any other technical and military point of view.
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
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
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
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
As long as the Kiwis pay full rate for them.

I'd see Arrowhead 140 as being a way better bet than Type 26 for the Kiwis, and quite a few other countries beside.
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.
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.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
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
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
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
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
Is theat the Club that Sweden, Germany, France and Spain belongs to, selective memories over there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top