Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by stephen weist, Sep 30, 2005.

Share This Page

  1. Underway

    Underway New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2019
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Niagara Falls
    Well it's a destrigate or a frigstroyer (frigroyer?). Other options are:
    -Battlefrigate
    -Light Destroyer
    -Heavy Frigate (this one actually seems likely)
    -Command Frigate
    -Pocket Destroyer

    Alternative historical terminology...
    -Destroyer Escort (later Ocean Escort)
    -Hunter Killer Destroyer
    -Escort Destroyer
    -Destroyer Leader

    Though I did asked this question of the CRCN himself at a town hall and his response was "What are the British and Aussies calling them? -me...frigate sir- Well it seems pretty stupid to call it a destroyer when everyone else calls it a frigate. Does the name even really matter that much? That it's a good ship is all I care about!")
     
  2. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    342
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    How about BFF?:D The debate on classification/naming has been ongoing on other naval threads here and elsewhere as surface ships increase in size from their traditional (historical?) displacements.
     
  3. Novascotiaboy

    Novascotiaboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Traditional designation of something 150 m and 8000 tons is light cruiser. The T26 is not too far off the size of the US Navy Belknap Class cruisers of the 60s and 70s.
     
  4. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    757
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    Being a traditionalist I wish all this PC nonsense calling Destroyers Frigates and so forth would stop. I don't care what the political spin doctors call it so as to not offend the snowflakes out there but an 8000 tonne 150m warship with 48 VLS and a 5" gun is not a Frigate in my book. It is at the very least a Destroyer. Anzacs and OHP are Frigate sized. They need to back the truck up on all this sort of thing. Rant over! :p
     
    ozrock62 and Systems Adict like this.
  5. Systems Adict

    Systems Adict Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Likes Received:
    119
    @Underway

    I made the points I made, not to pick holes in any comments you made, but to look for clarity.

    I am defence professional who has spent the last 25 years working within Europe & am aware of EU / UK doctrines (as well as a few other nations whose Naval projects I've worked on), but am also aware that in my experience / opinion, that Canada is in many respects 'insular' in its Naval doctrine. This 'thought' is not intended to infuriate / raise tempers, but to help explain where my thoughts are derived.

    I'm also appreciative of the link you provided to Leadmark 2050, It will allow me to learn a little more, as well as giving me some light reading to help cure my insomnia ! ( LoL) :D

    In many discussions across the threads within these forums, many people play 'what if' games, making comments, guessing which weaponry/equipment SHOULD be integrated into the hull, often without understanding the implications. I purposefully try & to make thought provoking comments & explain things (often by stating the obvious, so that everyone can understand). The concerns I raise are about the practicalities of integrating x2 modules into the front quarter of the ship are valid, as there is limited physical depth & width.

    The comments about Canada not being the US, are also about any reasoning & possible need for a large number of long length / long range missiles. It's also about the fact that Canada possibly doesn't need as many as you think & justification for x 48 VLS, versus the space they would take up, which could be better used incorporating other equipment / accommodation / recreational areas.

    Canadian vessels will also have different requirements to vessels that sail oceans & seas that are further south, so such space could be used for equipment that are needed to protect the nations coastline at the northern reaches, or to traverse east to west & vice versa, so questioning the requirement is part of that.
     
  6. Systems Adict

    Systems Adict Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Likes Received:
    119
    You mean this...?

    BAE Systems Australia (@BAESystemsAus) | Twitter

    That's all anyone is asking for. If you post an image / story, simply provide the page link. It gives credence to your comments & will keep admins happy.

    They're not here to kick anyone, just making sure that the website can continue to function without the concerns of legal actions or prosecution under numerous laws about the use of content that is the IPR of another individual / media site.

    In my day job, I often have to source data from equipment manufacturer's websites, relating to components & have increasingly found it harder to use images, without specific permissions / authority. Sometimes it's as simple as registering your e-mail address, other times it involves calling the equipment supplier & getting their permissions. I know that here in the UK, The Financial Times, requires something similar if you want to 'share' a link to the articles they've produced.

    Sometimes it's easier to go to other sources...

    For instance:

    Home | BAE Systems | International

    Maritime | BAE Systems | United Kingdom

     
  7. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    qld
    Even they and the Leahy class(and there Nuke powered near Sisters) went through several changes of designation from Destroyer Leader(DLG) to Guided Missile Cruiser(CG) and where quite often referred to as Frigates.
     
  8. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,660
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Ah you've surfaced. Not so distraught today? I emptied the rum barrel self medicating afterwards.

    Is the current nomenclature conventions for warship categorisation PC nonsense drive by spin doctors? I don't think so, but I think a hangover from the end of WW2 when the RN reintroduced the category of frigate to its fleet when it recategorised its newer and larger corvettes. In the USN the equivalent was the DE.
    I think this illustrates the problem that exists amongst the FVEY navies of how do you define a frigate. Do you define it by its:
    • Mission
    • Displacement
    • Armament
    • No of VLS cells
    • Or something else.
    Historically in the days of sail and wooden ships, the frigate was a fast ship, used to roam far and wide on its lonesome, scouting for the enemy before returning to the fleet with that information. In the age of steam the frigate disappeared, its role taken over by the much larger, heavier armed and armoured cruisers with radio telegraphy which after WW1 acquired spotter aircraft. At the start of the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2 the RN had a dearth of convoy escorts, so started a crash build program of ASW escort vessels resulting in corvettes such as the Flower class corvettes, that were wet ships and rolled on wet grass. In 1940 the RN designed a twin screw corvette which then became the River class frigate, built in the UK, Canada and Australia. This was followed by the Loch class frigate.

    I would posit that during the Cold War, within FVEY the main role of the frigate never really changed from ASW. However, in the last 30 years, this has changed and now nations, except the US are looking at more of a multirole for their frigates. Today they have to conduct AAW / ASMD and ASuW as well as ASW, especially in medium and smaller sized navies. So this really begs the question - by what criteria do we now define them?
     
  9. Underway

    Underway New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2019
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Niagara Falls
    The real answer? It's not so simple. To state its political correctness is completely wrong. Every nation has its own naming conventions.

    Navies based on the French/German tradition call all escort ships frigates. The Dutch do as well. Even small ships that should properly be called a corvette are generally called frigates. They differentiate by calling them AAW frigates etc...

    Navies based on the Royal Navy tradition (many Asian and commonwealth) name destroyers after their role. AAW and Command Control generally get called destroyers. General purpose and ASW blue water vessels that are designed to work in a task group at sea are generally called frigates. Corvettes are basically smaller frigates that are not really designed for blue water operations for from their bases.

    USN naming conventions have changed as recently as the 1980's. They generally follow RN conventions described above but have been known to just change them for political reasons. The Ticonderogas are a good example of this, they started their life as a Destroyer (due to their AAW C&C role) but were changed to the cruiser designation to close the perceived "cruiser gap" with the Soviets. The gap was fixed by expediently reclassifying them. Suddenly they was no cruiser gap.

    Then you get into other weird things, like Russian heavy aviation carriers (Kiev Class), Japanese "Helicopter Destroyers", Littoral Combat Ships, etc... The British were even looking at bringing back the "Sloop of War" in a new Black Swan class at one point.

    Generally things still follow tonnage... Corvette<Frigate<Destroyer<Cruiser but that's mainly because to do their roles tonnage matters. Increasingly sensors and weapons are getting smaller as technology improves and the lines between the ships blur. Some good examples of this the Hobart Class AAW Destroyer (7000 ton) and to be built Hunter Class GP frigate (7800 ton) in Australia. Canada had the Halifax Class Frigate (4700 ton) and Iroquois Destroyer (5100 ton) which were nearly identical in size, though their role differed significantly.
     
  10. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    757
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    30 years ago there were some in the then Labour government trying to have PM David Lange call the Kiwi Anzacs "Ocean Patrol Vessels" to appease the left wing of the party and peace activists like Owen Wilkes who were organising public protests against their acquisition. Even earlier the RN were going to call the three Harrier Carriers through deck cruisers to pull the wool over the eyes of their political masters and a grumpy electorate.

    Warship classification exists for two reasons, one practical and one political. Practically, naming a group of ships with similar characteristics allows for better comparison of capabilities within and among navies. Politically, warship classifications signal national intentions or influence political leaders who fund warship construction. While the practical reason may seem more functional, the political reason frequently determines classification. Captain James P. McGrath, III, USN

    and yes I too am very grumpy right now .....
     
    ozrock62, At lakes, Rob c and 2 others like this.
  11. Calculus

    Calculus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Looks like some movement this weekend on the AOPS (AOPV) program. AOPV 2 (future HMCS Margaret Brooke) will launch, and AOPV 1 (HMCS Harry DeWolf) will start sea trials:AOPS Updates | Halifax Shipping News.ca
     
  12. WillS

    WillS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    3
    Why not simply introduce a NATO classification system to allow translation between different national classification systems, rather like they already do with ranks? For instance "OF-6" is a Canadian Commodore, a Danish Flotilleadmiral, a French Contre-amiral etc?

    They could base it on the old "First Rate", "Second Rate", "Third Rate" classification allowing a Defence Department to refer to a vessel as a "Destroyer" or a "Second Rate" depending on whether they were trying to impress a newspaper or placate a peacenik.

    ;-)

    WillS
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  13. Calculus

    Calculus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2019 at 1:55 AM
  14. Calculus

    Calculus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Ottawa
    John Fedup likes this.
  15. Calculus

    Calculus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Ottawa
  16. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    342
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
  17. Calculus

    Calculus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Ottawa
    According to the following, AOPV 2 (431) was launced this morning, and HMCS Harry DeWolf (430) is due to start sea trials on Nov. 21st: AOPS #2 Launched | Halifax Shipping News.ca

    I will try and locate some video of the actual launch.
     
    John Fedup likes this.
  18. Calculus

    Calculus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM
    ngatimozart likes this.
  19. Calculus

    Calculus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Ottawa