The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

B

beegee

Active Member
seaspear said:
FTI Medium-Size Frigates - Naval Technology
There are other frigates that can be considered this one might just might be controversial for New Zealand being French but appears more capable.
Click to expand...
This belongs in the RNZN thread.

It's all about cost. Suffice to say that a cheap "frigate" already in service with the RN is going to look awfully tempting to NZ's politicians.

I hope that the low price tag of the Leander won't be seen as a political scoring point by the UK government, and therefore gets picked just so they can make a point about how much money they saved while still getting the hull numbers they want.

This is one of the reasons why I hate that the T26 and the T31 Leander both get the moniker frigate. It hides the enormous difference in capabilities between the two designs. The Leander should be called a light frigate or the T26 should be a destroyer. IMHO, of course.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Naval platforms in respect to asw and aaw have grown much larger even frigates can be similar to ww2 cruiser size , some of this comes back to steel is cheap and air is free , and you have to allow for growth which ends up as designed for but not provided with.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
t68 said:
Navy supply fleet 'to be privatised', as MoD seeks £200m cuts

RFA could be privatised, geez I hate this sort of shit. I really fail to see how this actually saves money in the long term, geez just imagine how much money whoever supplies the labour will charge the government for working in a dangerous area.
Click to expand...
Would be the biggest balls up since Dunkirk, as well as a logistic and security nightmare. I can also see problems with foreign nationals crewing RFA vessels in war zones. They can jump ship and the Brits won't be able to do anything about it. Pretty short sighted policy IF the story is factual. Mind you the UK MOD is not renown for its common sense or logic.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
seaspear said:
Naval platforms in respect to asw and aaw have grown much larger even frigates can be similar to ww2 cruiser size , some of this comes back to steel is cheap and air is free , and you have to allow for growth which ends up as designed for but not provided with.
Click to expand...
Frigates, until there rebirth in WWII as specialised escorts, were always cruisers.

The sail, steam, wooden, ironclad and steel, frigates, corvettes and sloops were all regarded as 'cruisers' as opposed to ships of the line, or battleships. They evolved into the various rates of protected cruiser and armoured cruiser (eventually battlecruiser), with the various protected and scout cruisers becoming light cruisers while the 'heavy' cruiser was a construct of the Washington Naval Treaty. Light cruisers were formally defined under the London Treaty when limits were placed on totals of heavy cruisers, mostly as a result of the RN successfully pushing greater numbers of smaller, cheaper cruisers.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
seaspear said:
My suggestion may be because of the long memories of the Rainbow Warrior sinking on the orders of French president Mitterrand in 1985
Click to expand...
That happened 33 years ago and we've bought French aircraft, have French warships here regularly on visits and exercises as well as for maintenance since then so not an issue at all. Any lets not derail this thread any further.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
Frigates, until there rebirth in WWII as specialised escorts, were always cruisers.

The sail, steam, wooden, ironclad and steel, frigates, corvettes and sloops were all regarded as 'cruisers' as opposed to ships of the line, or battleships. They evolved into the various rates of protected cruiser and armoured cruiser (eventually battlecruiser), with the various protected and scout cruisers becoming light cruisers while the 'heavy' cruiser was a construct of the Washington Naval Treaty. Light cruisers were formally defined under the London Treaty when limits were placed on totals of heavy cruisers, mostly as a result of the RN successfully pushing greater numbers of smaller, cheaper cruisers.
Click to expand...
Yep and now only two navies operate ships classified as cruisers. I think that today ships should be defined by mission rather than by tonnage as has happened since the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, because the classifications defined by that treaty are no longer relevant. Battleships and battle cruisers have been deep sixed, cruisers of all types are just about extinct, CVs were limited in size to a max of 27,000 tons apart from 2 hulls each converted from existing capital ships up to a max displacement of 33,000 tons per CV. In todays terms, the CVs are the same tonnages as the RAN Canberra class LHD, or slightly heavier than the new RNZN MSC Aotearoa (full laden gross displacement of 26,000 tonnes). We now have FFGs such as the Type 26 that are of similar tonnage to the Leander class cruisers of WW2 and the Type 45 DDG which is of similar tonnage to the Town class cruisers from the same period. Hence my belief that in the 21st C a ship should be classified by its mission rather than by its displacement.
 
S

steel jo

New Member
beegee said:
The scariest thing about the Type 31 from a New Zealand perspective is the possibility of this ship replacing the ANZACs... unless it's the Arrowhead 140.
The Arrowhead 140 is the capable option, the Leander is the cheap option. I fear the Leander. It gives me nightmares, I see one with a kiwi on the side and I wake up screaming in a cold sweat.

For the sake of the RNZN (and RN) please, please, please select the Arrowhead 140. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Surely a south korean buy/build must be an option for NZ if the tanker is ok?
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
T
ngatimozart said:
Yep and now only two navies operate ships classified as cruisers. I think that today ships should be defined by mission rather than by tonnage as has happened since the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, because the classifications defined by that treaty are no longer relevant. Battleships and battle cruisers have been deep sixed, cruisers of all types are just about extinct, CVs were limited in size to a max of 27,000 tons apart from 2 hulls each converted from existing capital ships up to a max displacement of 33,000 tons per CV. In todays terms, the CVs are the same tonnages as the RAN Canberra class LHD, or slightly heavier than the new RNZN MSC Aotearoa (full laden gross displacement of 26,000 tonnes). We now have FFGs such as the Type 26 that are of similar tonnage to the Leander class cruisers of WW2 and the Type 45 DDG which is of similar tonnage to the Town class cruisers from the same period. Hence my belief that in the 21st C a ship should be classified by its mission rather than by its displacement.
Click to expand...
The other determinant that traditionally signified a cruiser verses a destroyer or more specialised escort was that the cruiser was capable of independent operations, did not need to be supported by a tender and had sizable command facilities. Large modern frigates and pretty much all modern destroyers have fitted those criteria since the 90s, and in some cases since the 80s.
 
B

beegee

Active Member
steel jo said:
Surely a south korean buy/build must be an option for NZ if the tanker is ok?
Click to expand...
Yes, there will be lots of options, but the T31 will already be in service with an ally, i.e. low risk. Low cost and low risk is the holy mantra chanted daily from the NZ MOD building.

In an effort to get back on topic, if the RFA is privatised what's to stop the civilian employees from refusing to enter a war zone? Or simply quiting in time of war?
 
B

Bramble

New Member
ngatimozart said:
Would be the biggest balls up since Dunkirk, as well as a logistic and security nightmare. I can also see problems with foreign nationals crewing RFA vessels in war zones. They can jump ship and the Brits won't be able to do anything about it. Pretty short sighted policy IF the story is factual. Mind you the UK MOD is not renown for its common sense or logic.
Click to expand...
The article dates from 2009 and was just one of a number of wildly speculative scare stories in the run-up to the 2010 SDSR.

The RFA has its problems, mostly to do with recruiting, but has seen considerable investment of late and appears safe at least in the medium term.
 
Preceptor

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I've noted that members are starting go Off Topic in the RN thread like was occurring in the RNoN thread. This is a (for now) gentle reminder to keep thread discussion On Topic for the specific thread. A RNZN thread and other threads already exist to discuss naval topics relevant to other navies.
-Preceptor
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Bramble said:
The article dates from 2009 and was just one of a number of wildly speculative scare stories in the run-up to the 2010 SDSR.

The RFA has its problems, mostly to do with recruiting, but has seen considerable investment of late and appears safe at least in the medium term.
Click to expand...

crikey, I didn't pick that up when I came across it. Mea culpa
 
K

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
Yep and now only two navies operate ships classified as cruisers. I think that today ships should be defined by mission rather than by tonnage as has happened since the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, because the classifications defined by that treaty are no longer relevant. Battleships and battle cruisers have been deep sixed, cruisers of all types are just about extinct, CVs were limited in size to a max of 27,000 tons apart from 2 hulls each converted from existing capital ships up to a max displacement of 33,000 tons per CV. In todays terms, the CVs are the same tonnages as the RAN Canberra class LHD, or slightly heavier than the new RNZN MSC Aotearoa (full laden gross displacement of 26,000 tonnes). We now have FFGs such as the Type 26 that are of similar tonnage to the Leander class cruisers of WW2 and the Type 45 DDG which is of similar tonnage to the Town class cruisers from the same period. Hence my belief that in the 21st C a ship should be classified by its mission rather than by its displacement.
Click to expand...
The US classifies the Chinese 055 Destroyers as Cruisers, the South Korean Sejong the Great destroyers are also cruisers in all but name.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't that mean you could potentially reclassify The Daring class by the addition of missiles and launchers from a destroyer to a cruiser ? and thats without getting into the comparison values of Aegis to Pams or even the capability of the combat management system .
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Displacement, length, or whatever doesn’t seem to good ways to classify naval ships anymore. As others have commented, perhaps classification needs to based on mission. There may even a need to define new classes with all the innovations occurring now.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Sure its confusing and how do you measure the capacity of its capability in defining its mission designation , could it be self defence ,local or area control , this could come back to quantity of weaponry loadout and sensors capability ,
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
seaspear said:
Sure its confusing and how do you measure the capacity of its capability in defining its mission designation , could it be self defence ,local or area control , this could come back to quantity of weaponry loadout and sensors capability ,
Click to expand...
The USNs original designation of the Belknap class is a great example of confusion, originaly designated as DLG Frigates then changed to Guided Missile Cruisers(CG) in 1975.
.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
seaspear said:
Wouldn't that mean you could potentially reclassify The Daring class by the addition of missiles and launchers from a destroyer to a cruiser ? and thats without getting into the comparison values of Aegis to Pams or even the capability of the combat management system .
Click to expand...
Depends upon how the classification system is defined. What are its parameters? If it's a system that is defined by the mission that a ship is designed to undertake, as long as the criteria are clearly stipulated there should be less confusion than at present. However, the USN has different definitions and criteria for ship classes to that of the RN and some Commonwealth navies who again have different definitions and criteria to other navies, so that is an ongoing problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top