Search this Topic:
Oct 5 14 6:48 AM
Oct 5 14 7:59 AM
Oct 5 14 11:40 AM
Oct 6 14 12:53 AM
Oct 6 14 4:02 AM
Yes, but those numbers are the low - since 1974 there have been, at times, up to 14 destroyers / frigates in the RAN - with most time being spent at 12.
This also shows, however, that even if a modified F123/F124 or enlarged ANZAC design had been chosen, it is almost impossible for there to have been more than 4 built.
Oct 6 14 8:16 AM
Fred the Great wrote:As of October 5, 1974 the RAN had 11 destroyers / frigates and 18 patrol boats (five in the PNG division).
As of October 5, 1994 the RAN had 11 destroyers / frigates and 15 patrol boats.
As of October 5, 2014 the RAN had 12 frigates and 14 patrol boats.
And as of October 5, 2034 the RAN will likely (on current plans) have 11 destroyers / frigates and 12-15 'interim' patrol boats.
Alternative history and future fantasies such as those posted above seem to miss the point that there was, and currently is, no demand for a larger surface fleet.
With regard to the patrol boats, the fact is that the capability requirement for some decades has been to provide X number of patrol days in peacetime (believe it's about 1800 a year, or five at sea at any one time); it's not for deployable corvettes, or fast attack missle boats, it's for patrol boats. They've got bigger over the years, but that's really about it.
I suggest any alternative fleet needs either be kept within the same numbers and requirements, or good reason needs to be given for why more would have, or would be, acquired.
Oct 6 14 8:23 AM
Oct 6 14 9:02 AM
skipper101 wrote:Why would you evolve a F123 frigate instead of evolving a F124 Frigate, and I have to say I am not keen on the missile capacity on the German ships, they might be sufficient for a small NATO navy in the 90's but for an Asia Pacific Navy in the 20 teens and beyond they are a little low spec.
As for an Evolved Anzac, what a crock, the Meko 200 is one of the smaller frigate's in the world, with most being almost half to two thirds larger and is barely acceptable as a patrol frigate, there was never a chance it could have worked for an AAW platform.
As for the OPV / Corvette thing, I am very keen on say 2 dozen Damen 2600 type ships all capable of deploying modular systems for the Hydro Survey, mine warfare and I think some ASW modules would be useful to in addition I would have some RAM Mk II missile in a containerised VLS module to stick on the bow behind the gun and s TRS 3-D radar on the mast this would provide adequate Air Defence assuming they will be in operation range of either a larger ship or the RAAF.
I certainly agree there should be 8 AAW escorts but they should be in 2 batches with the Anzac replacement in between to make the most of new tech advances in Air Defence so in our currant state of affairs I would build a fourth AWD and then 8 AWD Frigate spin off's to replace the Anzac's followed by another 4 AWD's with what ever tech is in used in the late 2020's and early 2030's which would probably include Laser and rail gun system, which given their power requirements could not be back dated into other ships.
Oct 6 14 10:10 AM
Volkodav wrote:The elephant in the room is the RAN operated a light fleet carrier through until the early 80s and was meant to replace it with a helicopter carrier with the facility to operate Harriers at a latter date. Pretty much everyone seems to forget that until Melbourne retired the RAN had organic fixed wing strike, air defence and ASW provided by a carrier (blah blah blah) There was very much a demand for a larger surface fleet (blah blah blah)
Oct 6 14 10:11 AM
Oct 6 14 10:15 AM
Looks like you have fanboy competition Skipper.
Oct 6 14 10:40 AM
Fred the Great wrote:Volkodav wrote:The elephant in the room is the RAN operated a light fleet carrier through until the early 80s and was meant to replace it with a helicopter carrier with the facility to operate Harriers at a latter date. Pretty much everyone seems to forget that until Melbourne retired the RAN had organic fixed wing strike, air defence and ASW provided by a carrier (blah blah blah) There was very much a demand for a larger surface fleet (blah blah blah)
Who forgot that the RAN had a light carrier? I wouldn't call her a light fleet carrier, by the way, but that's neither here nor there.
On the second point, who says? The government of the day ordered two additional FFGs to provide added ASW in lieu of replacing the Melbourne, that's it.
Further, none of this happened overnight; it was very much an ongoing debate.
Oct 6 14 10:49 AM
skipper101 wrote:I certainly think 4 AWD 8 FFG 4 AWD model is preferable as it allows enough time for technology to develop between AWD classes. I would think that with significant numbers of OCV / Corvettes they would need to be built in another yard.
My best ideal scenario for future construction would be for ASC to build 16 Escorts and 16 Submarine's one each year alternating between escorts and submarines over 32 years ie escorts on even years and submarines on odd years.
Having other yards cover the other platforms needed which could include a very slow build rate of Major units at BAE and minor yards to build Corvette / OCV's.
Oct 6 14 10:52 AM
Fred the Great wrote:Looks like you have fanboy competition Skipper.
Oct 6 14 11:06 AM
Volkodav wrote:Not to nit pick but the Majestics where Light Fleet Carriers although as I understand it the RAn had taken to refering to Melbourne as a CVS and it was the same government that ordered FFG 5 and 6 that planned the 8 tier 1 (DDG and eventual FFG replacements), 8 tier 2 (ANZACs) and 12-15 tier 3 (missile corvettes to replace the Fremantles). At the time of Melbournes retirement without replacement there was still an unofficial requirement for a total of ten FFGs to supplement the DDGs and replace the River Class DEs so I really can't see how the order of an additional two FFGs, instead of the previously planned six extra can be seen as a suitable replacement for an carrier. Are you suggesting that Melbourne and her air group were worth minus four FFGs? The only utter nonsense is the fact you seem to think it is ok to take such an condesending tone with another contributor at all but especially without first checking your facts.
Oct 6 14 11:58 AM
Oct 6 14 8:34 PM
Oct 6 14 11:41 PM
Oct 15 14 5:07 PM
Jun 7 15 2:29 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.