Is the Frigate obsolet?

Was thinking about the RAN's order for 3 (optional 4th) Hobart class destroyers to then be followed by a future frigate and was wondering why Australia is not doing as Canada is planning to do by purchasing a single vessel type?

Seeing as the planned future frigate is said to be just as large as the under construction Hobart class destroyer's I don't see the sense in buying a ship that tend's not to have any decent VLS system.

If I understand it correctly frigates are used primarily for anti sub operations however there main weapon against the sub's tends to be there helicopters. Admittedly the future Tye 26 frigate will have greater VLS capability but just doesn't make sense to me as to why we are not building a single vessel class that could still with out any issue that I can find hunt down submarines and still have a strong VLS ability.. By ordering 2 different types would it not add to the R&D costs compared to a single class having the R&D spread out across a greater number of vessels.

On a side note personally would have preferred a home grown design (Built by a government owned defence industry) but if not that then 12+ Burkes (Flight III maybe?)

Would like to hear your view on the decision by many to still keep ordering 2 different types and classes that a single class can fill.. As well as your view on the fact the Oz government ordered 3 modified F100 class destroyers for $8 billion when they could have gotten 3 larger more heavily armed Burkes for $1 billion less...

 

I'll be happy when i see them! You have a point, but simply put, the different craft will give an increase in ability, especially "peace-time" roles, which, like it or not, many defence forces are realising that peacekeeping and border protection are increasingly what the military are being used for, so training and platforms are being sought for these ops, rather than war fighting...at our peril methinks.

 

I agree that peace keeping and border protection roles dont require a vessel such as a destroyer with a 90+ cell VLS, However does it also require a billion dollar frigate, If anything that more suited to at best a corvette or cutter.

I think those either in the government, Or worst yet in the Navy are still thinking of asset's needed for naval situations long in the past.

Makes me even more worried when there are so many many and big powers starting to get there feet under them and grow in size and ability with there improving economies, To name a few Russia, China, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and the US and while some of the nations I mentioned are our friends is it not prudent to be prepared for the worst case scenario? Ignoring a chance at armed conflict with the US in 20 years is just plain incompetence to me or even relying on them to back us up, With the way US politics are these days always a chance we will be sold out.. the ANZUS treaty be damned.

 

They would not be the first government to prepare for the next war by equipping for the last one. Naval types are more conservative than most branches of the services, so I'm not a bit suprised to hear this.

Sticking to a single type of vessel also makes sure that any problems associated with that type will affect evry unit in the fighting fleet. Different ship classes are meant to cover each others weaknesses and be force multipliers for their strengths. If you look at the use of the Type 42 frigates in the Falklands, you will see what I mean.

We went down the "one class of ship fleet" road with our submarines, and got lumped with the "Collins" class until we could afford to replace them, way down the track. Our government insisted on building them all at once, rather than puytting the first one together, trialling it, and then using the lessons learnt to modify the next ones to come off the production line. Money was the bottom line, and all six of those submarines were rolled off with the same inherant faults, and which affected them ALL, rather than just the one or two.

 

Harsh words my friend...ANZUS born from a family member protecting (partly for their own reasons) a younger brother...We have gone to war with the US ever since...Keeping us war fit. Australia will NEVER fight the US, it makes no sense for either side...we will and have had spats, all families do that, but war?? Nuh. Most militaries, particularly a small one like Australia simply cannot afford to "cover all bases"...so we, via the white paper, decide what and WHO our greatest threats will be in the forceeable future and prepare and spend accordingly...its the only method garuanteeing the maximum protection for ones buck. Indonesia and Malaysia have and will continue to be Australia's greatest "possible opponents" for the forceeable future...We can take New Zealand anytime! : )

 

Volga Boatman, I agree that there is an inherent risk with sticking with a single design and the way they went with the Collins class made a mess of what could have been and still can be a great submarine but while I personally favor a single class that does not mean to say I favor building them all none stop with out trialling for faults. If anything I'm more for building a single vessel to be used as a demonstrator to fix any possible faults then to build the following vessels in batches as has been suggested by one expert for the Collins class replacement.. No need to build all the class in one lot, But rather 3-4 ships in a batch, Would also allow possible improvements to be fitted into a certain batch's production rather then trying to jump it in the middle of construction of the lot.

Also, While I gather you do hold support for the two class system, And Ill admit that also does have merit when there always a chance one class could have faults down the line.. Does that mean you support both a frigate class and a destroyer class.. or would you lean along with me towards 2 destroyer classes? because to me ignoring what I perceive to be a waste of resources and funds in building 2 different classes the frigates are vastly under armed for there size, role and cost. Is it not morel logical if building a larger ship to arm it to it's best capability or if building something that is intended for largely dedicated ASW operations to only build it to a size needed and not think along the lines that its a Big a** ship so it will win against that Chinese sub.... A vessel intended for dedicated ASW operations should not have to be any bigger then the current Anzac class frigates...

And CAC while I agree that chance of war with the US is unlikely, I prefer to be prepared for the worst rather then let it bite me on the a** =) And as for covering all bases, With JORN I think us Aussies might just be able to do that, Even though us blokes down under dont make a big deal about it apperantly the rest of the world is envious. With its capabilities would make good early warning to get the RAAF in the air as well as get ground based missile defenses ready (Not that we have any but I think we should, Why we let the Chinese or Russians dictate if we can have a missile defense to protect us from there Nukes I dont know, Guess they prefer being able to murder millions from a distance rather then having to fight it out on the ground and work for it).

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that a single class, like the forthcoming Zumwalt class Destroyer will be the direction most nations go. Both the Crusier and large Destroyer designs seem to be on the edge of going out of front line service when the Zumwalt comes online in the near future. Just a thought.

Goto:

The Most Technologically Advanced Warship Ever Built | Popular Science

 

Several nations are going that way right now and the US has been that way for a while now, Just frustrated that my own country (Australia) seem's reluctant at best to actualy go that way, When comes to defence related matters and the Oz government seems to always fail.. Either bad choices in quipment, Bad ways of bringing the project to a start and finish and horrible support for Oz designed military equipment which has ment the defence industry in Australia is heavily reliant on imports rather then actually being able to export on a large scale.

 

you also have to remember that the RAN only has a limited number of SEAHAWKS and ORIONS to conduct anti-sub warfare with and even then most of those SEAHAWKS and ORIONS are in bases down south, we get ORIONS up here in Darwin every now and then but other than that if these new Frigates went ahead they might post some up here to close the sub patrol gap

 

With the current government and military leadership I wouldn't put much faith in it, we already have ASW frigates as the Anzac class yet they aren't stationed up in Darwin are they? Getting a replacement for the Anzacs does not mean that they will station them where they should be or field them any differently.. Just the same role to be done by a larger more expensive ship and 50/50 chance of it still being done in such a poor wasteful fashion.

 

I don't beleive the Indonesians pose any risk at all to Australia.

The Indonesian Army could not overcome just on 5,000 baggy assed guerillas in East Timor, so I do not see how they are going to do any better here. Between here and the nearst landmass for concentration of an invasion fleet is approx. 700 miles away. Look at the problems the Allied alliance had crossing just on 30 miles of water for Overlord.

Indonesia would need massive amounts of airpower, a whole generation of new naval vessels, including transport and service shipping built specifically for amphibious warfare. They would also have to train at least 100,000 soldiers to a much higher standard than the average conscript, and equip them far more lavishly than they are at present. Not to mention the cost of such a venture, breaking the national budget that cannot support the people they already have, in addition to paying for damned fool operations like an invasion of the Australian mainland.

For Malaysia, everything above applies to a greater or lesser degree. Add to this that Malays are not exactly the most agressive of soldiers.

I cannot agree that these two countries pose any threat at all to Australia or Australian interests. Mind you, though, any defense of this country had better have a result inside three weeks....thats all the ammunition that we have, and as others have pointed out, we don't have the manufacturing here to sustain a long war effort.

All in all, these two countries are far better off accepting our generous aid packages, getting their soldiers and pilots trained by us, and buying our surplus military equipment at bargain basement prices. Any other foreign policy would be financial and political suicide for the Indonesians or the Malays.

 

While i agree we don't have the manufacturing to sustain a long war, I believe largely due to the faults of successive governments all failing to fix that problem and just letting the ball drop further.

As for Malaysia and Indonesia, I referenced to them not in there current force but there future force which are planned to be expanded both in size and ability with Indonesia to acquire 10 - 14 submarines Minimum by 2024, While even with there future naval forces I don't see either Indonesia or Malaysia being able to seriously endanger Australia these nations combined could, But they were just a small example amongst the back drop of India and China.

I'll agree that a chance of full on war is very unlikely, But if we all went along those lines no nation of earth would have a military, Matter of fact is we prefer to have them and not need them rather then need them and not have them.. And if we are going to have one Id prefer we have one that isnt affected due to poor military leadership, or political bureaucrats making decisions on procurement when they don't know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.

BTW, Sorry for being the one to go off topic slightly on my own thread .