Pointblank
Senior Member
The Asian ships are often a lot bigger. Also, European ships typically operate under the cover of their own respective air forces or carrier based aviation, which can negate some of the requirements for a heavy SAM battery.
Surface Warfare Thread
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
The Asian ships are often a lot bigger. Also, European ships typically operate under the cover of their own respective air forces or carrier based aviation, which can negate some of the requirements for a heavy SAM battery.
JMSDF, South Korea Navy, and the PLAN also operate within the cover of their own air forces.
Tasman
Junior Member
The European navies seem to think that 32-48 VLS cells are sufficient for any conflicts they are likely to be involved in. In Asia the chances of massed air and missile attack may be perceived to be greater, therefore requiring more SAM's.
In Australia's case the choice of a European design was largely to do with cost and manpower requirements. The RAN was keen on a larger number of VLS cells. It favoured an evolved version of the Arleigh Burke with 64 VLS cells as standard and the capacity for another 16 as an option but was over ruled by the government on the advice of the Defence Department.
Tas
In Australia's case the choice of a European design was largely to do with cost and manpower requirements. The RAN was keen on a larger number of VLS cells. It favoured an evolved version of the Arleigh Burke with 64 VLS cells as standard and the capacity for another 16 as an option but was over ruled by the government on the advice of the Defence Department.
Tas
Last edited:
Because these ships are considered frigates, or oversized frigates?
Because these ships are fairly big destroyers, 'cept for the 052C, which is kind of compact for a ship with such systems. However the SAMs on the 052C is rather big, an HQ-9 is roughly similar to an S-300.
The term Frigate in European navies are more political. Germany named the F-124 as frigates because "it sounds less aggressive than destroyers".
In France, all their surface combatants are now named as frigates that are further classed as Frigate first class, Frigate second class, etc (like the old sailing warship days)
Nice comparison between the Burke derivative and F100. The Burke design is actuall less manning intensive than the F-100.
It also helped to see what the finish product would look like in your harbor.
Last edited:
Tasman
Junior Member
Until the visit of the Spanish ship to Australia the F100 design was given no chance of winning the competition against the G&C Evolved Design (Burke derivative). G&C was clearly the preferred design by the navy. The RAN would actually have liked the baseline Arleigh Burke but wanted a drastic reduction in crew numbers. The F100 was included because government policy requires an off the shelf alternative to be considered in any major defence contract. Navantia did really well to convince the Australian Government that it offered the best value for money. It is believed that the deal will enable a fourth ship to be acquired which will offset the reduced number of VLS cells off the F100 when compared with the Evolved Design. The F100 was also available for delivery several years earlier than its rival.
Tas
Of course, quite the opposite of Japan where everything is a destroyer, even smaller ships that would be considered frigates.
At least the RN has a logical system for differentiating between Destroyers and Frigates, Destroyers are ocean going escorts that are capable of carrying area defence missiles for task group protection whilst Frigates are ocean going escorts that are primarily for ASW with only point defence AA missile systems.
The only problem wiht the RN's classification system is that you will have instances where Frigates may be larger than Destroyers.
The Type 22s are already bigger than the Type 42s, as I said, the basis for differentiation isn't size but role, which is more important than simple tonnage comparisons. A task force commander needs to know what the ships available to him can do rather than how big they are. The type 42s were however designed around the same time that the last Leander class were in production and the type 21s were on the drawing board. The type 22s should have been contemporary with the type 44 'double ender' Sea Dart armed destroyers, which would have maintained the size distinction at least but they were cancelled. The type 45s restore the size differential for the present.