| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Final Australian Anzac frigate commissioned |
| 2006-08-26 |
| AUSTRALIA'S eighth and final Anzac frigate built under a plan to upgrade the Royal Australian Navy was commissioned today. HMAS Perth was commissioned at Fremantle this morning and will be deployed within Australian waters and overseas. She is the third RAN ship to bear that name. "We are extremely proud to join the ranks of Australia's fighting elite and will fulfil our duties in the tradition of those who served on Perth I and II before us", Commander Simon Gregg said. HMAS Perth was the 10th Anzac frigate built at Tenix's Melbourne shipyard as part of a $7 billion, 17-year project. Tenix built eight Anzac frigates for the Australian navy and two for New Zealand's navy, handing HMAS Perth over to the RAN in June. Anzacs are 3600 tonne long-range escorts capable of countering simultaneous threats from the air, surface and underwater. They are fitted with radars, omni-directional hull mounted sonar and torpedoes. The ships can travel at speeds faster than 27 knots and have an operational range of more than 6000 nautical miles. Several other Anzac frigates have been deployed in the Persian Gulf as part of Australia's defence activities in the region. |
| Posted by:Oztralian |
| #7 Part of my point was made during the Falklands' War, when light, fast ships proved vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. And missile ships are fine, when your targets are precise and limited. This is why I propose a battleship. It can sit offshore and provide devastating, deep, sledgehammer destruction when that is what you want. An analogy would be to say, "Why would we still want to use B-52 carpet bombing in the age of precision guided bombs?" Sometimes you need a sledgehammer, not an epee. The right tool for the job. I also said that such a battleship would need to have a second, guided missile and AAA ship to protect its airspace. Now, even though a battleship is "old technology", it does not mean that an old ship will do. Thick armor plate could be replaced with much lighter armor. 16" or 18" guns would need a serious upgrade from WWII specs. A major redesign would be in order. One of its major uses would be as a bunker buster. No matter how well a bunker is built, 50 18" rounds accurately put on top of it, in the same hole, is going to leave a mark. A ship like that could have made short shrift of every Hezbollah bunker in Lebanon--keep pounding away until it is done. But if Australia were to build such a ship, it would probably be the only one afloat. There would be little enough justification for its use, except by the US. Think of it as a rent-a-sledgehammer. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-08-26 20:36 |
| #6 I think a real frigate would be better than a BB. Something like the Constitution only made out of Kevlar with super thin sails for a speed in excess of 40 knots. Mounting 48-52 modern 32 pounders it would dominate the seaspace between Port Mosby and Pitcairn Island. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-08-26 16:26 |
| #5 The Australians are building the modern day equivalent of the battleship, 3 Aegis destroyers. They will be slightly smaller with 64 vs 96 VLS cells, though the Aussies may not load them with Tomahawks. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-08-26 14:21 |
| #4 Anonymoose: Battleships look really neat to those people who don't have to man them or (in the case of the older models already extant) maintain them or get the spare parts. Also remember that a lot of battleships didn't do very well in the last war that saw their widespread use. The Japanese lost most of theirs to submarines and/or air attack; the Bismark was crippled by an attack by _biplane_ torpedo bombers and finished off by destroyers. Both with unreliable, unguided torpedoes. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-08-26 14:09 |
| #3 I think a smaller ship fitted with a modern 5" gun and appropriate missile technology makes more sense for them since you could have a substantially smaller crew. But if they insist on a battleship, I'd sell them the Wisconsin or New Jersey for a dollar. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-26 12:13 |
| #2 Oddly enough, the Australians could become a major naval power with just a single ship, and old technology at that. A battleship. That is, thick-hulled with modern heavy armor, and bearing Yamato-class-style 18" guns. Impervious to most naval anti-ship missiles, and accompanied by a guided missile/AAA ship. It's mission would be ideal for Oceania, since most of the continent are islands, the entirety of which would be in coastal gun range. Otherwise, it would fill a tremendous operational gap of the rest of the world's navies; which could make Australia an essential partner in many endeavors. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-08-26 10:43 |
| #1 Despite some of New Zealand's chiropterae lunae tendencies, I'm still quite happy to see that ANZAC has kept stride with NATO in terms of longevity. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-26 06:26 |