Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

The report starting above:

In this post

and continuing for a total of three posts is an impressive one.

The Germans are making a very serious bid for the SEA 5000 frigates for Australia.

And with these three slides from those fourteen shown above, it is clear to me that they are very serious about getting that business:

the sea 5000 frigates are supposed to replace the ANZACs, right?

I can't help but think an F125 derived frigate would be a bit much for such a requirement.... and this A-400 concept looks like it will be as capable if not more so than their Hobart DDGs, and be at least as large as a Hobart assuming it displaces as much as an F125.

Bltizo said:

the sea 5000 frigates are supposed to replace the ANZACs, right?

I can't help but think an F125 derived frigate would be a bit much for such a requirement...

Click to expand...

May be.

But MEKO is billing it as modular and can arm it as the RAN desires.

They have shown a proposal for the high end...there is nothing that says they could not...for example...only have 32, or even 16 VLS.

I do know that until recently the RAN had been seriously talking about using the AWD hull for the SEA 5000 frigates, and that they recently dropped that line of development.,

There has to be a reason why.

Jeff Head said:

May be.

But MEKO is billing it as modular and can arm it as the RAN desires.

They have shown a proposal for the high end...there is nothing that says they could not...for example...only have 32, or even 16 VLS.

I do know that until recently the RAN had been seriously talking about using the AWD hull for the SEA 5000 frigates, and that they recently dropped that line of development.,

There has to be a reason why.

Click to expand...

I'm more interested in the displacement of Sea 5000 itself... the fact that they were considering the hobart hull before, and that the thyssenkupp presentation explicitly says "analysing what we know of the latest RAN top level requirements... we confirm these drive out a ship of not less than 7000 tons" makes it sound like Sea 5000 actually necessitates a ship of 7000 tons or more... which is well into the weight class of Hobart.

so the fact that RAN is willing to replace their 3600 ton ANZACs with a "frigate" that is almost double its displacement, and is in the same weight class as their newest class of air defence destroyer, is very intriguing and a little confusing.

Bltizo said:

so the fact that RAN is willing to replace their 3600 ton ANZACs with a "frigate" that is almost double its displacement, and is in the same weight class as their newest class of air defence destroyer, is very intriguing and a little confusing.

Click to expand...

Not really -- it's just another week in the ADF clown car.

Personally I hope they do spec things around a 7000-ton high-end frigate. Then when they discover that they can afford a grand total of three Soryus and four frigates the real fun -- i.e. the finger pointing -- can begin.

Bltizo said:

so the fact that RAN is willing to replace their 3600 ton ANZACs with a "frigate" that is almost double its displacement, and is in the same weight class as their newest class of air defence destroyer, is very intriguing and a little confusing

Click to expand...

ignoring Lathe,

In the modern era the traditional lines between ship types Patrol Ship, Coastal Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer,and guided missile cruiser (with Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, battle Cruiser and dreadnought all gone the way of the dodo) have all blurred. Typically today its the systems, armament and role that classify a surface combatants not the weight. The German navy is a fine example most of its "Frigates" would fit nicely as Destroyers, and are used by other navies as such. Its mostly the doctrine and the way that they are deployed that decides there term.

Another example is the US DD21 class which in many ways fits the classic light cruiser more then traditional destroyer. Or the LCS classes which as "Littoral Combat Ships" sound more like Patrol boats or Corvettes yet the final product is far closer to a traditional frigate.
Basically the terms in modern context is more.a term of convenience... Just ask the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force who as we all know classify not one but two helicopter carriers as destroyers.

So calling it a frigate even if it displaces as much as a destroyer is fairly normal.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

ignoring Lathe,

In the modern era the traditional lines between ship types Patrol Ship, Coastal Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer,and guided missile cruiser (with Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, battle Cruiser and dreadnought all gone the way of the dodo) have all blurred. Typically today its the systems, armament and role that classify a surface combatants not the weight. The German navy is a fine example most of its "Frigates" would fit nicely as Destroyers, and are used by other navies as such. Its mostly the doctrine and the way that they are deployed that decides there term.
Another example is the US DD21 class which in many ways fits the classic light cruiser more then traditional destroyer. Or the LCS classes which as "Littoral Combat Ships" sound more like Patrol boats or Corvettes yet the final product is far closer to a traditional frigate.
Basically the terms in modern context is more.a term of convenience... Just ask the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force who as we all know classify not one but two helicopter carriers as destroyers.
So calling it a frigate even if it displaces as much as a destroyer is fairly normal.

Click to expand...

Well, my post was less oriented around what the name of the type of ship it is rather than how large and capable (and expensive) the ship is, and the role of such a ship.

In other words, the fact that they're considering replacing their current relatively "low end" 3600 ton ships with 7000+ ton ships, which are the same as their soon to be "high end" Hobart ships which are also 7000+ ton in displacement, is very confusing.

I mean, it's not without precedent per se because the OHPs/Adelaides were previously the high end of the RAN's surface combatant force and displaced only a few hundred tons more than the ANZACs, however it's still eyebrow-raising that they would consider elevating the entirety of its future surface combatant force to be in the 7000+ ton class.

I would have expected a class of maybe 5000 ton ships to replace the ANZACs and act as the low end to the larger and more capable Hobarts.
But instead, the proposals are coming out with a ship that may be as large and as capable as a Hobart, but to be procured in a large run of 8 rather than 3... and I can't help but wonder if RAN can afford it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Oceanic variant of F-125, i know RAAN want a new heavy FFG, more powerful as F-125 armed with MR SAM, 48 missiles not overloaded, AEGIS like seems, F-125 get a decent armament guns, 2 x RAM but only to short range vs aerial targets for littoral mission, despite all this mission does not prevent to have the other type of weaponry

On the weight issue of the SEA 5000. I somehow exspected the name, 5000, to imply the size / weight of the future vessel. And I think that would make sense for an ocean going, enduring FFG complementing Hobarts / defending the Canberras
ThyssenKrupp's presentation puts the A400 as a development off the F-125 and going into a national and an international (in this case australian) project. With those being rather common and the MKS 180 envisioned at around 5.000t, as I understand it so far, all seems to fit.

I don't know, we shall see. 7.000t for the SEA5000 would indeed be rather dubious.

New EA-18G and C-17