Article

2006-08-26 Down Under

Final Australian Anzac frigate commissioned

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Oztralian 2006-08-26 02:59|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2006-08-26 06:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-08-26 10:43|| Front Page Top

#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">Steve White 2006-08-26 12:13|| 2006-08-26 12:13|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-08-26 14:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-08-26 14:21|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-08-26 16:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-08-26 20:36|| Front Page Top

23:55 tu3031
23:51 CrazyFool
23:50 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:47 flyover
23:41 .com
23:41 RWV
23:41 Barbara Skolaut
23:38 Barbara Skolaut
23:36 Barbara Skolaut
23:30 .com
23:29 Barbara Skolaut
23:26 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:24 Mike
23:14 Zenster
23:10 anymouse
23:05 trailing wife
23:02 anymouse
22:54 trailing wife
22:53 SR-71
22:49 (at) Asymmetrical Triangulation (at)
22:43 Mike
22:36 CrazyFool
22:36 Frank G
22:32 phil_b