I think these are best new generation frigates being built or were built in the near past.
Type-45 , Horizon class, F124 class, Formidable class, DE ZEVEN PROVINCIEN class, ANzac, Ticonderoga, ARLEIGH BURKE class .
By looking at all these frigate designs and weapon suites , I find that the anti-air warfare suites have been progressively updated in every class being built.
Whereas the Anti-submarine warfare suites have not been so updated. Atlas Elektronik DSQS-24C is used by PROVINCIEN class and F124 class.
Nearly all the these ships carry bow mounted medium frequency sonars and 324mm short range torpedoes.
Whereas all the ships carry multiple types of SAM’s and different anti-air sensor suites.
I point i dont understand is why are all these different anti-air frigates being developed , who are they supposed to protect against.
for example the german, Italian, and spanish will hardly face an enemy who will have the capacity to launch a huge airborne anti-ship attack.
Lets divide the countries into two blocks and potencial enemies or
USA, Britian, Germany, France, Italy, spain, Australia, etc.
Iran, libya, north korea and i cant think of many other countries who the european powers are gonna fight.
and Iran, libya, and north korea can not launch any mass air attacks and anyways all the european ships will be under Allied air cover, F-18E/F, Rafales , JSF’s etc.
With whom do the European powers expect to fight. Do these powers expect to fight China, India, Russia or any other big one.
I expected European navies to put multiple LACM and some heavy Guns to bomb the shores not tons of SAM’s on thier ships.
I am contemplating about the purpose.
By: wd1 - 14th February 2006 at 09:05
don’t forget that the brits, french, spanish, germans, italians, dutch, aussies, americans and singaporeans are continuing to invest heavily in their SSN/K fleets! after all, the best defense against a submarine is another submarine.
there is also a general trend of improving ASW helicopter fleets.
it’s not like the Cold War times when the soviets would flood the atlantic with hordes of foxtrots charlies victors and oscars and NATO needed big ASW surface fleets to counter that.
By: FAR - 13th February 2006 at 19:43
In Some way i feel that,
NATO is nearly moving all the anti-sub responsibilty to the Air borne fleet like PC-3 orion
I dont know how capable is airborne asset compared with a Ship based solution.
And that too Uk has lost a lot of its airborne assets. France infact deploys a better airborne anti-submarine force than UK.
France has a better airborne ASW force than UK? Please can you justify this statement.
By: legolas - 12th February 2006 at 21:15
ya i did forget about the Fridtjof Nansen class. It is listed that they still retain the capacity to fire depth charges.
Are there any new generation Ships which carry depth charges.
By: Arabella-Cox - 12th February 2006 at 19:48
I think it is strange that you include the Formidable class and Anzac, but not the Fridtjof Nansen class. These will also be excellent ASW vessels.
By: legolas - 12th February 2006 at 19:19
In Some way i feel that,
NATO is nearly moving all the anti-sub responsibilty to the Air borne fleet like PC-3 orion
I dont know how capable is airborne asset compared with a Ship based solution.
And that too Uk has lost a lot of its airborne assets. France infact deploys a better airborne anti-submarine force than UK.
By: legolas - 12th February 2006 at 19:09
Countries like USA, Britain and to a lesser extent France with an amphibious warfare capability definately need AAW defence of that capability against all airbourne threats.
I understand coutries with amphibious capabilties need AAW defence. But the amphibious capability of all these nations has been eroding rapidly.
Also NATO has so many carrier, I dont even imagine a small ship or Fighter any where near any NATO ship.
But imfact the somali navy can launch a torpedo from a old cranky Kilo, which sneeks into the screen.
Iraq was a different case , nearly all other potencial rivals will deploy atleast one or two subs
By: Super Nimrod - 12th February 2006 at 08:35
Countries like USA, Britain and to a lesser extent France with an amphibious warfare capability definately need AAW defence of that capability against all airbourne threats.
By: sealordlawrence - 12th February 2006 at 01:53
My opinion, AAW ships were the ones most in need of replacement in the last few years, the cold war re-eqipment cycles being responsible for this. But you are right there is a general theme towards stronger AAW defences, I believe this is down to a fear of land or small boat based ASuW missile being deployed when ships are on power projection missions. If a major warship was sunck by a somalian firing a an old Soviet missile (a purely hypothetical scenario) there would be a massive political storm.
I also think there is a further political reason, more VLS cells and more missiles look like more of an improvement, whereas a new Sonar that knowbody sees dosnt appear to be as bigger improvement as it actually is, Thus it is easier to extract AAW equipment from the Bean Counters than it is ASW gear.
Just my 2 cence.
Sign In
February 12, 2006 at 1:20 am