Jump to content

Talk:Anzac-class frigate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avsim (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 29 June 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cost

I think the cost should be mentioned. I heard on Deutsche Welle radio that the deal to germany was worth 1bio NZ$ PER SHIP at the time the decision was made by Tizard. As the VERY SAME TIME on New Zealand radio they first told us 350mio NZD, then 450, then 650... and then we stopped counting. Most people were opposed, it was rammed down our thoats with no proper consultation. Why protect Australian economic imperialism? There is a Westpac Bank in most pacific islands, determining the local money supply / undermining sovereignty, leading to conflicts and murder as we have seen in Solomons, PNG and a few other places. 124.197.26.162 09:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not even gonna touch this one... The Bryce (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

124.197.26.162, this is about the ANZAC Class Frigate, not about Australia's 'rampant neo-colonialism and post-imperial occupation of totally peaceful, not-at-all-in-a-state-of-anarchy-and-political-corruption Pacific island nations.' Tell it to your Political Science uni lecturer if you have to get it off your chest. Ebglider91 (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand frigates

This section needs some NPOVing, particularly in regards to the attitudes of Australian defence officials. As I understand it, the view that the New Zealand defence force should basically become a unit of the Australian one in the event of direct attack is based on geography; unless you're the United States and can sail a carrier battle group straight across the Pacific, the only way to attack New Zealand is through Australian and south Pacific waters, in which Australia is the dominant military power. Hence, Australia is defending New Zealand anyway, so New Zealand should chip in and contribute with some military muscle of their own.

Personally, I can see a reasonable argument that New Zealand is in one of the most benign strategic environments on Earth, so why waste their money on an unnecessary military, but I think the characterisation of the Australian defence view is a little unfair.

In any case, unless this can be sourced a little better it should be severely pruned. --Robert Merkel 11:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, there may be some POV in the article - defensive POV from Australians as well, regarding the cumbersome use of pressure to sell the frigates which backfired. There is also much POV in the above comment that illustrates the unproductive Australain approach that marred the frigate transaction - to give a Kiwi POV back, there seemed to be a belief that New Zealand's main defence concern is invasion, when all New Zealand actions since the 1860s have been fought outside Australasia, and usually a long way outside, a belief that any invasion threat would be the threat to Australia, (when all parties have always conducted defence at a rather greater distance than just Australia and involving rather more allies than just Australia), a belief that any threat to Australia was a threat to New Zealand, (when New Zealand enjoys more amicable relations with much of the planet - the feeling at the time was that association with Australia's foreign and defence policy can easily be a liability likely to provoke attack, rather than defend against it - and after Howards spineless behaviour over the tragic farce of WMD and Iraq, I have to agree there is something to that argument), and even if all of those problems are forgotten and our main defence concern was some non-exisentent short range south East Asian invasion force coming after NZ, there seems to be a willingness to overlook the possibility of using an island as a stepping stone instead of Australia. Look closer at that map - the nearest nation to New Zealand is France.  :-).

In fact there is no reason to assume command of NZ forces will be passed to Australia - rather than, when it has happened in the past to the UK, US, or UN - really only in Timor has NZ worked under Australia - and the only reason for equipment commonality is because we may work together because we tend to have similar views and interests - like East Timor - but given that Australia is, on the world stage - almost as insignificant as NZ, commonlity with the majority of likely allies in Europe or the US is just more practical, just because there will probably be more of them round in any conflict.

Consequently an Australian expressing a view that New Zealand's prime defence goal should be to become a part of Australias defence force, is considered by the NZ public to be um, not only arrogantly daft but self defeating. (I remember hearing a satarist suggest that since New Zealand is a more defensible size than Australia, and is far more inhabitable, all Australian defence thinking should be about how to defend New Zealand after the hopelessly large desert island to our North West is inevitably overun :-).

Certainly as it has been presented in the media in New Zealand, Australian politicans were shown undertaking frankly bullying activity to sell vessels that were vastly more expensive than other options (US near new more capable bargin basement surplus frigates). Of course this media coverage was probably biased to trying to manufacture a scandal - but having seen Australian media portrayal of NZ defence in Melbourne, the Aussie media were certainly not unwilling to let facts get in the way of simplistic Kiwi bashing on defence.

The best that could be said about it is the Australian sales pitch was so heavy handed and short on research it provoked a media and public reaction that made it politically impossible for mainstream New Zealand political parties to purchase a third or fourth ANZAC frigate. (Incidentally once we were stuck with them I would have favoured getting a third frigate - never mind).

My wasn't that a long rant :-) Winstonwolfe 10:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation attempt

Hi, I've added a reference to a RAN page which contains the same information -- my first attempt to add a reference, so go easy. Let me know if it's not OK. Kierenj 09:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual flaws

New Zealand's SH-2Gs and Australia's are oversimplified here. Australia is heavily rebuilding its SH-2Gs to a new standard, not merely using second-hand aircraft.

Also discussion of Green Party policy in the late 1980s is problematic. Opposition came from multiple parties especially Labour. Labour was opposed to the frigates full stop.

There are three phases: 1996/1997 defence review - decision to move to a 3-frigate fleet (possibly third to be a Perry-class ship from Aus) 1998 - decision to delay the third Anzac (Winston's revenge!) 2001 - decision not to get a third frigate but get the MRV etc.

Zhivana 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

The speed is given as 27 knots. That is the official speed, as listed on NZ and Australian websites. However, it is wrong. I visited one of the New Zealand frigates (I'm a journalist) just after it was commissioned, and a crew member told me it could hit 45 knots at "sprint" speed. It's standard practice for the military to under-state the capabilities of their hardware, for obvious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should stick with the official speed, but I'm sure you're right. The Bryce (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of stories are circulated about every ship - I've seen claims that USS Enterprise (CVN-65) can outpace her helicopters! However, they're usually 'sea stories' made up by sailors. It defies belief that the Anzacs can sail 20 knots faster than their public speed - if this was the case it would be aparant to naval experts who would have ridiculed the figures and forced them to be corrected (the power of the ships engines is well known, as is the design of their hulls). The Anzacs are general purpose frigates, not high performance ships. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who told me the frigate hit 45 knots was a "stoker" (engine-room worker). He told me that directly, while I was standing in the engine room with him. 45 knots is fast, but not incredibly so. Even World War II destroyers could do 35 knots or more. Do you seriously believe the modern Anzac frigates are 6 knots slower than WWII destroyers? Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe that an Anzac's standard cruising speed (which the figure in the infobox is meant to represent) is approx 27 knots. I can also believe that the ship would be capable of greater speeds for short periods of time. I do not believe that ship of 3,600 tons displacement can move through water at just short of ninety kilometres per hour. I can also believe that WWII destroyers, which on average dispaced half the weight of the Anzacs, were faster that these frigates.
Maybe the stoker was telling you the truth. Its been known to happen. Maybe the stoker was exaggerating or showing off in front of the civvie. That's been known to happen, too. The question is, can you provide any reliable, published sources that corobborate this claim? -- saberwyn 08:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 27 kts is their maximum speed. Modern warships have a cruising speed of between 18 and 20 knots. The Anzacs were built for endurance, not speed. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's quite right. The Anzacs typically cruise using only their two MTU diesel engines. It's only when using the 30,000 horsepower gas turbine that they can break 30 or 40 knots, and then only for short periods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did the ANZACs Replace?

It is perhaps a little unclear what they replaced.

I think it is clear originally they were procured to replace some of the river class, no argument there, which I think an unupgraded ANZAC was a equivalent modern match for. However as time evolved, they certainly replaced the Perth in unit terms (not in quality or function), timings of retirements of the perth class were more or less designed to coincide with commissionings of new ANZACs.

In fact did not the presence of ANZACs coming online enable the Navy to decommission two Adelaides early.

Well I spose 8 units can't replace 6 rivers, 3 perths and 2 adelaides, but it is very confusing.

It would require a ton of cites to prove the theory that I have, but here it is:

3 Adelaides originally ordered were to replace daring class ships 1 extra later cos of Afganistan and a more agressive USSR. 2 extras later to replace a couple of rivers 8 ANZACs to replace 4 rivers and increase numbers to meet the requirement spelt out by dibb in 86 for 16 destroyers/frigates but in actual fact ended up replacing 4 rivers and 3 perths

Thus I wrote replaced perth/rivers in infobox, no corroborating evidence, but neither is the claim they were to exclusively replace the rivers.

Just my view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.142 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-official history 'The Royal Australian Navy. A History' which was edited by David Stevens (the head of the Navy's historical centre) specifically states that the ANZACs weren't the replacement to the DDGs on pages 245 and 272. The ANZAC class was developed to meet the requirements set down by the Dibb Report and seems to have been an attempt to increase the RAN's capabilities by doing more than just replacing the River class on a one-for-one basis. A seperate project to replace the DDGs was planned, but seems to have been dropped: the Hobart class DDGs are to replace the FFGs and it's planned to replace the ANZACs with another class of ships. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do we go by the planning which I think we both sort of agree on, ANZACs replaced rivers plus increased numbers as in Dibb. Or what actually happened where SEA 1400 collapsed and the ANZACs effectively replaced rivers and perths in firing unit terms. The decommissioning of Perths was only done when sufficient ANZACs were available, for most naval missions (not high intensity Anti-Air, not that the Perths were all that suited to that at the end) the ANZACs replaced the Perths as well as rivers.
I think that we should stick to the printed sources, which state that the ANZACs didn't replace the DDGs. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per consensus--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

I'm requesting a page move from "ANZAC" in all caps to "Anzac", because of the reliable sources I've seen, allcaps is not used to refer to these ships. For example, the RAN website lists them as http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Anzac_Class. -- saberwyn 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware it happens, as am I aware of "radar", I was merely remarking that this particular case is interesting, or at least I find it interesting. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to ANZAC Class Frigate

The namesake was the Australia New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC), many sources say Anzac but many also say ANZAC, some with it both ways. http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Anzac_Class uses it both ways http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Anzac_class_frigate also uses it both ways the name should then default to the namesake, the ANZAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CnrFallon (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, for the same reasons I proposed the move from allcaps (ANZAC) to onecap (Anzac) seven months ago. More sources appear to use onecap than allcaps. The RAN webpage mentioned above only uses allcaps once out of five appearances. A general search of the RAN website shows that capital ANZAC is only used as either (1) a holdover from the days when allcaps was used for ship and class name formatting instead of italics or (2) to refer to ANZAC in another context, such as the Corps or the day of rememberance. I can't tell which way the Royal New Zealand Navy leans, because their website uses the allcaps ship name formatting. A search of Google News Australia for Anzac class frigate doesn't seem to lean heavily one way or the other, while a search of Google Books for the same sees both usages, but appears to lean more heavily towards Anzac. -- saberwyn 06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Saberwyn and the above discussion. The ship class is named after the lead ship, which is named HMAS Anzac, and not the WW1 Army unit per-se. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sperry Marine RLG Navigation

I have added the Sperry Marine Dual MK49 RLG SINS to the list of sensors, as well as the data distributin system recently installed. --Tom Allensworth (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anzac-class_frigate&oldid=299382378"