Other Navies: A New Measure of Naval Forces

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

► Antisubmarine torpedoes: four Mk 32 tubes in the superstructure of both ships for Mk 46 Mod 5 torpedoes.

> Antisubmarine helicopter: both frigates have facilities for a large helicopter. The Canadian ship now has a CH-124 Sea King embarked. The ship was intended to operate the British-Italian developed EH101 Merlin, but Canada has with­drawn from that program. Possible suc­cessors still could include the EH101, the NATO NH90, or even the U.S. SH-60B Seahawk LAMPS III. The Dutch ship now flies the Lynx antisubmarine heli­copter; in the future she will operate the NH90, developed by a consortium of four NATO nations.

Sensors and electronic warfare equip­ment are also similar in the two frigates. The Dutch ship's PHS-36 hull-mounted sonar is in the more favorable bow posi­tion; the Canadian ship’s SQS-505(V)6 is fitted under the hull. The ships have a towed array, the DUBV-61 mod and the SQR-501 CANTASS, respectively.3

The major differences between the two frigates are their size and the de­gree of automation. Although similar in basic design, weapons, and sensor pay­load, the Karel Doorman has a full-load displacement of only 3,350 tons com-

prigates have become the major war­ship of many of the world’s navies. At |he same time, the U.S. Navy is dis­posing of virtually all frigates, a warship °ng believed to be critical for open-ocean operations in the face of Soviet subma­rine and air threats to allied shipping.

. U-S. frigate strength reached its peak 'n the late 1980s, with 115 ships in com- ITllssion in the active fleet and Naval Re- ^efve Force. Today, about 50 of the Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class fly tae U.S. flag. This number is scheduled to decline to 16 ships—all manned by composite active-reserve crews under the aegis of the Naval Reserve Force. With Probable budget limitations during the re­mainder of this decade, however, it is un- ■kely that even that number of frigates c°uld be retained unless considerable con­cessional pressure is brought to bear.

But several nations also are offering ligates for sale—both new and used. In­

building Ltd. in New Brunswick. The Karel Doorman is the first of her class of eight ships, having been completed in 1991 at the Royal Schelde Shipyard in Vlissingen, the Netherlands.

The ships are similar in design and both have the “standard” weapons suite for a modem Western frigate:

> Major deck gun: the 76-mm OTO Melara in the Karel Doorman and a 57­mm Bofors in the Fredericton.

> Close-in gun system: the 30-mm Goal­keeper in the Karel Doorman and the Phalanx 20-mm in the Fredericton.

> Light guns: six .50-caliber machine guns in the Canadian ship and two 20­mm cannon in the Dutch frigate.

> Surface-to-air missiles: each ship has 16 vertical-launch NATO Sea Sparrow missiles. (The Canadian ship was to have carried 12 Sea Sparrow reloads, but they will not be provided.)

> Antiship missiles: eight Harpoons.

The Fredericton

F

deed, frigates are being built at a faster rate outside the United States than any -her type of surface warship. In 1993, ' ligates were launched worldwide compared to 3 destroyers, 7 corvettes and arge missile craft, and 11 minesweep- ®rs/' Add to this the transfers of U.S. and British frigates to other countries, and it

ls clear that most navies will have frigates as their principal surface combatants by Bte end of this decade.

Proceedings editors recently had an Opportunity to visit two of the newest tr'gate designs, the Canadian Frederic- t(>n and the Dutch Karel Doorman. The Predericton is the seventh of the 12 ships °f the Halifax or “City” class. She was completed this year at St. John’s Ship­

roceedings / August 1994

tt One helicopter per ship except two in the Perry class.

: Gas Turbine. ttfNot being provided

tlncludes helicopter personnel, for fiscal reasons

pared with 4,750 tons for the Frederic­ton. The Dutch ship has a second diesel engine but otherwise the combination diesel or gas turbine (CODOG) plants are similar, with about a one knot differ­ence in speeds—30 knots for the Karel Doorman and 29 for the Fredericton.

The smaller Dutch ship was designed from the outset for a small crew—initially 85 men and women—and has a very high degree of automation. The crew size has grown (see Table 1), but the manning level is still remarkably low; when in transit, the Karel Doorman is manned by only three watchstanders—an officer of the watch and helmsman on the bridge and a petty officer of the watch in the en­gineering control spaces. In contrast, the Fredericton has at least seven or eight men on the bridge during normal steam­ing, although we are told it is “possible” to man the bridge with only four peo­ple. A tour of the two ships’ operations, damage and engineering control, and other spaces reveals a generally higher degree of automation in the Dutch ship.

Externally, the ships are similar in ap­pearance, with the Fredericton having a lattice main mast supporting her smaller radars, the ship’s AN/SPS-49 long-range radar antenna being mounted above the bridge while the Karel Doorman has a solid mast with her LW08 long-range radar at the forward end of the helicopter hangar. Both ships have angled super­structures to reduce radar reflections and devices to lessen infrared (IR) signatures from their large exhaust funnels. How­ever, the vast numbers of antennas, their railings and close-in gun mounts, and

even foot rails (to help sailors paint and clean) reduce the effectiveness of these stealth measures. The warships are fitted with chaff/IR decoys and have electronic countermeasures equipment, including the U.S. AN/SLQ-25 Nixie towed torpedo countermeasures.

Both frigates also have the Prairie Masker System for reducing certain acoustic signatures; however, the Cana­dian ship does not use it because of na­tional environmental concerns that some oil from the system enters the water.

Internally, the ships have spacious ac­commodations and working spaces. The large combat direction centers have sim­ilar arrangements, most notably the use of standard display consoles that can be switched quickly from one sensor or warfare area to another. The Canadian ship employs a darkened combat center; the Karel Doorman’s is a near-daylight environment.

Accommodations provide a high de­gree of privacy and hence simplify women serving on board. Although nei­ther of the ships visited now has women assigned, other ships of their respective classes do have female crewmembers. Galley facilities and the commanding of­ficers’ staterooms are indicative of a larger warship than a traditional frigate.

The spacious interior arrangements are possible, in part, because of the ships’ broad beams, which enhance seakeeping. Neither ship has active stabilization de­vices, although the Karel Doorman is fit­ted with twin active rudders, offset 20° from the vertical, which operate contin­uously to enhance stabilization. The Fred­

ericton has a large singk rudder.

These ships establish the standard for future Western frigates. An even heavier ar­mament could be fitted in a smaller warship, as demon­strated by the Israeli Sa’ar V missile corvettes, but the frigates offer significantly greater operating range and a larger helicopter capability’ both important features f°r NATO frigates that operate on the open oceans as well as in coastal areas.

Also, all of these ships lack the longer-range surface-to- air missile launchers the U.S. Oliver Hazard PefD class (Mk 13 launcher f°r Harpoon and Standard-Mk missiles), which provides a limited area air-defense capa­bility. Most navies have gone over to enhanced ship-defense systems (active and passive), which require a larger war­ship, as evidenced in Table 1.

The increasing emphasis on frigates in the world’s navies reflects the procure­ment and operating costs of cruisers and destroyers. Indeed, today only four na­tion’s navies have warships rated as cruis­ers—Italy (2 ships), Peru (1), Russia (ap­proximately 20), and the United States (37).3 The cruiser category, however, should include some French ships previ­ously rated as frigates and the new Japan­ese /(ongo-class destroyers fitted with the U.S.-developed Aegis air defense system- Regardless, today there are few cruiser navies. Twenty-six navies currently op­erate destroyers—although several of these ships are outdated and undoubtedly will be replaced by the end of the decade by frigates. Fifty-four navies have frigates. That number probably will not increase, for as several navies “step down” from cruisers and destroyers to frigates, other navies now operating out­dated frigates will replace them with guided-missile corvettes or even smallef missile craft. Still, the lowly frigate, his­torically a second- or third-rate warship intended for patrol and convoy escort functions, is gaining a new significance-

'RAdm. Edward D. Sheafer, Jr., USN, Director of Naval Intelligence, “Posture Statement,” June 1994. ’The Canadian towed array sonar system uses the “wet end” of the U.S. AN/SQR-19A TACTASS. ’The U.S. cruiser force will be reduced by the end of the decade to the 27 ships of the Ticonderoga (CG-47) class.

Author’s Note: The author is in debt to Scott Belliveau for his observations on the Dutch and Canadian frigates.