Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Retire old frigate and corvettes
Topic Started: Oct 23 2009, 04:32 AM (2,683 Views)
pachador


Actually, the old naming convention used by the PN is copied from the USN naming convention. for example, the BRP humabon was a Destroyer escort , while the AUK class were fleet minesweepers

Starting in the late 1990s, the PN have also partially used their own local naming convention to adjust to the reality of her fleet. for example, the AUK class(quezon and Rizal) and the BRP humabon(DE) have all been referred to as Minesweeping frigates. In the case of the Humabon this is more accurate or descriptive because the humabon does not carry any anti-sub weapons anymore but since she is still heavily armed with guns, she can be referred to as a frigate although that is a stretch....Other western sources refer to the Humabon as a "light Frigate".... IMHO, If we compare the humabon to modern warships, its best to describe her now as an OPV albeit a heavily-armed OPV or if we want to be stingy with this ship, we can call her a "heavily -armed fisheries patrol vessel"...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MSantor
Member Avatar

PDFF Mod Group
pachador
Oct 27 2009, 04:45 AM
Actually, the old naming convention used by the PN is copied from the USN naming convention. for example, the BRP humabon was a Destroyer escort , while the AUK class were fleet minesweepers

Starting in the late 1990s, the PN have also partially used their own local naming convention to adjust to the reality of her fleet. for example, the AUK class(quezon and Rizal) and the BRP humabon(DE) have all been referred to as Minesweeping frigates. In the case of the Humabon this is more accurate or descriptive because the humabon does not carry any anti-sub weapons anymore but since she is still heavily armed with guns, she can be referred to as a frigate although that is a stretch....Other western sources refer to the Humabon as a "light Frigate".... IMHO, If we compare the humabon to modern warships, its best to describe her now as an OPV albeit a heavily-armed OPV or if we want to be stingy with this ship, we can call her a "heavily -armed fisheries patrol vessel"...

When it comes to "Frigates" in the USN/RN/RCN/RAN/RNZN or talking about Western navies in general. Yes and No.

The Frigates were smaller than Destroyer Escorts or even their equivalent during World War II and before that. So you can't really say that Rajah Humabon is a "Light Frigate".

It is only because of the increased emphasis of ASW during the Cold War and the heavy punch given by guided anti-ship missiles, that made the Frigate gradually evolve to become more important fleet units that are the equal of Destroyers.

Today's modern Frigates (FF or FFG if it has guided missiles), such as the O.H. Perry Class are just sometimes the same size as or even larger than older Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts (DEs), but before that Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts were always larger than frigates.

For example, the RN's River class Frigates were larger than Flower class Corvettes, but smaller than most destroyers of the Second World War such as the Fletcher class.

Shown below was the pecking order during World War II and before:

(Highest to Lowest)

Fleet aircraft carriers (CV)---(later evolved to CVA/CVS/CVN)

Light Carriers(CVL)/Escort Aircraft Carriers(CVE) ->

Battleships (BB)->

Battlecruisers (BC)->

Heavy Cruisers (CA)->

Light cruisers(CL)->

Destroyers(DDs)/Destroyer Minelayers (DMS)->

Destroyer Escorts (DEs)->

Frigates(FF)->

Corvettes/Subchasers->

(*Submarines)

Gunboats/Monitors/Patrol Boats/Minesweepers/Minelayers->

Naval Auxiliaries (ex. amphibious assault ships, transports, armed merchantmen, seaplane carriers, submarine tenders, oilers, ammunition ships, repair ships, tugs)

Go your local library/bookstore and get a copy of Janes' Fighting Ships of World War II in order to confirm what I said above. Or just brush up on your naval history.
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford

"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill


"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"- Gen. George S. Patton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pachador


i am aware of the international naming conventions as well as the pecking order. What i was trying to convey or emphasize more is that whether we agree or not, the PN have their own naming convention that may or may not be in use elsewhere in the world. this started towards the late 1990s to early 2000s. its the PN , and not me that specifically designated the Rizal, quezon and humabon as minesweeping frigates.

the light frigate designation while not used by the PN for the humabon is what is used in some western sites such as http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/asiapac/philip.htm

again, i understand that the above examples do not agree with conventional naval naming conventions, but then , whether we agree or not, the PN is the one that actually uses the designation "minesweeping frigate" for the quezon, rizal and humabon.



MSantor
Oct 27 2009, 10:52 AM
pachador
Oct 27 2009, 04:45 AM
Actually, the old naming convention used by the PN is copied from the USN naming convention. for example, the BRP humabon was a Destroyer escort , while the AUK class were fleet minesweepers

Starting in the late 1990s, the PN have also partially used their own local naming convention to adjust to the reality of her fleet. for example, the AUK class(quezon and Rizal) and the BRP humabon(DE) have all been referred to as Minesweeping frigates. In the case of the Humabon this is more accurate or descriptive because the humabon does not carry any anti-sub weapons anymore but since she is still heavily armed with guns, she can be referred to as a frigate although that is a stretch....Other western sources refer to the Humabon as a "light Frigate".... IMHO, If we compare the humabon to modern warships, its best to describe her now as an OPV albeit a heavily-armed OPV or if we want to be stingy with this ship, we can call her a "heavily -armed fisheries patrol vessel"...

When it comes to "Frigates" in the USN/RN/RCN/RAN/RNZN or talking about Western navies in general. Yes and No.

The Frigates were smaller than Destroyer Escorts or even their equivalent during World War II and before that. So you can't really say that Rajah Humabon is a "Light Frigate".

It is only because of the increased emphasis of ASW during the Cold War and the heavy punch given by guided anti-ship missiles, that made the Frigate gradually evolve to become more important fleet units that are the equal of Destroyers.

Today's modern Frigates (FF or FFG if it has guided missiles), such as the O.H. Perry Class are just sometimes the same size as or even larger than older Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts (DEs), but before that Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts were always larger than frigates.

For example, the RN's River class Frigates were larger than Flower class Corvettes, but smaller than most destroyers of the Second World War such as the Fletcher class.

Shown below was the pecking order during World War II and before:

(Highest to Lowest)

Fleet aircraft carriers (CV)---(later evolved to CVA/CVS/CVN)

Light Carriers(CVL)/Escort Aircraft Carriers(CVE) ->

Battleships (BB)->

Battlecruisers (BC)->

Heavy Cruisers (CA)->

Light cruisers(CL)->

Destroyers(DDs)/Destroyer Minelayers (DMS)->

Destroyer Escorts (DEs)->

Frigates(FF)->

Corvettes/Subchasers->

(*Submarines)

Gunboats/Monitors/Patrol Boats/Minesweepers/Minelayers->

Naval Auxiliaries (ex. amphibious assault ships, transports, armed merchantmen, seaplane carriers, submarine tenders, oilers, ammunition ships, repair ships, tugs)

Go your local library/bookstore and get a copy of Janes' Fighting Ships of World War II in order to confirm what I said above. Or just brush up on your naval history.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


i guess the only reason why those World War II assets are still being maintained by the Navy despite the fact that it costs a lot of money to operate and maintain those "museum-piece" ship (frankly speaking, other military forces and even rebels and pirates are laughing at this fact about most of Philippine Navy's assets) is because they have no other choice but to stick to them.

it's more about the Filipino "pwede na yan" attitude that i see as a deterrent to this whole idea of the Navy owning brand-new ships (and the AFP, as a whole, owning, at least, modern but very modest weapons and equipment such as aircraft, assault rifles, etc.). for instance, if the head of the Navy thinks that, "eh pwede pa naman yang bulok na BRP Rajah Humabon kahit halos 65 years old na yun so bakit pa tayo bibili ng bagong barko?" remove that "pwede na yan" attitude within the Navy and the AFP, as a whole, and you will see the Navy and the AFP having more modern weapons and equipment.

one more thing that is deterring the Navy and the rest of AFP from making a transition towards becoming a modern and RESPECTABLE military force- extreme corruption within the government, the military and the private sector.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vermonter
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Wow, it's amazing that you guys mentioned Jane's Fighting Ships. I provide data for them too. If you look at the 1997 edition, some of my work can be seen in the Frank S Besson class section of the Philippine Navy.

Anyhow, what do you think? Should the Fil Navy retire these old corvettes and frigate before new replacement surface combat ships can be acquired?

:armyeek:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Yup but its wishful thinking right now. Would love to see some new vessels sporting similar arrays such as our old ships to blow away those pirates instead of using missiles. Should give those a serious lesson. Although the majority should be of modern design and weaponry.

Command is about authority, about appointment to a position. Effective leadership is different. It must be learned and practiced in order for it to rise to the level of art. You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You can certainly command without that sense of commitment but you cannot lead without it; and without leadership, command is a hollow experience. .. a vacuum often filled with mistrust and ignorance.

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lorenz_Mallari
Member Avatar
Frustrated Airsoft Player
[ *  *  * ]
Vermonter
Oct 23 2009, 04:32 AM
Do you guys think that the PN should retire its old antiquated frigate and corvettes? Woulnd'nt the money maintaining these vessels be better invested in the newer and faster patrol vessels and hopefully a future large patrol ship?

seriously mate, we dont have frigates :nono:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blue Maxxx
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Yes! Yes! The Philippine Navy should retire all its old World War 2 Ships of that Era, Buy new ones instead, I mean a very new Stealth Frigate will do.. :thumb:
Per Ardua ad Astra "Through Adversity to the Stars"! We Filipinos should always aim High! to the Stars! and Beyond them blue yonder!.
Posted Image





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
:P Malabo mangyari na makabili agad ng mga pamalit ang PN. What would be more practical is to study those old designs and come up with ideas and funding to produce modern replacements.

Pero tama ang comment that it would be impractical for us to retire even our old vessels dahil who will patrol the areas they are covering now. Mas practical to fix them up as best as we could, modernize it as best we could and find a worthy replacement for them as soon as possible.
Command is about authority, about appointment to a position. Effective leadership is different. It must be learned and practiced in order for it to rise to the level of art. You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You can certainly command without that sense of commitment but you cannot lead without it; and without leadership, command is a hollow experience. .. a vacuum often filled with mistrust and ignorance.

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blue Maxxx
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Well Yeah, it can be practical to retain the Peacock Class Corvettes and get rid of all the World War two vessels and buy new ones that will help the 3 remaining PCCs to patrol our waters I mean buying the Greek built Roussen Class Fast Attack Missile Craft! A naval squadrons of these vessels would do great! for the Philippine Navy..
Posted Image

Posted Image :thumb: :armycool: :ssalute:
Per Ardua ad Astra "Through Adversity to the Stars"! We Filipinos should always aim High! to the Stars! and Beyond them blue yonder!.
Posted Image





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic »
Add Reply