Retire old frigate and corvettes

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?

This post has been edited by Vermonter on Oct 25 2009, 06:06 AM

The PN has no "Frigates". Only the Destroyer Escort BRP Rajah Humabon, as well as the few classes of Corvettes (The Peacock, Cyclone/General Alvarez classes, etc.), as well as the various other support and amphibious vessels in its fleet.

Frigates (FF or FFG if it has guided missiles) as well as Destroyers (DD or DDG- usually bigger than Frigates), Destroyer Escorts(DE), and OPVs - while similar to the layman- are all different warship types in naval parlance.

This post has been edited by MSantor on Oct 23 2009, 06:21 AM

Nope. Dapat i-deploy sa Somalia with all our politicians and their lackeys as crew. They should serve there as part of their service to the Filipino people. Para malaman nila gaano kahirap maging mahirap at wala silang choice na tumakas papunta sa lupa doon as we will not pay for their ransom anyway not unless they corrupt the Somalians even further and be part of the pirate gang - okay lang yun that way matanggalan na sila ng Filipino citizenship and maging open game na for anyone. If they can make a positive contribution there bago lang pauuwiin. That way rin ma-realize nila ang need to modernize our existing assets and not just line their pockets.

Kapag nilamon sila ng dagat then good riddance.

Pero tama si Sir MSantor. Wala talaga tayong Frigate class. Kuno lang yun. Kapag naahon na yun Musashi then we can have an instant battleship kahit pang display lang for tourist attraction.

This post has been edited by City Hunter on Oct 23 2009, 11:54 AM

I suggest that they should be converted to FLOATING MUSEUM and docked near CCP... Wonder what Mothballed frigate that will be converted> In US, mothballed Battleships were converted to floating museum then why not we follow and generate funds for local and foreign tourists

Cityhunter,

Japan will never allow one of its wargraves to be turned into a museum unless it gives its permission. It has to take into account the families of those sailors lost on HIJMS Musashi.

Gritpaladin,

What "mothballed frigate" are you talking about?

Di ko ba sinabi na walang "Frigate" yung PN?

Or did you mean the Destroyer Escort BRP Rajah Humabon as being converted to a future museum?

This post has been edited by MSantor on Oct 24 2009, 04:59 AM

Hmmm. But hindi ba ayon doon sa isang post dito that some Japanese investors are willing to shell out funds that the Musashi be raised and made as some kind of tourist attraction? As for their sensibilities to such being done I opine that it would indeed depend upon who will be doing it. From what I know Korea and China doesn't give a damn what they do with Japanese things which cannot be said the same for us. I've met old people who really can never forgive what the Japanese have done yet look at what our present generation's opinion of them.

Curious tuloy ako what happened to Raja Humabon's sisters'. Yun na lang unahin muna gawin mga floating museums.

But agree ako indeed that our old warhorses be displayed. Mas maganda kung ipa-sponsor pa ang mga ito just like what we do with our endangered species - politicians okay lang ubusin sila though to extinction.

Would be nice to see our vessels in tip top shape and mapag-aralan ang history. To let people know the price rin of war para hindi na mag-isip. From what I see nowadays ang mga tao immune na sa mga effects ng such until it happens to them. Just like what happened sa Luzon from Ondoy and Pepeng and those bombings and holdups even in broad daylight.

Please read the topic...... "FRIGATE....."

Please read the topic...... "FRIGATE....."

Guys, let's clear up some air. As of press time, we don't have a real Frigate.

Our last Frigate are the Bonifacio Class Ships (PF7, PF10, PF12 & PF-14). Technically they are called WHEC (Weather High Endurance Cutter) but designated by PN as PF (Patrol Frigate). BRP Quezon and BRP Rizal are tweeners being a Frigate and being a Minesweeper but are coined by PN as Patrol Ships.

Source - my father is a retired PN (w/ rank of CPO), assignments Sonarman PS31, POIC OF3 Naval Defense Forces, POIC MRG Philipping Fleet.

Link below describes the PN naming convention which is clearly written on my father's notes when he was a Trainee (Basic Seaman Course 1969).

http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/offices/sps/rotc/pd...mingPNships.pdf

Thanks for the informative link to the PN's naming convention.

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"...


This post has been edited by pachador on Oct 27 2009, 05:02 AM

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.

This post has been edited by MSantor on Oct 27 2009, 11:23 AM

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.

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.

This post has been edited by pachador on Oct 27 2009, 11:58 AM

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.

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?



This post has been edited by Vermonter on Oct 27 2009, 09:38 PM