• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Naval Historical Society of Australia

Preserving Australia's Naval History

  • Events
  • Account
  • Members Area
  • Volunteer
  • Donate
  • Contact us
  • Show Search
  • 0 items
Hide Search
Menu
  • Home
  • Research
    • Where to start
      • Research – We can help!
      • Self help
      • Naval Service Records
      • Library
      • Related Maritime websites
    • Resources
      • Articles
      • Videos
      • On This Day
      • Podcasts
      • Australian Military Ship Losses
      • RAN events on a  Google Earth Map
      • RAN Vessels – Where are they now?
      • Related Maritime websites
    • Other
      • Newsletters: Call The Hands
      • Occasional Papers and Historical Booklets
      • Books
      • HMAS Shropshire
      • Book reviews
    • Close
  • Naval Heritage Sites
    • World Heritage Listings
      • Cockatoo Island
    • National Heritage Listings
      • HMAS Sydney II and the HSK Kormoran Shipwreck Sites
      • HMVS Cerberus
    • Commonwealth Heritage Listings
      • Garden Island NSW
      • HMAS Watson
      • HMAS Penguin
      • Spectacle Island Explosives Complex NSW
      • Chowder Bay Naval Facilities
      • Beecroft Peninsula NSW
      • Admiralty House, Garden and Fortifications
      • HMAS Cerberus
      • Naval Offices QLD
      • Garden Island WA
      • Royal Australian Naval College ACT
      • Royal Australian Naval Transmitting Station ACT
    • NSW Heritage Listings
      • HMAS Rushcutter
    • Close
  • Naval Art
  • Tours & Cruises
    • Navy in Sydney Harbour Cruise, East
    • Navy in Sydney Harbour Cruise, West
    • Anniversary Cruise: Sydney under Japanese Attack
    • Tour Bookings
    • Close
  • About us
    • About Us
      • What we do
      • Our People
      • Office Bearers
      • Become a volunteer
      • Our Goals and Strategy
    • Organisation
      • Victoria Chapter
      • WA Chapter
      • ACT Chapter
    • Close
  • Membership
  • Shop
  • Become a volunteer
  • Donate
You are here: Home / Article topics / Publications / Naval Historical Review / The Later River Class Frigates in the RAN

The Later River Class Frigates in the RAN

Smith, John, Cmdr, RAN (RTD) · Jun 5, 2008 · Print This Page

Author
Smith, John, Cmdr, RAN (RTD)
Subjects
Ship design and development
Tags
None noted.
RAN Ships
HMAS Derwent, HMAS Swan II, HMAS Parramatta III, HMAS Torrens II, HMAS Stuart III, HMAS Yarra III
Publication
June 2008 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)

It is important to realise that, at this stage, the Royal Australian Navy was still wedded to the Royal Navy with respect to equipment and personnel aspects such as training. The only variation from this practice had been the purchase of the Dutch LW02 radar for, initially, HMAS Melbourne and the River Class Frigates. I wonder who was the brave and persistent soul who convinced us to buy foreign equipment!

We had great difficulty in finding a gunnery control system which would fit into Swan and Torrens. The United States Navy systems with the performance we required were just too large.

HMAS Swan (Image:RAN)
HMAS Swan (Image:RAN)

Fortunately, the Dutch had equipment available, namely the M22 gunnery fire control system and the M44 radar controlled Seacat control system, which were made by the manufacturer of the LW02 radar, SIGNAALAPPARATEN.

The M22 had the following paper advantages over the MRS3 Mod 3:

  • a) It was about 25% of the overall weight
  • b) It required about one third of the tween-deck space
  • c) It required less than half the crew
  • d) The operating console could be positioned in the Operations Room
  • e) As it had its own search radar, there was no need for the 293 radar fitted in the other four frigates.

There were other reasons for the choice of M22/M44, but probably the most relevant was that it was available.

Other changes were made in the design of Swan and Torrens and the Naval Constructors took the opportunity to tidy up many of the visual aspects of the vessels. This is particularly apparent from the accompanying photographs.

I have tried in this article to explain some of the reasons why Swan and Torrens were so different to their four predecessors and how we managed to overcome the Government’s approval statement that they were to be the same as those predecessors.

As I did not ever serve in Swan or Torrens, I do not know if they were a more effective operational unit than the other four. I am sure that the Editor would welcome a contribution on this aspect.

Pages: Page 1 Page 2

Naval Historical Review, Ship design and development

Primary Sidebar

SUBSCRIBE

Sign up for our monthly e-newsletter.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Categories

Latest Podcasts

  • The Fall of Singapore
  • HMAS Armidale
  • Napoleon, the Royal Navy and Me
  • The Case of the Unknown Sailor
  • Night of the midget subs — Sydney under attack

Links to other podcasts

Australian Naval History Podcasts
This podcast series examines Australia’s Naval history, featuring a variety of naval history experts from the Naval Studies Group and elsewhere.
Produced by the Naval Studies Group in conjunction with the Submarine Institute of Australia, the Australian Naval Institute, Naval Historical Society and the RAN Seapower Centre

Life on the Line Podcasts
Life on the Line tracks down Australian war veterans and records their stories.
These recordings can be accessed through Apple iTunes or for Android users, Stitcher.

Video Links

  • Australian War Memorial YouTube channel
  • Royal Australian Navy YouTube Channel
  • Research – We can help!
  • Naval Heritage Sites
  • Explore Naval Art
  • Dockyard Heritage Tour
  • About us
  • Shop
  • Events
  • Members Area
  • Volunteer
  • Donate
  • Contact us

Follow us

  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Members Area
  • Privacy Policy

Naval Historical Society of Australia Inc. Copyright © 2025