iambuzzard
Active Member
Can we mothball it in case of a kinetic blow out, or will it become a fish reef in double quick time?
Volks, your thoughts?
Volks, your thoughts?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The parts stripped from her will help keeps the others going. The scheduled saved from cancelling her upgrade/life extension should hopefully streamline necessary work on the others until the replacements arrive.
You need to remember that these ships have had very hard lives.
They were meant to be the second tier of a three tier fleet including nine tier 1 FFGs/DDGs and a dozen tier 3 missile corvettes. They became the backbone of the fleet, back filling for tier 1 on international deployments, i.e. the Middle East, and for tier 3 in border protection (because the PBs weren't up to the job).
At 28 years old (30 technically) it is tant amount to a 70+ year old grandfather suffering from arthritis, Expand that out to 2030 and it's a 100 year old grumpy bastard in the nursing home suffering from dementia.... Ship's only last so well so long in water, Spending year after year months at a time smashing into waves, salt water corroding the hull and machinery, , force of the waves weakening joints and eventually causing micro cracks that expand into actual cracks... takes a big toll on them and each decade the amount of work needed to keep them operating goes up while available time at sea goes down.
https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopa...s/2004_07/shipping/submissions/sub17_pdf.ashx
Would suggest you and any new member's give that link a read. 2006 submission to parliament taking lessons from several navies and our own, optimal replacement age for ships and boat's is in 16-20 year range, For your current opinion page 22 fig. 5 would be appropriate to look it as it is a simple graph showing just how quickly ship usefulness falls off in the 2nd half of it's life.
Well, the Filippinos would beg to defer and had been advocating to get them. They will tell you good old Filippino ingenuity and some spit and polish and it will be good to go.
Excluding their new SK frigates, their second tier Del-Pilar / ex-Hamiltons are well over 50 years old.
Excluding their new SK frigates, their second tier Del-Pilar / ex-Hamiltons are well over 50 years old.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
What operations tempo do the Philippines operate their ships at?
How long are their deployments?
How much does a maintenance engineer to repair a fault or replace corroded structure cost in the Philippines compared to in Australia?
Do the Philippines Navy conduct complex and comprehensive systems upgrades on their aging ships to keep them relevant in a modern combat environment, or just enough maintenance to keep them operational?
From P22
"This analysis raises a very interesting question - are ship mid-life refits really worth the effort and expense? "
Others could advise
But suggest replacing a 30 year old ANZAC with nothing is probably not the answer.
Sorry not nothing, a Tier two thing, down the track, sometime into the future of a design yet to be selected with a time frame and numbers yet to be confirmed in reality.
Thanks ANZAC for your service.
Cheers S
PN seldom deploys out of area much. Lack of capability (no modern ships until the last few years) as well as experience. It's a plus for them since the wear will be slower. They don't have the knowledge for sustainment of anything more complex.
I’ve read that study and by its own admission its methodology is highly subjective. Essentially they arbitrarily depreciated the “utility” of older ships relative to new builds… which is all well and good if you’ve got a new Hunter on hand. But the better measure of utility should be against other in-service frigates or having nothing at all (which is what is going to happen here). By that measure there should be no question that an AMCAP’ed Anzac still offers plenty of utility over the next few years.
I’m not advocating further upgrading and Lifex-ing HMAS Anzac to grind on till 2040. Just saying this is a ship that recently completed an 18-month refit (2019-20) and that is still relatively young by the standards of other expeditionary navies that typically expect ~35 years from their frigates (starting the clock at builders trials). Those navies work their ships equally hard and it should have been possible, like them, to keep HMAS Anzac for a few more years (late 2020s-2030ish) without major upgrades beyond a short docking and refit - but understand the real issues were personnel shortages and perhaps spare parts too.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Hunter is delayed, CSC is delayed, and now apparently the Constellation frigate will now be 3 years late. I wonder how many frigates China will deliver during this three year period?
Constellation Frigate Delivery Delayed 3 Years, Says Navy - USNI News
Constellation Frigate Delivery Delayed 3 Years, Says Navy - USNI News
Equally it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Decommissioning ANZAC frees up humans, components and money. RAN pers, dockyard workers and capacity, components and monetary investment can now be diverted to other vessels. In a resource constrained environment this likely results in a better outcome for all. I’d wager this is how Fleet Command/Navy HQ got this across the line.
It isn’t uncommon when changing fleets for numbers to drop (sometimes for an extended period of time) as the humans are moved and trained from one capability to another. As an example, the RAAF Hornet Fleet being replaced, essentially one for one, by F-35. The Classic Hornet drawdown started long before 2018-2019, and they last flew in 2021 - yet even now the RAAF haven’t had the full F-35 delivery. If it were maintaining steady personnel numbers, the RAN surface fleet numbers were always going to have to start to take a dip, probably a good 2-3 years before the first Hunter was delivered.
A better question would be “how does the Navy see it growing personnel numbers to field the future fleet (surface and sun-surface), and can it resource them sufficiently to provide the full capability, given the opportunity costs imposed to other domains in a resource constrained ADF?”
It isn’t uncommon when changing fleets for numbers to drop (sometimes for an extended period of time) as the humans are moved and trained from one capability to another. As an example, the RAAF Hornet Fleet being replaced, essentially one for one, by F-35. The Classic Hornet drawdown started long before 2018-2019, and they last flew in 2021 - yet even now the RAAF haven’t had the full F-35 delivery. If it were maintaining steady personnel numbers, the RAN surface fleet numbers were always going to have to start to take a dip, probably a good 2-3 years before the first Hunter was delivered.
A better question would be “how does the Navy see it growing personnel numbers to field the future fleet (surface and sun-surface), and can it resource them sufficiently to provide the full capability, given the opportunity costs imposed to other domains in a resource constrained ADF?”
Given that the surface fleet analysis recommended TRANSCAP then I would assume it was possible to keep them in service for the time frame you suggest (just as other navies do).
The question for me is whether the Anzac class (even after TRANSCAP) will be viable in the early 2030s. A ship with 8 VLS cells, no CIWS, and (probably more importantly) limited ship borne undersea capability may not be a safe home for 180+ crew members on single vessel patrols in threatening environments in the 2030s (even if it remains relevant for contributing to task forces, and in low threat environments, and for training).
I believe the recommendation in the navy review was that the ANZACs proceeded with tTRANSCAP while waiting for Tier 2 ships to be built. This recommendation wasn’t accepted however with the government deciding to accelerate introduction of Tier 2 ships instead.
This concerns me that the government is overruling advice offered to them by their own expert review team.
By next year we will be down to just 9 surface combatants with the rest of the frigate fleet to be gone by the mid 30s and so far not one single replacement has actually even entered production.
I believe Marles himself has conceded we won’t see the first Hunter until 2034.
With the last of the ANZACs scheduled to exit around 2036 that leaves the real possibility that we might have just a handful of frontline warships during what could be one of the most critical periods in Australia’s and perhaps the world’s history.
War with China and also in Europe and the Middle East is a real possibility during that time. I might point out if that happens the chances of Australia having 3 new ships built overseas and having access to secondhand SSNs from the US becomes increasingly unlikely.
Perilous times ahead and very little urgency being displayed by our leaders in my opinion.
This concerns me that the government is overruling advice offered to them by their own expert review team.
By next year we will be down to just 9 surface combatants with the rest of the frigate fleet to be gone by the mid 30s and so far not one single replacement has actually even entered production.
I believe Marles himself has conceded we won’t see the first Hunter until 2034.
With the last of the ANZACs scheduled to exit around 2036 that leaves the real possibility that we might have just a handful of frontline warships during what could be one of the most critical periods in Australia’s and perhaps the world’s history.
War with China and also in Europe and the Middle East is a real possibility during that time. I might point out if that happens the chances of Australia having 3 new ships built overseas and having access to secondhand SSNs from the US becomes increasingly unlikely.
Perilous times ahead and very little urgency being displayed by our leaders in my opinion.
They decided on 11 ships from the recommended 7-11, I didn’t see anything about acceleration. Bear in mind also the decision was made at some time after the analysis. New information would be available from Defence, Finance, Treasury and suppliers that was not available to the reviewers (not least from the Red Sea).
There is a close to zero possibility that the RAN will have more than 4 front line warships before 2034.
If there is a need for the RAN to project force in relation to China that is the front line. Vessels that cannot defend themselves are worse than useless in such a conflict.
Actual war between US and China in the next 10 years? Australia’s major trading partner will have had its navy sunk and will be very cranky with Australia. The pressing strategic risk for Australia is not war, but US disengagement in the Western Pacific (I think it is much more likely that the US would disengage than fight a naval war in which it could not win an overwhelming victory). AUKUS (including SSN basing), defence budget above 2% of GDP, Tomahawk acquisition, and surface fleet expansion plans all help mitigate that risk.
I believe they looked hard before decommissioning. There wasn't much life left in her, and keeping her would break the remaining Anzacs. Its not just a 30 year old ship. Its a 30 year old supply chain, most of which is totally and utterly dead. Can you get Model T parts down at Supercheap, in stock? No, eventually everything moves on, and these ships are very much a product of their time. Parting one will have a dramatic effect on the rest of the fleet in terms of improvement. You now have a spare what ever, that can be rebuilt, repaired, etc. These ships have had very hard lives, remembering they extended their at seas day way beyond their original design. And they have had a huge number of modifications and additional equipment fitted.
Read the origional anzac ship audit from 2019.. page 28
Take your VN commodore. Extend the time between oil changes to 20,000km. Drive it flat out. Modify it to have 50% more power. Modify it to carry 8 people, live in it for 36 days at a time. Do it for 30 years. Drive it in the ocean, where salty water takes all ships and waves bash it every day. Yes, it gets tired.
HMAS Anzac wasn't getting anymore than a 6 year extension from 2025 to 2030 (1996-2025). So in reality, it is only being decommissioned 1 year earlier than expected.
Physics and engineering concerns do not care about policy and politics. If they are broken, they are broken. If the hull is rusted through, the hull is rusted through.
This was all known and published in 2018-2019. It was known years before that. But we were trading life back then for reduced life in the future. The future, which is now. I'm surprised it lasted until 2024.
Not sure the Phillipines is the benchmark we should be running with. They do what they can with what they have. But their ships are notoriously fickle and old. They literally grounded a ship, and still man it, to have presence over a reef.
You misunderstood my posr. I was referring to Filipinos suggesting that the Anzacs can be donated to them (for free or a nominal fee) and the follow-up question whether they/Philippines can sustain them.
Not about RAN standards but PN's standards.
There is no funding crisis, in fact the Government has a full piggy bank and is boasting of a 20+$billion surplus. What we have is a government unwilling to spend a cent of that on Defence. Marles for all his insistance on being called DPM, has no influence in cabinet and has either been steamrollered by other faction or always intended on slashing Australia's military capacity.
But this is like Ukraine asking for NH90's from Australia. No, they are needed, in parts, to other users. They aren't being dumped in the ocean, they are going to be part frames.
In this case this ship is parted out, and improves the rest of the entire Anzac fleet. Which is still the back bone of the navy with 7 ships. With the anzacs, there weren't really any batches, everything was spec and acquired at once, so it is basically set in time from ~1989. Think back to 1989 and how long ago it was, how many local companies that were around then are long gone now. Things like switches, electrical panels, plumbing bits, mechanical services etc, all from 1989, government contract 1989. While bits and pieces have been modernized, they probably make up less than 15% of the entire ships systems. Now there is a huge quantity of bits on that ship that can be raided for the other ships. They will be tearing things out of that ship ASAP.
So while they are doing the remaining Anzac upgrades, they can also swap out all the broken bits, all the bits that have been stuck together with chewing gum and fencing wire. This will make the crew much happier, the ships more reliable and more capable, and the maintenance costs much much lower.
Giving them to someone else would massively hurt Australia, and we would have to decommission more ships. Remembering the Hobarts and the Anzacs and Collins are all under going mega upgrades, so will see the fleet massively curtailed.
These ships are beyond Philippines capabilities anyway. Korea/Japan has a large fleet of ships they could happily give away that wouldn't cripple their navy.
If they want something, ask for the Asagiri-class (8 ships). They can have all of them. The Mogamis are already in the water (6) and being built at a fantastic rate. Similar vintage as the Anzacs, similar size. Abukama is also there, 6 ships, a bit smaller, perhaps more their speed. Much easier lives, much more care from a more local navy. But Japan does do the same thing. Decommissions one, raids it for parts. The US does it too, with older ships. Sure, they would probably have to learn japanese to run the systems. But life aint easy.
Also pointing out this is exactly why Australia should be more generous with its ship building. We are an ideal supplier to other nations. English speaking (nearly everyone can find an English speaking crew), generous, open, we are a middle power, so have platforms middle powers can use, and our gear is high commonality with US gear (so US aid in munitions and training is an easy fit). We train pacific nations on their patrol ships. We have a good rep in that space.
If the Philippines are really desperate, I imagine we could make some sort of exchange possible for some Arafuras. Those would be great platforms for Philippines, Brunei, etc..