Ah yes - page 19 -
"Build in Australia eight ocean patrol ships/light patrol frigates, to enter service
from the early-to-mid-1990s as the last three destroyer escorts (DEs) and first five
Fremantle class patrol boats pay off. Plan on a decision in 1987-88 for design
development. (Estimated cost of $2000 million is balanced by reductions in earlier
proposals for new surface combatants and new patrol boats. About 1000 personnel
for these new ships and their helicopters to become available from the five
Fremantles and three DEs.)
- Consider cancelling the modernisation of, and paying off, the third guided missile
destroyer (DDG) HMAS Hobart. (Save $32 million from capital equipment
program; reduce annual operating costs by $8 million; reallocate the crew of 330.)
Government may wish, however, to retain nine rather than eight capable destroyers
in the fleet."
But if you'd kept eight or nine capable destroyers (replacing the old ones one for one), eight lightly armed ocean patrol ships might have been OK to supplement them. The ANZACs have had to be upgraded to make up for the shortfall in bigger ships, which might not have arisen if the ANZACs had been ordered as smaller (2000 ton) Floreal type ships. Having the ANZACs allowed the politicians to cut numbers of bigger ships. One can't really blame Dibb for that.
We should really be discussing this in the RAN thread, but it arose as a digression here.
"Build in Australia eight ocean patrol ships/light patrol frigates, to enter service
from the early-to-mid-1990s as the last three destroyer escorts (DEs) and first five
Fremantle class patrol boats pay off. Plan on a decision in 1987-88 for design
development. (Estimated cost of $2000 million is balanced by reductions in earlier
proposals for new surface combatants and new patrol boats. About 1000 personnel
for these new ships and their helicopters to become available from the five
Fremantles and three DEs.)
- Consider cancelling the modernisation of, and paying off, the third guided missile
destroyer (DDG) HMAS Hobart. (Save $32 million from capital equipment
program; reduce annual operating costs by $8 million; reallocate the crew of 330.)
Government may wish, however, to retain nine rather than eight capable destroyers
in the fleet."
But if you'd kept eight or nine capable destroyers (replacing the old ones one for one), eight lightly armed ocean patrol ships might have been OK to supplement them. The ANZACs have had to be upgraded to make up for the shortfall in bigger ships, which might not have arisen if the ANZACs had been ordered as smaller (2000 ton) Floreal type ships. Having the ANZACs allowed the politicians to cut numbers of bigger ships. One can't really blame Dibb for that.
We should really be discussing this in the RAN thread, but it arose as a digression here.
