Starving Tenix of work and then setting up ASC Shipbuilding to build the AWDs without a doubt has driven up costs and seen a reduction in primary surface combatants, forcing the modernisation of the ANZAC class frigates to fill the gap instead of leaving them to operate as intended as patrol frigates. I believe, and I could be wrong, that it would have been cheaper to have built replacements for the DDGs earlier, following them with replacements for the FFGs and then replacements for the ANZACs, perhaps with OPVs instead of patrol frigates, as the Netherlands has done, or even OCVs or corvettes.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree with what you are saying, just think their needs to be some bi-partition ship building plan and a minium fleet size similar to what the US does or turn em over every twenty years
Well there was a plan, developed when Beazley was Defmin and Hawke PM, to follow the ANZACs out of Williamstown with replacements for the DDGs and the four older FFGs (the newer pair would be upgraded), building on the Australian Frigate Project and the ANZAC project. Keating cut this in favor of upgrading all six FFGs and building a class of corvettes to replace the Fremantle class PBs. When the government changed the corvettes were cancelled with the Fremantles receiving a life extension (for some bizarre reason the Super Sea Sprites intended for the corvettes were still ordered instead of more Seahawks). Also at this point ANZAC WIP, an attempt to fit AEGIS to the ANZACs was initiated but found to be unworkable.
There was an opportunity in the late 90s to can the various upgrade programs (and never order the Super Sea Sprites) and build three DDGs, preferably Burkes to enter service from 2008. No need then for SM-2 or ESSM on the FFGs, or for ASMD on the ANZACs. ASMD systems such as the radars and IRST would be suitable for a replacement for the FFGs from 2012 onwards if ships along the lines of the F-100 were seen as too expensive.
There was an opportunity in the late 90s to can the various upgrade programs (and never order the Super Sea Sprites) and build three DDGs, preferably Burkes to enter service from 2008. No need then for SM-2 or ESSM on the FFGs, or for ASMD on the ANZACs. ASMD systems such as the radars and IRST would be suitable for a replacement for the FFGs from 2012 onwards if ships along the lines of the F-100 were seen as too expensive.
I would be happy if the ship building plan was consistent with in a party. Both Lab and Lib and cut and shifted on issues. We need stability in all this.
IMO the most realistic options are:
We build another F-100 AWD (not completely crazy, but unlikely, we could build it now and have a delayed fitout)
We build 2 or 3 F-100 based frigates with new radar/combat system, but basically the same.
We try to get a new type of ship designed and built quickly (cost? Risk?). Type 26, FREMM, F-125 or even Fridtjof Nansen (?? really?). LINK
You could still build a capable vessel out of a F-100 hull. IMO it would be better than a Fridtjof base frigate, for what oz needs (strike, air, asw).
My one star was a muslim (Retd)
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Compared to the RCN at the end of the WW2, the RAN is definitely shrinking less!!
Not a myth at all.
I won't bother going into the very large fleet of the immediate post war years but rather point out that from the delivery of the carrier Sydney in 1948 until the retirement of Melbourne in the early 80s the RAN always had at least one carrier. As for destroyer / frigate numbers, until the mid 60s there was a not insignificant reserve fleet that was used to maintain numbers when the more modern ships were in refit or otherwise unavailable, combat capable training ships and when ships were lost replacements were acquired asap.
Basically until the 1970s a dozen escorts meant there were a dozen ships available at short notice. Today we have a dozen ships, including those in extended availability, reserve or being used as training ships.
The decision not to replace Melbourne would be equivalent to the government disbanding 1Armoured Regiment instead of buying the Leopards and the failure to replace the DDGs in a timely manner and upgrading four of the FFGs instead the same as 2 CAV having to make do with two squadrons of partially upgraded M-113s instead of ASLAV. Actually, looking at the real reduction in flexibility and capability the disbandment of both the RAAC and RAA with the RAR having to make do with Land Rovers, Unimogs, 81 or 120mm mortars and Milan is probably a better equivalent to the loss the RAN suffered. The carrier, Skyhawks, Trackers, inability to take the Sea Kings to sea, loss of the Sea Kings dunking sonar to provide data for Ikara made that system less effective as well, having to rely on the FFG which the RAN saw as inferior instead of a proper DDG that they needed in addition to the carrier, acquisition of a patrol frigate (the ANZACs) instead of a proper GP or ASW frigate and never acquiring the seventh and eighth Oberons or following Collins. Its far more than just numbers.
Last edited:
I absolutely despair over the quality of defence reporting in this country (you certainly can't call it journalism)
There are a couple of loud reporters here who seem to think that they are experts - I wince every time I read their articles on subs, JSF, phatships, LAND 400 etc.....
Been that way re the mainstream media for a long time now.
RAN is part of the existing Perisher accreditation process so it does kind of exist if countries want to put their people through.
IIRC the Dutch are the lead and took over that role when the RN went completely nuclear
Perisher isn't basic though
If you're interested, there is a new defence publication (digital) being produced in Australia which is technology focused: Defence Technology Review. It is written by defence professionals, for defence professionals.
Google the title to access the website. Subscription is free.
Cheers
For the record - taken from the 1971 "Navy List"
3 x CFA DDG's
3 x Daring DD's
6 x River DE's
6 x Oberon SSK
6 x Ton MHC's
20 x Attack PB's
Training ships Anzac and Queenborough
1 x CVS Melbourne plus 7 x fully manned Naval Air Squadrons (NAS Nowra and Melbourne)
1 x Fast Troop transport Sydney
1 x Transport Jeparit
1 x Tender Stalwart
1 x AO Supply
5 x Survey Moresby, Diamantina, Paluma, Kimbla
2 x GPV Bass, Banks
5 x Ships in reserve Tobruk, Quiberon, Quickmatch, Barcoo, Gascoyne
plus the usual SDB's, Diving tenders, Smaller GPV's , 5 x SAR launches TRV's etc all attached to establishments and manned by establishments
This was the zenith of the post war numbers and coincided with the Vietnam conflict.
3 x CFA DDG's
3 x Daring DD's
6 x River DE's
6 x Oberon SSK
6 x Ton MHC's
20 x Attack PB's
Training ships Anzac and Queenborough
1 x CVS Melbourne plus 7 x fully manned Naval Air Squadrons (NAS Nowra and Melbourne)
1 x Fast Troop transport Sydney
1 x Transport Jeparit
1 x Tender Stalwart
1 x AO Supply
5 x Survey Moresby, Diamantina, Paluma, Kimbla
2 x GPV Bass, Banks
5 x Ships in reserve Tobruk, Quiberon, Quickmatch, Barcoo, Gascoyne
plus the usual SDB's, Diving tenders, Smaller GPV's , 5 x SAR launches TRV's etc all attached to establishments and manned by establishments
This was the zenith of the post war numbers and coincided with the Vietnam conflict.
Last edited:
SpazSinbad
Active Member
The RAN gave up two Oberon Subs to buy the extra TEN Skyhawks (8 x A4Gs & 2 X TA4Gs all refurbished USN F models). In those days the FAA was valued - what happened? BTW the submariners were not pleased with the loss of 2 of the 8 ordered Oberons earlier.
With the life cycles of submarines, especially their extended maintenance cycles and certification requirements eight boats is the minimum needed for two to be available for deployment, i.e. covering all training and fleet support duties as well.
The level of capability lost the second the Skyhawks, Trackers and Sea Kings could no longer go to sea has still not been replaced. A helicopter with dunking sonar on station is equivalent to a frigate in the screen, no carrier, no Sea Kings, and the RAN is a couple of pseudo frigates down, not just a carrier. Without the Trackers the RAN lost their offensive ASW capability (I should be carful here but others are much better informed to comment than me). Just look what Argentina's Skyhawks did to the RN in the Falklands, the RAN has nothing to match that lost capability to this day.
This is why I have repeatedly suggested that the RAN would be better off procuring a couple (three) DDH or CVH instead of high end frigates to replace the ANZACs. Operating helicopters and UCAVs along there would be a transformational improvement, add F-35B helibourne AEW and perhaps a future ASW tiltrotor the RAN would be unrecognisable.
Its not numbers or money but rather what the money is spent on, or in some cases wasted on. Not replacing the carrier cost more than replacing it would have while reducing capability at the same time. The cheap options pursued by various governments of both shades have nearly always ended up costing us more than doing it right in the first place.
Reducing numbers while taking on more work has seen our ships being run into the ground only to have penny pinching government choose to upgrade the combat power of pretty much shagged platforms meaning we never get value for money from the work done. Alternatively instead of sourcing the appropriate replacement for a required capability billions have been spent on modifying inferior platforms to try (unsuccessfully) fill the gap, i.e. the upgraded FFGs are still in many ways inferior to the retired DDGs and the short fall will not be addressed until the AWDs are commissioned. Also, once tasked to fill the DDGs shoes the FFGs were no longer available to do their job meaning the ANZACs had to be upgraded, at great expense, to fill that gap. At the same time as all this the border protection mission ramped up and the elcheapo, crapo, Armidales were not up to the job and the ANZAC class patrol frigates were off pretending to be FFGs.
Like I said, just because you can look at a list and say there were a dozen destroyers and frigates in the 50s, 60s, 70s, through to today does not mean there has not been serious cuts to capability. Its not about the number of platforms so much as the capability of the whole and if you are missing key supporting capabilities the effectiveness of the whole is reduced and if you lack a sufficient critical mass of platforms and trained personnel you will never be able to do the job at hand.
Actually Raven I have just reread my posts previous to your comment and at no point did I complain about the fleet shrinking nor suggest it should be larger. I did outline the changing plans and options of the governments concerned, as I understand them, and I did make the point that numbers of "Primary" surface combatants (as opposed to the current all encompassing "Major Warfare Vessel") have reduced, i.e. nine DDGs and FFGs are now four and will be reducing to three. At the same time six ASW frigates have been replaced with eight patrol frigates that are currently being upgraded to GP frigates.
In one of the posts I actually suggested that once the three DDGs and six FFGs had been replaced with suitable high end ships, i.e. Arleigh Burkes and F-100s or similar, them the ANZACs could be replaced with OPVs, OCVs or similar which would have been a reduction in the total number of destroyers and frigates in favour of a class of more seaworthy patrol vessels, similar to what the Netherlands has done.
The high end ships capable of independent operations and escorting other ships, rather than those limited to self defence, have reduced significantly. An analogy to this is the replacement of M-113s in the ARES with Land Rovers and 105mm howitzers with 81mm mortars. Irrespective of the reasons behind these changes they were a massive reduction in capability
SouthernSky
Member
Son of Collins draws another breath.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
History repeats......
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
History repeats......
Once again, you're deliberately shielding the truth to suit your normal 'the sky is falling' rhetoric. The three DDGs, six FFGs and six frigates were not all in service at the same time. As the ANZACs came into service, we had about a dozen ships which were replaced by a current fleet of about a dozen ships.
You also constantly talk about 'plans' that existed at various points in history, and comparing the historical fleet against these 'plans.' Who cares what plans existed? There have been just as many plans that saw the RAN shrink in size and capability, so why don't we compare the current fleet against against those plans? The world won't look so bleak then.
I also note that nowhere in the sky is falling diatribes is it discussed how RAN capability has increased. What is the going price for 70 000 tonnes of amphibious shipping in terms of frigate numbers? What about a potential doubling of the sub fleet?
I understand the RAN could be better. I understand that opportunities were missed and poor decisions made. But when you constantly talk down every single decision that anyone in defence has ever made, cherry picking pieces of history to suit whatever negative argument you are trying to make this week, it gets really boring.
And you are again misreading what I have written. I did not state that there were nine DDGs and FFGs in service at the same time as the six River class DEs / frigates, what I wrote was the DDG and FFG numbers have been whittled down from nine to four and once the AWDs enter service three and a separate statement that six ASW ships were replaced by eight patrol frigates. i.e. the high end has been cut by six and the low end, previously (from memory) reduced to four, was then increased to eight.
If you don't like it don't read it because while I am perfectly happy to change my views when presented with facts I am not going to change them just because someone disagrees with me. You have your opinions and I have mine, but you appear to lack understanding of the differences between a DDG, an FFG, a DE and an FFH, they are chalk and cheese, by grouping them all together as the same thing you may as well be saying M-1A1, M-113, ASLAV and Bushmaster are all tanks.
Just some facts, although they have been modernised the four remaining FFGs are still less capable air defence ships than the DDGs, the FFGs even before modernization were vastly superior air defence and ASW platforms to the unmodernised ANZACs (I do not know how the ASMD ANZACs compare to the FFG UP). Even when the AWDs and future frigates (withAUSPAR etc.) enter service and address the capability gap, existent since DDGs retired and the FFG UP was botched, the fleet will still lack the extended air defence and ASW layer lost with the retirement of the carrier. Mark the man as much as you like it doesn't change any of this.
This all started with a comment from me that, without changing numbers or crewing requirements, it may well have been better value for money to have replaced the DDGs with Burkes from the late 90s to early 2000s and not bothered with FFG UP, ANZAC WIP, ANZAC ASMD, or AWD. No hindsight involved the RAN wanted them unfortunately successive governments didn't see the need until East Timor, same with the LHDs. The professionals saw the need, the politicians didn't.
ANZAC ASMD would likely have happened regardless of what decisions were made in relation to the other major surface combatants (Kidd's purchased, Burkes built etc).
Even the RNZN is implementing a significant combat upgrade for their vessels, although not to the extent that ASMD will do.
B
There definitely would have been a mid life update for the ANZACs but what would it have been if there were three (or more) Burkes / AWDs in service and a replacement for the FFGs under way? The ANZACs are too small for ASMD without major compromises, pretty much like the combat system (in particular the radars) on the FFGs limited the performance of SM-2, both upgrades cost a lot but IMO didn't deliver value for money.
Had the RAN managed to retain a proper DDG capability there would have been no need for ASMD and maybe a second fire control channel and a Phalanx would have sufficed. If there was a replacement for the FFGs following on from the DDGs / AWDs the ANZACs wouldn't even have needed that and could have had platform and propulsion upgrades instead to take them through until they could be replaced with OPVs, light frigates, or even multirole vessels down the track.
I wonder what we would have done differently if the AWD were 10 years ahead of where they are now (ie building them in 2005). With only a gap of maybe 12 months between the Anzacs and the AWD. Particularly if we had built 4 of them.
I wonder if we would have been tempted to do a completely local build of the LHD following that. Oh well, too many what ifs.
Loss of carrier and reduction of the submarine force (planned) had a pretty big impact for the RAN. We would be one of the key players in both subs and carriers in the region. The usa for example might have been a much stronger partner in ET if we had two carriers and 8 subs from which to bring to the party. Its not like those capabilities would have been beyond our means either (either then or now).
I see Tony has held onto the reigns, so does this mean a local build of the subs is now much more likely? It would seem to be politically ideal if they could lock in construction of at least 8 subs (option of 4 more?) in the next 12 months. Ie before the next election.
I wonder if we would have been tempted to do a completely local build of the LHD following that. Oh well, too many what ifs.
Loss of carrier and reduction of the submarine force (planned) had a pretty big impact for the RAN. We would be one of the key players in both subs and carriers in the region. The usa for example might have been a much stronger partner in ET if we had two carriers and 8 subs from which to bring to the party. Its not like those capabilities would have been beyond our means either (either then or now).
I see Tony has held onto the reigns, so does this mean a local build of the subs is now much more likely? It would seem to be politically ideal if they could lock in construction of at least 8 subs (option of 4 more?) in the next 12 months. Ie before the next election.
It was sad that HMAS Sydney was unable to take her place as Royal Hobart Regatta flagship today. Her anchor departed in mid stream as she was trying to raise it on Saturday. Although she was able to return to her berth and was open for inspection on Sunday she had to remain alongside while navy reserve clearance divers attempted to retrieve the anchor. A DMS workboat towed a buoy from midstream to alongside Sydney late this morning. I presume the anchor is attached...
- Status