Say that again? We spent millions of $$$ on a ship to pretty it up before it’s decommissioned?
I get that it is a significant vessel for multiple reasons, but does this strike anyone else as misplaced spending? Surely millions isn’t correct?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I get that it is a significant vessel for multiple reasons, but does this strike anyone else as misplaced spending? Surely millions isn’t correct?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I readily admit to knowing essentially nothing about decommissioning a vessel, and a warship in particular, but I could readily believe that it might cost millions to decommission a vessel 'properly'. I would imagine that part of the decommissioning process would involve going through a vessel and seeing which bits of kit can be removed and/or re-used, either aboard sister ships or in new vessels. I suspect that it would also include taken steps to contain, clean up or seal potential HazMat sources within a vessel. Having something like ship's diesel leaking would present health, safety and environmental issues no matter how a decommissioned vessel finally gets disposed of, whether it becomes a museum ship, sent off to a ship breaker, on sold to another country, or sunk in a sinkex or to become an artificial reef.
However things end up going, there is almost certainly going to be costs associated with getting a ship into whatever state it needs to be in for decommissioning.
For that matter, I would imagine that there was at least some costs associated with getting the ex-RAAF F-111's into an appropriate condition to where they could be buried. I would imagine that at least some of the avionics would have been pulled from the airframes, as even if they were not going to be re-used by the RAAF, I doubt that Australia or the US would want someone to be able to dig up and potentially pull avionics from combat aircraft. Also I suspect that there would have been health, safety and environmental concerns about the fuel tanks and possible residual fuel leakage.
Now if the funding was just to 'dress her up' that would seem to be at least somewhat wasteful, unless she was intended to be preserved as a museum ship. In that case it might make a bit more sense, at least to some degree anyway.
All that was spent on getting Anzac back in the water was making sure she was still water tight & that her main fire fighting systems were working. She may have got a pretty coat of paint straight over the rust & tyre marks after she was dragged back to Stirling last Monday. I decommissioned both Adelaide & Canberra FFG's back in the day. All we did was make the side facing the wharf look pretty for the decommissioning ceremony.
Shorter ship lives, higher build frequency, better for continuous shipbuilding.
I am hearing a few stories from various quarters that Anzac and in a year or so Arunta (when she decommissions) are to be gifted or sold to the Philippines. Can that be confirmed yet? If that is true, in what form would she be transferred? Would she go complete with weapons systems and sensors as she is now or just a bare bones ship. Would we not be better off to keep her and use her for parts when needed?.
I would suggest that if there was any life left in ANZAC she would remain in service with the RAN. As would Arunta. Problem is there is no economic life left. She has been the hardest worked frigate in SE Asia for 30 years. She is worn out and deserves a rest.
Once her decommissioning ceremony is completed, I would think ANZAC will be towed around to Henderson to where Sirius used to be, stripped of anything useful for the other ANZAC ships, and then broken apart for scrap. I will get to watch that slowly happen on my daily drive to work.
The Philippines are also modernising, as is Indonesia, all driven by the same cause as our our rejuvenation. The Philippines, albeit belatedly, are investing in new ships out of the Korean, Indonesian and Japanese yards (nice ones too) for their Navy and Coast Guard. I don't think they are looking for second hand at end of life vessels that would be nothing but high maintenance.
I will note for full disclosure that the Philippines have a long history of acquiring second hand assets (perhaps the consideration behind those recent videos for the ANZACs), and while some of the more recent joiners have been ex US, Japanese or Korean ships, there has been less of these in proportion to new builds, and they all have considerable remaining life.
I've seen the same videos, I would suggest they are someone's wishfull thinking. If we can't figure out how to transfer our old planes and helos as gifts to Ukraine, we have no hope in flogging off our oldest frigates to our nearest neighbours.
Once her decommissioning ceremony is completed, I would think ANZAC will be towed around to Henderson to where Sirius used to be, stripped of anything useful for the other ANZAC ships, and then broken apart for scrap. I will get to watch that slowly happen on my daily drive to work.
The Philippines are also modernising, as is Indonesia, all driven by the same cause as our our rejuvenation. The Philippines, albeit belatedly, are investing in new ships out of the Korean, Indonesian and Japanese yards (nice ones too) for their Navy and Coast Guard. I don't think they are looking for second hand at end of life vessels that would be nothing but high maintenance.
I will note for full disclosure that the Philippines have a long history of acquiring second hand assets (perhaps the consideration behind those recent videos for the ANZACs), and while some of the more recent joiners have been ex US, Japanese or Korean ships, there has been less of these in proportion to new builds, and they all have considerable remaining life.
I've seen the same videos, I would suggest they are someone's wishfull thinking. If we can't figure out how to transfer our old planes and helos as gifts to Ukraine, we have no hope in flogging off our oldest frigates to our nearest neighbours.
Last edited:
It is being retired in part to be stripped of usable parts to keep the rest of the fleet going. The ships in the worst structural condition will go first.
The ANZACs are the opposite of the RNs aging Type 23. The Dukes were designed with the expectation they would have short, active lives conducting ASW patrols in the North Atlantic / GIUK gap, instead they had much kinder lives as GP frigates used extensively on presence missions around the globe. They still did ASW but didn't get the pounding expected.
The ANZACs were anticipated to be a second tier patrol frigate, spending most of their lives in local a region waters while the DDGs and FFGs (which were meant to out number them) did the global work.
Anzac is scheduled to be pulled back out of the water at the end of May at the CUF. She will then be cannibalised for parts & spares. Closer to the end of the year/early next year she'll be moved over to another area for scrapping.
Are all Anzacs expected to be decommissioned after 28 years, ?
Anzac > 18/05/1996 - 18/05/2024
Arunta > 12/12/1998 - 12/12/2026
Warramunga > 31/03/2001 - 31/03/2029
Stuart > 17/08/2002 - 17/08/2030
Parramatta > 04/10/2003 - 04/10/2031
Ballarat > 26/06/2004 - 26/06/2032
Toowoomba > 08/10/2005 - 08/10/2033
Perth > 26/08/2006 - 26/08/2034
Entry
GPF 1-3 2029-2033
GPF 4-11 2034-?
Hunter 1-6 2034-2043
Anzac > 18/05/1996 - 18/05/2024
Arunta > 12/12/1998 - 12/12/2026
Warramunga > 31/03/2001 - 31/03/2029
Stuart > 17/08/2002 - 17/08/2030
Parramatta > 04/10/2003 - 04/10/2031
Ballarat > 26/06/2004 - 26/06/2032
Toowoomba > 08/10/2005 - 08/10/2033
Perth > 26/08/2006 - 26/08/2034
Entry
GPF 1-3 2029-2033
GPF 4-11 2034-?
Hunter 1-6 2034-2043
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Doubt it, probably just a coincidence.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I'm sure we'd all like to think that the surface "fleet" won't go below nine commissioned ships but I wouldn't be surprised if Warramunga went before the first of the new general purpose frigates enters service. Similarly, from then, it will likely be an agonisingly slow build-up in numbers.
Edit to add: On a more positive note, we can see from the above the importance of those GPFs.
I know dropping the size of the fleet is far from ideal but you don't need to look back that far to realise this is the right thing to do.
The FFGUP comes to mind.
The original program was for just Melbourne and Newcastle, with the first four FFGs to be replaced straight after the Perths were replaced. This changed to all FFGs being upgraded and the DDGs retired without replacement.
In the end only four were upgraded but the older pair were shagged and a waste of money. i.e. the original program of only the newest pair was right.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
It's the right thing to do in the situation in which we find ourselves in. It's wrong in hindsight in the sense that new ships should have been ordered, built and coming into commission now. Not a new problem. The same occurred with the Perths, which you referred to. It all goes to show the long-term implications of delaying a replacement.
Personally until they crack the champagne bottle across the bow I don't take anything for granted.
Every few years the plans change. Twelve Attack class subs turn into zero, Hunters go from 9 ships to 6, the number of Arafuras was halved, the LSS and new MCMs have likely been cancelled and so on.
Not all of those decisions are bad. We will be getting SSNs and I was never a fan of the Arafuras anyway, but plans are constantly evolving and changing. With new navy reviews every couple of years we can expect to see even more changes to the size and structure of the fleet. With Australia seeming establishing itself as a world leader in unmanned systems we may yet see less emphasis on crewed vessels moving into the 30s and 40s.
You left out 11, better than ANZAC, GP frigates, some of the designs including MCM and other multi role potential.
Plans can change under one PM, likely will change with a change of PM, and will definitely chance with a new government.
The reason it is worse now is because the cost and complexity of capability, in particular in terms of integration, is such now that the lead times stretch over multiple parliaments.
Once a responsible minister would likely still be the responsible minister, or at least still in government, when the procurement they decided on entered service. Now something is ordered and there will be multiple ministers, PMs and governments before it us delivered.
I would have a similar view on the champaign Hauritz. History shows that we chop and change way too much.
I think one thing that goes in favour for this plan is that it has kicked off in the early stage of a new government. For the most part governments (unless your name is Whitlam) get a couple of terms to complete their agenda. The current mob get another crack at it in the back end of 2025, which should take them through to late 2028. Provided they havn't stuffed anything up (a reasonably big if) then a third term would take them through to 2031. By this time ships will be coming off the production line, and the Henderson facility will have something on it. It would be hard for a new government to fundamentally change the plan at this point.
The second thing that goes in its favour is that it seems to have bipartisan support. The coalition argue less about the content and more about the project management and urgency. So even if there was a change of government I think the bones of this strategy would be kept.
The big variable for me is less about will we get a GP frigate, but more about what its specification will be. And given there will be about 11 ships there is a good chance that there will change through the build program with modified batches (but same base platform). Consider that the first three might be a different spec to the subsequent four and final four for instance.
Again to your point on automation, I have a personal view this will be a radical change by 2030 and there will be a lot more emphasis on these platforms. I think the Hunters, GPs and SSNs will be required to mothership portfolios of AI drones, and it would not suprise me if the GPs get upgraded to link with LOCSVs.
The odd thing is that the force structure planning for the RAN MFUs remained so constant from 2008 to 2023 despite the delays and changed selections and cancellations. With and without 12 Attack class, with SSNs, and with and without 20 OCVs, the desired number of MFUs remained either 11 or 12 (with the material effect that the real in service number becomes 9 or less).
The change I fear is a downward revision of 20 MFUs back towards 12 (the politics of that are made easier, in my view, by pretending that LOCSVs are MFUs).
Do people have a preference yet based on what you know now about these tier 2 GPF options?
NAVANTIA-SPAIN
Alpha 3000
TKMS-GERMANY
MEKO A200
HYUNDAI/HANWHA-SOUTH KOREA
Daegu FFX II
Chungnam FFX III
FFX IV*
MITSUBISHI-JAPAN
Mogami
FFM*
Other designs not listed?
*Will be in service prior to Australian build but not before Australian selection.
NAVANTIA-SPAIN
Alpha 3000
TKMS-GERMANY
MEKO A200
HYUNDAI/HANWHA-SOUTH KOREA
Daegu FFX II
Chungnam FFX III
FFX IV*
MITSUBISHI-JAPAN
Mogami
FFM*
Other designs not listed?
*Will be in service prior to Australian build but not before Australian selection.
Ship and aircraft numbers tend to be revised downwards rather than upwards. I see uncrewed systems as the most likely desruptive element moving forward. Their development and build cycles tend to be much quicker than manned vessels. The Ghost Bat for example was basically a mockup when announced in 2019, but the first examples are likely to enter service with the RAAF next year. I expect we will see a simular situation with projects such as Ghost Shark which is apparantly already ahead of schedule and under budget, two things that are hardly ever said about developing and building manned vessels.
Most of the issues going forward with unmanned systems are likely to be ethical rather than technological. For example sending a manned vessel or aircraft into another county's territorial waters or airspace has huge political ramifcations. However you have plausible deniablity if a weather balloon should drift into another country's airspace or an unmanned vessel washes up on their beach.
Should be remembered that the Chinese will probably be operating more unmanned vessels by the 2030s than anybody else and they seem less concerned about ethical issues than we are. The 30s and even the late 20s is shaping up to be an unpredictible period in regards to manned vs unmanned vessel technology. Concepts such a optimally manned vessels could become the norm rather than the exception. LOCSVs for example could end up supplanting fully manned vessels far more rapidly than expected.
Technology, particulary in the area of AI, is progressing at breakneck speed. Far faster than our ability to assess the capabilities and ethical issues surrounding this technology.
Most of the issues going forward with unmanned systems are likely to be ethical rather than technological. For example sending a manned vessel or aircraft into another county's territorial waters or airspace has huge political ramifcations. However you have plausible deniablity if a weather balloon should drift into another country's airspace or an unmanned vessel washes up on their beach.
Should be remembered that the Chinese will probably be operating more unmanned vessels by the 2030s than anybody else and they seem less concerned about ethical issues than we are. The 30s and even the late 20s is shaping up to be an unpredictible period in regards to manned vs unmanned vessel technology. Concepts such a optimally manned vessels could become the norm rather than the exception. LOCSVs for example could end up supplanting fully manned vessels far more rapidly than expected.
Technology, particulary in the area of AI, is progressing at breakneck speed. Far faster than our ability to assess the capabilities and ethical issues surrounding this technology.