Why Are we sinking HMAS Canberra

[alexsa]

From the DIAr e-mail newletter of the 23rd of October.

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT TO SINK ‘CANBERRA’: The Victorian Government has secured the decommissioned hull of the former HMAS ‘Canberra’ Guided Missile Frigate (FFG) to sink as a dive wreck. The Federal Government will contribute up to $2.8 million in funding toward the costs of sinking which is likely to be south of Barwon Heads on the Bellarine Peninsula. New South Wales has been offered first right to bid for the former HMAS ‘Adelaide’ FFG when she is decommissioned in late 2007. The NSW Government has indicated the preferred location for a dive site as the NSW Central Coast. Tourism projects that have previously used former RAN warships to establish dive wrecks have reported annual revenues ranging from $2.4-23m flowing into local communities. [19.10.06]

Sorry I am at a complete loss as to why we would sink this ship rather than keep it in reserve for a while. It is a relatively young hull and should anything untoward happen (aka Voyager) would provide a back up to the exisiting vessels.

Can anybody shed some light on this?

 

[icelord]

there was a brilliant article in a Navy mag recently(unsure which, i'll poke round 4 it) that had a few other options for the Canberra, one of which was it being donated to the SA maritime museum, with Federal Funding assistance to keep it maintained, much like the Diamantina or Vampire.
The Canberra is old and mothballing it is of little practicle use, and way to expensive, only the USN can afford to mothball, in Russia its known as berthing
It seems to be standard now to leave diving wrecks across Australias coast, we could always sell it to other countries, but its better to let it rest.
The name will be rememberered of course in the new LHD

 

[abramsteve]

Thats an interesting idea... Would make a nice attraction down at Pt Adelaide, a suburb I refuse to go to because of football loyalties.

Whilst I dont mind sinking them as dive attractions/man made reefs, I think we could keep a few for meseums. But I suppose within the next decade we see the retirment of the other OHPs. Maybe keeping the Adelaide and moving her down here would be a good idea?

 

[icelord]

Maybe keeping the Adelaide and moving her down here would be a good idea?

Yeah but you gotta find someone willing to back it financially, there may be a few ex RAN in Adelaide(it is kinda like a retirement village) who would be happy to volunteer their time to keeping it restored and tours, much like Sydneys HMAS Vampie display.
Govt. might do it as part of heritige of Adelaide Class ships, and in future i'd expect the ANZAC to be Museumed, but i expect a ferrari with a double D blonde in the front seat when i have a mid life crisis

 

[Simon9]

From the DIAr e-mail newletter of the 23rd of October.



Sorry I am at a complete loss as to why we would sink this ship rather than keep it in reserve for a while. It is a relatively young hull and should anything untoward happen (aka Voyager) would provide a back up to the exisiting vessels.

Can anybody shed some light on this?

This is your answer:

"Tourism projects that have previously used former RAN warships to establish dive wrecks have reported annual revenues ranging from $2.4-23m flowing into local communities. "

There is money to be made. Hard for common sense, history or tradition to compete with the almighty dollar.

 

[Pusser01]

The old girl has been stripped of most her electronics, weapons, engineering & other bits as spare parts for the other FFG's. She is currently swinging around a buoy in Cockburn Sound off Stirling, awaiting the decision as to what town had won the bid for her.
Cheers

 

[LancerMc]

Besides being a diving wreak for tourism, the ship will be a great artificial reef. In recent years, I have heard the Great Barrier Reef has taken damage from storms, pollution, and other causes. The sinking will hopefully help start the restoration process in fixing some of those issues.

The USN sunk the Oriskany for the same reason, tourism and reef rebuilding.

Its cool and helps the environment. Plus it makes those crazy Green Peace people a little happier.

 

[Simon9]

Besides being a diving wreak for tourism, the ship will be a great artificial reef. In recent years, I have heard the Great Barrier Reef has taken damage from storms, pollution, and other causes. The sinking will hopefully help start the restoration process in fixing some of those issues.

The USN sunk the Oriskany for the same reason, tourism and reef rebuilding.

Its cool and helps the environment. Plus it makes those crazy Green Peace people a little happier.

Unfortunately it's not gonna be sunk anywhere near the Great Barrier Reef.

 

[contedicavour]

It's a bit like the most recent USN Spruance class, not much effort is put into selling to other countries... Taiwan or Turkey would have certainly liked to buy a second hand OHP either as a reserve for their fleet or as spare parts...
though given Australia's huge budget surplus I guess nobody bothers to look for customers for some 20-30 million USD

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

No body wants a frigate with its useful spare parts already gutted. The time to sell it was before stripping it. Now the ship is useful for only scrappers and divers.

While a ship as large as the Norway may sell to the scrappers for $30 million, frigate sized warships only get at best $3 million. Its worth more as a dive wreck than it is as scrap.

 

[abramsteve]

I believe we could find enough volunteers here to keep her around, and surley heritage money from the government plus the Maritime museum should be enough. I dont think we should preserve all our ships and I wouldnt bother trying to sell them, but c'mon how many have we sunk recently? Maybe if we had kept the Perth as a museum somewhere....

 

[Sea Toby]

In America we have a lot of old ships as museums. Unfortunately, none of the museums pay their way, the costs of maintaining them as museums is more than what they earn.

The truth of the matter is that they are static displays, similar to many steam locomotives in many communites. From a distance the steam locomotives are okay, but up close they are slowly rusting away behind chain linked fences dying a slow death.

Its the same with the warships. Without a crew to maintain, much less steam them, they are empty relics. There is no sound whatsoever onboard, nor are there any smells. They are static displays dying a slow death.

I'm of the opinion, once a ship is decommissioned, they should either be sold for scrap or sunk as a reef. Prolonging the miseries of these ships as museums after much of their gear have been stripped is a false undertaking.

I'd rather send a group of students to a ship that is alive where kids can have their questions answered by a crew membern with sounds and smeels throughout the ship.

 

[icelord]

Most of the Aussies would be thinking of something like the Vampire exhibit, where it is well, opposite of what you've described. Former crew members give tours of the Vampire and an Audio player is given to visitors as they go through the ship to listen to stories about areas of the ship by the former crew, as well as the ships history.

 

[Big-E]

The value of the spares far outways any sale price they could get for a refurbished vessel.

 

[abramsteve]

Sea Toby, I understand what you are saying as I've heard about how museum vessels are often not well maintained. But we dont have lots of them, we've sunk a few, we've scraped a few, so maybe we could keep a couple. Australia does have a rather proud naval heritage yet it is little heard of.

Im sure we could maintain a couple as interactive floating museums, or attached to museums like the Vampire. I think there would be some recruting value to it as well....

 

[contedicavour]

Sea Toby, I understand what you are saying as I've heard about how museum vessels are often not well maintained. But we dont have lots of them, we've sunk a few, we've scraped a few, so maybe we could keep a couple. Australia does have a rather proud naval heritage yet it is little heard of.

Im sure we could maintain a couple as interactive floating museums, or attached to museums like the Vampire. I think there would be some recruting value to it as well....

I remember visiting a Maritime Museum in Melbourne with an old frigate/ destroyer escort and an Oberon class submarine. The surface ship is the Vampire right ? If it is, the collection was very well maintained, with volunteers and linked to a very good museum right next to it.

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

I would agree to a national maritime museum similar in scale to the Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. If we are going to save ships as museums, we should do it right in a first class way. It appears Sydney has done so. But on the other hand I have seen the dreary condition of the battleship Texas and the others, and the others are rusting away too.

There are several operationing steam locomotives running around the country. Everyone of these steam locomotives are a better event than visiting the hundreds of steam locomotives on static displays throughout America. You can see, hear, smeel, touch, and ride the restored operational steam locomotives. We need to do the same with museum warships.

I suggest one national maritime museum of several restored ships in connection with a maritime theme park instead of these numerous stand alone static displays. A steam ship isn't a steam ship if it doesn't steam.

Frankly, I'd rather spend a day sailing on Washington state ferries crossing Puget Sound than waste a day at a second rate Battleship tourist trap.

 

[Boomer1961]

Very disappointing to see the Aussie's with so many unruly neighbors putting out one of their few true warships.

Yes this one is getting long in teeth and only the older Adelaide, lead in class, is a tad older, and yes the US navy has stopped supporting upgrades to the frigates, but none the less going from 14 main combatants to 13 is a 7.5% reduction in the surface combatants. Also the combo standard/harpoon launcher has more firepower than the ANZAC and the puny sparrow -even the always in the furure to be deployed QUAD PACK and th future to be deployed Harpoon capability (I guess the sailors are suppose to throw those pieces of paper that explain the future harpoon capability at their advesary instead of shooting a real one) though got to love that 5 inch gun over the 76mm especially, since the US navy is putting new life into this weapon system with guided munitions, longer range.

I also hate that they are dumping a platform with two Sea Hawks whilst building up the ANZAC that supports one lowly and very antiquated but costly minimal upgraded seasprite helo that has been dumped by the US navy (with the short hull Perry FFG's being scrapped or sold off) so will be very expensive to maintain as they and a few others go it alone supporting this platform.

Could be that something in the history of this boat, made sense in dumping it. Maybe it is a dog and had a very bad history in keeping it running. A few years with a bad Chief Officer and crew being lazy can do that to a fine ship, or maybe the US when they made these things chose the ones that turned out to be dogs to be the ones the AUSSie's got. I have seen this when I worked at some US shipyards many years ago where two of the Los Angeles Class submarines were dogs, one with everything messed up from a really bad collision that knocked everything out of kilter (rumour at the yard was that it was a collision with a Ruskie but we were told we would be fired if we talked about such). Also seen it with some of the old Knox class frigates where one we worked on was a well knonw lemon, just like an automobile that you can never get fixed right to make it run reliably.

I for one though would have mothballed this thing for spare parts for the duration of the Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate Class service life. Could be though another of these frigates has been given this task and we just are not aware of this, or maybe they are counting on the dozen or so Perry's that are laid up.

I would think being surrounded by water, being an underpopulated land, and being surrounded by unstable nations with excess populations and shortages in resources and land that the AUSSie's would see this danger and the advantage of using technology that uses a small number of people (strong air force and navy) that they would direct their policy this way rather than trying to defend after they come to shore and are outnumbered. We do see a few far sited policy leaders as they practice the forward defense policy in their stabilization efforts in places like Timor, but in order to successfully execute these policies they need the equipment to do so as well as the reserves needed to sustain periods of high activity and it just does not make any sense to decrease the number certified combat naval of assets at a time of a strong economic base.

The best solution is investing in new assets including some US type Aegis platforms that many other navies are deploying including some of the AUSSie's neighbors. Short of this then maintaining and not decreasing assets, even when they get old might be the cheap/tight wads man to success (the US plans on keeping their Carriers for 50 years and the B-52 when retired will be like 75+ years old so it is possible and practical).

Is there anyone out there that has the real skinny on this boat and if there was some problem maintaining it or specific problems with any of their weapon systems like the MK-13 missl Launcher that never really worked right on some of the Perry's as they were always breaking down and were a real pain to work on.

Anyways thats my rant of the day, just wished to see our AUSSIE ally step up a bit more on there defense committments

 

[Sea Toby]

You're picking on the wrong country. One of the few nations actually increasing defence spending is Australia. Unfortunately, I wouldn't place New Zealand on this list.

Yes, this ship was stripped of parts for the remaining OHPerrys. Yes, this ship is being sunk as a reef. And yes, four of the six OHPerrys in the RAN are being given a mid-life upgrade, considerably more than what the USN is doing.

The upgrade involves placing a 8-cell Mk41 VLS launcher for 32 ESSMs, while maintaining the Mk13 SAM launcher for new Standard missiles and its harpoons. Frankly, there aren't too many frigates throughout the world that will carry 40 Standard/Harpoons in the Mk13 launcher and 32 ESSMs in the Mk41 launcher. Unfortunately, two of the frigates are being discarded to pay for the significant upgrade.

Australia is in the process of buying three new larger Air Warfare Destroyers with an Aegis weapons systems. Australia is also in the process of buying two 23-27 thousand ton displacement LHDs, capable of shipping 1,000 troops, several helicopters, and their equipment. Recently, Australia built 8 Anzac class frigates to replace 6 general purpose frigates, in my book that is an addition of 2 ships. And Australia is upgrading their Anzacs to carry 64 ESSMs, not just 32, and adding 8 harpoons to each too.

In the last decade Australia bought 2 used Newport class LSTs and rebuilt them. These ships added to the Australian fleet, bringing their amphibious fleet up to 3 ships. Australia also built 6 new minehunters during the last decade too.

In the next decade as I already noted they will build 2 new larger and better replacement amphibious ships, along with replacing their third amphibious ship with a logistic ship, which is undefined at the moment.

In the past Australia maintained 12 surface warships: 3 Adams, 3 Darings, and 6 Rivers (similar to Leanders). In the near future they will still maintain 12 surface warships: 4 OHPerrys and 8 Anzacs. In the far future there maybe a drop of one surface warships: 8 Anzacs and 3 AWDs. Even so, there will be a tremendous addition of SAM and SSM missiles.

Australia never attained 14 surface warships. Before they could finish the 8 Anzacs, to go along with their 6 OHPerrys, they discarded 1 OHPerry before the 8th Anzac was finished. While one of their OHPerrys is in a long shipyard period being upgraded, its being replaced by the 7th Anzac in the short term. So, what loss?

It appears Australia gained naval vessels, and will be building larger vessels to replace smaller vessels in the near future. I wished I could say that about the American navy!

And unlike New Zealand, Australia tends to spend some of its surpluses on defence acquistions. Who knows, they might even order a fourth AWD before its said and done.

 

[icelord]

You Go Sea Toby, you tell it like it is!

Alright, lets clarify what tobes didn't

I remember visiting a Maritime Museum in Melbourne with an old frigate/ destroyer escort and an Oberon class submarine. The surface ship is the Vampire right ? If it is, the collection was very well maintained, with volunteers and linked to a very good museum right next to it.

cheers

Ok, You got the Ship right, the Sub right, the City wrong
The maritime Museum is in Sydney on Darling Harbour, but don't worry, i try to forget everytime i go to sydney too

I suggest one national maritime museum of several restored ships in connection with a maritime theme park instead of these numerous stand alone static displays. A steam ship isn't a steam ship if it doesn't steam.

That pretty much what Darling Harbour is, but theres little room for expanding the current area, a small Fremantle would fit in nicely , and the museums current location is brilliant as it gets the high numbers of tourists local and foreign. The Diamantina gets a good crowd to at Brisbanes Maritime Museum, and if it ever were centralised, politics would ruin it.

I also hate that they are dumping a platform with two Sea Hawks whilst building up the ANZAC that supports one lowly and very antiquated but costly minimal upgraded seasprite helo that has been dumped by the US navy (with the short hull Perry FFG's being scrapped or sold off) so will be very expensive to maintain as they and a few others go it alone supporting this platform.

The RAN loves the Seahawk, and with the NH-90 replacing the Seaking, and for some god for saken reason the incoming Seasprite, we can cover it. The Adelaides are great ships, but will need to be replaced at some point, and the AWD we are purchasing has 2 spaces for a NH-90 and Seasprite perhaps?

I would think being surrounded by water, being an underpopulated land, and being surrounded by unstable nations with excess populations and shortages in resources and land that the AUSSie's would see this danger and the advantage of using technology that uses a small number of people (strong air force and navy) that they would direct their policy this way rather than trying to defend after they come to shore and are outnumbered

We got a great Army to back us up if the Navy fails

The best solution is investing in new assets including some US type Aegis platforms that many other navies are deploying including some of the AUSSie's neighbors. Short of this then maintaining and not decreasing assets, even when they get old might be the cheap/tight wads man to success (the US plans on keeping their Carriers for 50 years and the B-52 when retired will be like 75+ years old so it is possible and practical).

Current Budget is spending 1.4 Billion for 3 AWDs , designated Hobart Class. Plus there is talk in Navy circles about the purchase of an Extra AWD, designated Canberra to fill a gap in defence ship builiding, before the ANZAC needs replacement in 2020.

Australia never attained 14 surface warships

If we order the Canberra, this may finally make the "magic 14" mark, a problem long held in the navy.

Very disappointing to see the Aussie's with so many unruly neighbors putting out one of their few true warships

You must be talking about New Zealand, don't worry, we can handle themnfloorl: