Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

Beyond 2030

DARWIN
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate (Future)

CAIRNS
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate (Future?)

FBW
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat (Future?)
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future?)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate
<150m Hobart Class Destroyer (Future?)
<150m Hunter Class Frigate (Future)
<180m Supply Class Auxiliary Replenishment Oiler
Joint Support Ship (Future?)
<240m Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Dock (Future?)
SRFW
Collins Class Submarine
Virginia Class Submarine (Future)
AUKUS Class Submarine (Future)

FBE
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat (Future?)
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future?)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate
<150m Hobart Class Destroyer
<150m Hunter Class Frigate (Future)
<180m Supply Class Auxiliary Replenishment Oiler
Joint Support Ship (Future?)
<240m Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Dock
SRFE
Collins Class Submarine (Future?)
Virginia Class Submarine (Future)
AUKUS Class Submarine (Future)



Tier 2 Options
1. Replace Anzacs with a ship of similar size or smaller with greater firepower at the cost of range and speed, lose the ability to escort at long distances north/west/east
2. Upgrade the Syncrolift/s and facilities in the North to accomodate ships up to 150m long allowing 120m+ GPFs with more missile load and potential tier 1 maintenance.
3. 2x Tier 2 options, have both mix of 120m+ GPFs fbw/fbe and -120 LGPF/Corvettes fbn?
4. Combination of the 3 above.
-Corvettes short term
-Lift and facility upgrade medium term
-GPF longer term


The opv80 to mmpv90 from luerssen is clearly of similar design but the capability upgrade is so small that I don’t think it would happen.
Instead
-12 Arafuras with modular add ons(potentially offloading them down the road, BF or elsewhere)
-Transitioning to a bigger build like k130 variant (which would take a bit more time to design and build)
-Later build Arafuras being converted to MCM and getting corvettes built locally/overseas from any defence company, not restricted to nvl group.

This is moving into fantasy fleet territory again. As has been repeated endlessly what ever is selected needs to meet a given specification tied to operational requirements. Small 'corvettes' such as the K130 are short ranged and that range is dependent on a low (14 to 15 knot) economic speed. These would appear to be of limited value given our geography unless we base forward near choke points (and that could be a challenge given that needs the assistance of other countries).

We do not know what a tier 2 vessel or even a corvette will looks like until the reivew is completed. You could suggest the T31 is a tier 2 vessel for the RN but that may have no impact on what the current review comes up with.

If you are goint to make a case for a 120m ANZAC replacement please consider what may be survivable. I would suggest, at a minium, these would be as capable as the ANZAC as that is what these vessel will replace.

This is no small ask on a 120m noting the limitation size has had on the ANZAC and the desire for more missile cells being the reason for having more smaller vessels.

In summary ...... if you are going to suggest something like a K130 then you need to justify why given its limitations. The ANZAC has a range of over 6000nm for a reason, however, that capability limited its growth capacity and the cells it can carry.

alexsa

 

[Brissy1982]

Here's a link to an interesting article in Australian Defence Magazine: ANZAC frigates to gain capability, lose weight - Australian Defence Magazine

There's no mention of what new capabilities the ANZACs might get, but the reference to them losing 25 tons displacement leads me to think that they may be going to receive a second 8-cell Mk 41 VLS next to the existing one - they were built with the space reserved for this, however the associated weight margin has already been eaten up by the CEAFAR radar mast, which has made them top-heavy and required additional ballast to be added to maintain their stability. Accordingly if a second 8-cell VLS module is to installed, weight needs to be shed to allow for it - 25 tons is about the same weight as the VLS module itself (~15 tons) and eight loaded canisters for additional missiles.

Will be interesting to see what further details emerge.

 

[devo99]

The important thing to remember about a prospective Tier 2 class of vessel is that it's purpose almost certainly won't be to act as a cheap and quick stop-gap just to provide some capability while the Tier 1 ships and boats are being built. Instead it will be a class of vessels that will perform a distinct and important role within the RAN fleet which at the moment is being performed by the Anzacs and will not be filled by the Hunters, unless we intend to increase their operational tempo to an unsustainable point. I'll leave that there for now.

Shifting focus now to the concept of Tier 3 vessels.
The Arafuras, any offshoot of them or a prospective class of corvettes should all be considered Tier 3 vessels. Luckily we have a great example of how a Tier 3 vessel can be used effectively in our geographic context and what it brings to the table. This is of course the Bathurst-class.
The use cases we see for Tier 3 vessels based off the experience with the Bathurst-class include things such as:
- Short range ASW patrols in the Sea-Air Gap and South West Pacific
- Small scale troop and supply ferrying in the absence of LCHs
- Escorting of the above mentioned LCHs
- Short-range escort of oilers and merchant shipping
- Special forces insertion
- Littoral ISR
- Mine hunting
- EEZ policing
- Surveying work

Things that the Tier 3 vessels should not be doing include:
- Any amount of frontline air defence (Only have limited self defence capability)
- Being attached to a SAG of Tier 1 & 2 vessels (Slower speed and shorter range will limit the whole formation)
- Surface to surface action against just about anything with missiles (Being sunk should be considered highly probable in any scenario where AShMs are launched)
- Long-range regional patrols (range and endurance are limited and the number of oilers is even more limited)

That's my take and it should also be noted that as no official mention of Tier 3 vessels has been made to my knowledge, the official definition of Tier 2 remains somewhat fluid. This makes it possible that what I consider to be Tier 3 here will end up being included in a broader ranging official definition of Tier 2 than I personally anticipate or would recommend.

 

[Todjaeger]

It wouldn’t surprise me if we got both. In the short term production of the Arafura could be swapped over to Lurrsens OPV 90 with better weapons or perhaps some half assed attempt will be made to upgun the Arafura. A proper tier two design would follow.

The thing is that I don’t see them being able to fast track a Tier two vessel into service before the end of the decade. Until they are ready to build these new ships they will need to keep the shipyard occupied so they would probably continue building OPVs.

Reality injection here. We still do not know and AFAIK has not yet appeared anywhere in the public domain (and might not even be in the classified version of the DSR) what constitutes a Tier 1 or Tier 2 vessel. We all can make guesses, and some of those guesses might be more realistic or educated than others, but absent further information any attempt at discussing either potential platforms or force structure is little more than speculation with very little underpinning it.

Further reality injection, unless/until Australia moves to a war footing and a wartime command economy there are virtually no good short-term options, since basically the only short-term options that Australia could make and control would be to cancel build programmes that are already under way.

If some new design were to be selected, or a significant redesign of an existing RAN class instead, that would be at least a medium-term endeavour since time would be needed to determine what the RAN wants/needs (remember there is a naval review underway post-DSR) then actually design the vessel, then of course order the bits needed all before the thing could actually get built. Given that some of the long-lead items can take a couple of years it would not be unrealistic to expect first steel could not be cut much earlier than 2028. Now of course if Australia did suddenly opt to switch to wartime production (yes, I know, this is unlikely and unrealistic) things could potentially be sped up to a degree, particularly if Australia were to suddenly start throwing absolutely enormous amounts of money to solve issues.

One has to remember that it can take several years for construction of a finished design to get started, and then even longer for delivery of lead ships. Even if Australia had an appropriate design it could select right now, it would still be a few years before work could really begin.

 

[Reptilia]

Here's a link to an interesting article in Australian Defence Magazine: ANZAC frigates to gain capability, lose weight - Australian Defence Magazine

There's no mention of what new capabilities the ANZACs might get, but the reference to them losing 25 tons displacement leads me to think that they may be going to receive a second 8-cell Mk 41 VLS next to the existing one - they were built with the space reserved for this, however the associated weight margin has already been eaten up by the CEAFAR radar mast, which has made them top-heavy and required additional ballast to be added to maintain their stability. Accordingly if a second 8-cell VLS module is to installed, weight needs to be shed to allow for it - 25 tons is about the same weight as the VLS module itself (~15 tons) and eight loaded canisters for additional missiles.

Will be interesting to see what further details emerge.

Going from Harpoon to NSM saves about 2-3 ton.

 

[Redlands18]

Beyond 2030

DARWIN
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate (Future)

CAIRNS
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate (Future?)

FBW
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat (Future?)
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future?)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate
<150m Hobart Class Destroyer (Future?)
<150m Hunter Class Frigate (Future)
<180m Supply Class Auxiliary Replenishment Oiler
Joint Support Ship (Future?)
<240m Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Dock (Future?)
SRFW
Collins Class Submarine
Virginia Class Submarine (Future)
AUKUS Class Submarine (Future)

FBE
<60m Cape Class Patrol Boat (Future?)
<90m Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel (Future?)
<120m Anzac Class General Purpose Frigate
<150m Hobart Class Destroyer
<150m Hunter Class Frigate (Future)
<180m Supply Class Auxiliary Replenishment Oiler
Joint Support Ship (Future?)
<240m Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Dock
SRFE
Collins Class Submarine (Future?)
Virginia Class Submarine (Future)
AUKUS Class Submarine (Future)



Tier 2 Options
1. Replace Anzacs with a ship of similar size or smaller with greater firepower at the cost of range and speed, lose the ability to escort at long distances north/west/east
2. Upgrade the Syncrolift/s and facilities in the North to accomodate ships up to 150m long allowing 120m+ GPFs with more missile load and potential tier 1 maintenance.
3. 2x Tier 2 options, have both mix of 120m+ GPFs fbw/fbe and -120 LGPF/Corvettes fbn?
4. Combination of the 3 above.
-Corvettes short term
-Lift and facility upgrade medium term
-GPF longer term


The opv80 to mmpv90 from luerssen is clearly of similar design but the capability upgrade is so small that I don’t think it would happen.
Instead
-12 Arafuras with modular add ons(potentially offloading them down the road, BF or elsewhere)
-Transitioning to a bigger build like k130 variant (which would take a bit more time to design and build)
-Later build Arafuras being converted to MCM and getting corvettes built locally/overseas from any defence company, not restricted to nvl group.

Why oh why would you move a LHD to Perth, when all the troops, their vehicles, weapons and gear is on the East Coast?

 

[devo99]

Why oh why would you move a LHD to Perth, when all the troops, their vehicles, weapons and gear is on the East Coast?

To take Perth back from those Westralian rebels of course!

 

[devo99]

Here's a link to an interesting article in Australian Defence Magazine: ANZAC frigates to gain capability, lose weight - Australian Defence Magazine

There's no mention of what new capabilities the ANZACs might get, but the reference to them losing 25 tons displacement leads me to think that they may be going to receive a second 8-cell Mk 41 VLS next to the existing one - they were built with the space reserved for this, however the associated weight margin has already been eaten up by the CEAFAR radar mast, which has made them top-heavy and required additional ballast to be added to maintain their stability. Accordingly if a second 8-cell VLS module is to installed, weight needs to be shed to allow for it - 25 tons is about the same weight as the VLS module itself (~15 tons) and eight loaded canisters for additional missiles.

Will be interesting to see what further details emerge.

Another interesting development that could eventually increase the capability of the Anzacs is the Raytheon proposal of developing a booster for ESSM to provide a quad-packable SM-2MR replacement to compete with Lockheed Martin's proposal for the use of PAC-3 MSE as the SM-2MR replacement.
It's not known whether this prospective ESSM-ER would still fit in tactical length cells as the USN only uses strike length and that is who it is being pitched to at the moment, although as there is already a fair bit of unused space with ESSM in tactical length cells there is a possibility that it will indeed fit on the Anzacs giving them a possible 16-16 mix of ESSM and ESSM-ER and thus some level of medium-range area defence capability.

 

[Reptilia]

Why oh why would you move a LHD to Perth, when all the troops, their vehicles, weapons and gear is on the East Coast?

Question mark was added.

But with a JSS, would you need both Canberra and Adelaide in the east.
I see more of a focus in the north in the future, plenty of runways in the pacific.

 

[Todjaeger]

But with a JSS, would you need both Canberra and Adelaide in the east.
I see more of a focus in the north in the future, plenty of runways in the pacific.

Pretty much yes. With there being a pair of LHD's, there is a decent chance that any given time, one of the vessels will be unavailable for an amphib op or deployment. Depending on what the specs of a JSS (if any are actually even ordered) there could be some capacity to lift troops, vehicles, cargo or a mix. Realistically though a JSS is not likely to have the sort of personnel capacity that a Canberra-class LHD would have and apart from smaller ops would likely be more suitable to in concert with an LHD, or in a second wave supporting/replenishment capacity, not unlike how Bay-class LSD's can function.

If the two LHD's were not based together and relatively close to where embarking troops are based, then any amphib deployment would be delayed until both the LHD and troops could be collected at a port of embarkation.

 

[ddxx]

1. Replace Anzacs with a ship of similar size or smaller with greater firepower at the cost of range and speed, lose the ability to escort at long distances north/west/east

Agree that the K130, whether it be the German or Israeli variant or hybrid makes the most sense across the board and seems to match what the government has been saying, but it’s only viable if the majority of the class is based in Darwin and it looks like the precinct has been approved.

How does a seven day independent endurance (without a tender) and a range of 4,000 nm at only 15 knots logically make any sense in our geography?

Here's a comparison of Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone (Exc. AAT) to Seas where countries operate such vessels:

• Australia's EEZ - 9,025,053 km2
• Mediterranean Sea - 2,500,000 km2
• North Sea - 570,000 km2
• Black Sea - 436,402 km2
• Baltic Sea - 377,000 km2

Australia's EEZ alone is over 3.5x the size of the entire Mediterranean Sea.
And that's even before we even get to our inner region, let alone the full area defined by the DSR.

Whilst such vessels make sense elsewhere, it's incredibly difficult to see how they stack up here from any perspective.

 

[ngatimozart]

Beyond 2030
Tier 2 Options
1. Replace Anzacs with a ship of similar size or smaller with greater firepower at the cost of range and speed, lose the ability to escort at long distances north/west/east
2. Upgrade the Syncrolift/s and facilities in the North to accomodate ships up to 150m long allowing 120m+ GPFs with more missile load and potential tier 1 maintenance.
3. 2x Tier 2 options, have both mix of 120m+ GPFs fbw/fbe and -120 LGPF/Corvettes fbn?
4. Combination of the 3 above.
-Corvettes short term
-Lift and facility upgrade medium term
-GPF longer term

Ideally any Tier 2 option for both the RAN & RNZN is something around the size of the Anzac Class, but no larger, and it doesn't need to be armed like a battle cruiser. You have to remember what it's CONOPS would be and attacking an enemy CBG isn't going to be part of that. It is for use as a convoy escort etc., and as such doesn't require CEAFAR, or CEC as someone has suggested. It doesn't require the ability to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, and I would argue neither SM2/3/6 SAM or the 5in / 127mm gun.

Your Tier 1 should include besides the Hunter Class and DDGs, a GP frigate of about 6,000 tonnes displacement and this is where something like the Arrowhead 140 would be ideal. In fact, I would scrap the Hobart Class DDG that you have and replace them with a GP Frigate. The Hunter Class is more capable than the Hobart DDG and you just build extra Hunter hulls to give you 12 AEGIS combatants. On the GP frigate AEGIS may nor be aa requirement, but CEC should be fitted if it's possible. This is where the CEAFAR capabilities of your Anzac class would be better suited. You have an extra 2,000+ tonnes of displacement to work with.

However, this is all moot until the RAN Review is completed and publicly published.

 

[Reptilia]

Ideally any Tier 2 option for both the RAN & RNZN is something around the size of the Anzac Class, but no larger, and it doesn't need to be armed like a battle cruiser. You have to remember what it's CONOPS would be and attacking an enemy CBG isn't going to be part of that. It is for use as a convoy escort etc., and as such doesn't require CEAFAR, or CEC as someone has suggested. It doesn't require the ability to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, and I would argue neither SM2/3/6 SAM or the 5in / 127mm gun.

Your Tier 1 should include besides the Hunter Class and DDGs, a GP frigate of about 6,000 tonnes displacement and this is where something like the Arrowhead 140 would be ideal. In fact, I would scrap the Hobart Class DDG that you have and replace them with a GP Frigate. The Hunter Class is more capable than the Hobart DDG and you just build extra Hunter hulls to give you 12 AEGIS combatants. On the GP frigate AEGIS may nor be aa requirement, but CEC should be fitted if it's possible. This is where the CEAFAR capabilities of your Anzac class would be better suited. You have an extra 2,000+ tonnes of displacement to work with.

However, this is all moot until the RAN Review is completed and publicly published.

Keep Hunters + Hobarts.
The Arrowhead 120 to replace the Anzac is a better option.
pro- Cheaper than a 140, 1/3 less crew than 140, fits on the Darwin and Cairns ship lifts. Potentially more hulls.
con- unlikely to escort far into the pacific as one of its main roles, lose some speed, 16 VLS and the second mission bay.

120m, 4,000 ton, 6,000nm range at 15 knts, 24-26knt max speed, 80 crew, 16 VLS, 8 ASM. stern ramp for rhib, mission bay for usv or uuv or potentially more VLS. Can be based in Darwin or Cairns with the lift taking ships 120mm 5,000ton

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arrowhead-120-EN-DIGITAL.pdf

If we end up with type 83s replacing hobarts, our u.k aukus partner would be very happy.

 

[Redlands18]

Question mark was added.

But with a JSS, would you need both Canberra and Adelaide in the east.
I see more of a focus in the north in the future, plenty of runways in the pacific.

You still haven't answered the question of why you would base a LHD in Perth. Your Amphibious ships need to be close to the forces they are going to embark or in Australia's case positioned on the route to possible trouble spots. In Sydney they can load significant Army forces or sail to Brisbane or Townsville or Darwin, and Darwin is 2259nm from Perth, and 2565nm from Sydney, so very little advantage there.
The only ARA combat unit in Perth is the SASR, are you suggesting keeping a LHD there for them? Yes you could sail a LHD quicker into SEA waters quicker from Perth, but that is pointless if it is not carrying anything.

 

[Reptilia]

You still haven't answered the question of why you would base a LHD in Perth. Your Amphibious ships need to be close to the forces they are going to embark or in Australia's case positioned on the route to possible trouble spots. In Sydney they can load significant Army forces or sail to Brisbane or Townsville or Darwin, and Darwin is 2259nm from Perth, and 2565nm from Sydney, so very little advantage there.
The only ARA combat unit in Perth is the SASR, are you suggesting keeping a LHD there for them? Yes you could sail a LHD quicker into SEA waters quicker from Perth, but that is pointless if it is not carrying anything.

Nup, simply suggesting it’s a possibility beyond 2030, a new dry dock in Perth, new amphibious capability planned, a shift in focus to the north(countries in the north at greater risk of conflict than those in the pacific islands), more expensive assets based in the west with submarines incoming and ofcourse more capability will be grown in the west, not a shift in forces but an addition. Planned ADF expansion to 80,000, +20,000 by 2040, and that is with new equipment/systems increasingly requiring less complement.

 

[Reptilia]

No one really knows how things will play out, all good healthy discussion.

 

[hauritz]

Here's a link to an interesting article in Australian Defence Magazine: ANZAC frigates to gain capability, lose weight - Australian Defence Magazine

There's no mention of what new capabilities the ANZACs might get, but the reference to them losing 25 tons displacement leads me to think that they may be going to receive a second 8-cell Mk 41 VLS next to the existing one - they were built with the space reserved for this, however the associated weight margin has already been eaten up by the CEAFAR radar mast, which has made them top-heavy and required additional ballast to be added to maintain their stability. Accordingly if a second 8-cell VLS module is to installed, weight needs to be shed to allow for it - 25 tons is about the same weight as the VLS module itself (~15 tons) and eight loaded canisters for additional missiles.

Will be interesting to see what further details emerge.

One thing I noticed was speculation that the first Anzac would in fact be replaced by the second Hunter allowing the navy to reach its planned 12 destroyer/frigate fleet. Obvious question is how much life is left in those ANZAC hulls. Would it be possible to expand the size of the fleet even more if we were to extend the life of the ANZAC even further?

 

[Volkodav]

To me the biggest mistake was the drawing down of the major combatant fleet from the late 90s.

The ANZACs had been intended to increase fleet numbers and capability, but became the excuse to reduce them.

Ordered as replacements for the River Class DEs five of them were actually additions to the fleet as the first three Rivers had already been replaced by the last three FFGs. It had at one time, I believe, been planned to acquire up to ten FFGs to replace the Darings and Rivers for a total of thirteen destroyers and frigates, all armed with Mk 13 GMLS with Standard SM-1MR and Harpoon.

The ANZACs were intended to increase major combatant numbers from twelve to sixteen or seventeen, with a number of options being considered to replace and upgrade the DDGs and FFGs.

The DDGs were always going to be retired, Melbourne and Newcastle were always going to be upgraded, the question was in regards to what would replace the DDGs and whether the same design would replace the first four FFGs, or whether they would be life extended.

Eventually it was decided all six FFGs would be extensively upgraded and life extended to permit the construction of a class of third tier missile corvettes (basically mini ANZACs)during the 2000s, before the belated DDG replacements, then FFG replacements would be built during the 2010s.

Instead, the DDGs were retired and ANZACs became their replacements. The FFGs upgrade was stuffed up and only four were completed, meaning the ANZAC class had effectively become the replacement for existing major combatants, instead of an increase and complement.

The corvettes were cancelled, and the Fremantle's life extended before the Armidales were acquired. Finally three Hobart's were built to replace the remaining four FFGs.

Ironically with better planning, Melbourne and Newcastle could have been retained as they were reportedly in very good condition and more capable than the ANZACs.

Back in the late 90s there appears to have been the attitude, it's big, it's grey, it's a battleship, it will do, besides we have the peace dividend.

 

[Redlands18]

Anzacs as good as they are today, they are simply.
Too small
Too big
Too old
too new
And too many.

Too small to be given a larger weapons load out.
Too big to be a true Patrol Frigate and thus too expensive to operate as a super OPV in support of Border Force.
Too old for what I am beginning to suspect is what their life is going to be (end up to close to 40 years)
Too new so they can get away with that extension.
Too many and we have ended up with an unbalanced MFU fleet.

 

[Stampede]

To me the biggest mistake was the drawing down of the major combatant fleet from the late 90s.

The ANZACs had been intended to increase fleet numbers and capability, but became the excuse to reduce them.

Ordered as replacements for the River Class DEs give of them were actually additions to the fleet as the first three Rivers had already been replaced by the last three FFGs. It had at one time, I believe, been planned to acquire up to ten FFGs to replace the Darings and Rivers.

The ANZACs were intended to increase major combatant numbers from twelve to sixteen or seventeen, with a number of options being considered to replace and upgrade the DDGs and FFGs.

The DDGs were always going to be retired, Melbourne and Newcastle were always going to be upgraded, the question was in regards to what would replace the DDGs and whether the same design would replace the first four FFGs, or whether they would be life extended.

Eventually it was decided all six FFGs would be extensively upgraded and life extended to permit the construction of a class of third tier missile corvettes (basically mini ANZACs)during the 2000s, before the belated DDG replacements, then FFG replacements would be built during the 2010s.

Instead, the DDGs were retired and ANZACs became their replacements. The FFGs upgrade was stuffed up and only four were completed, meaning the ANZAC class had effectively become the replacement for existing major combatants, instead of an increase and complement.

The corvettes were cancelled, and the Fremantle's life extended before the Armidaels were acquired. Finally three Hobart's were built to replace the repainting four FFGs.

Ironically with better planning, Melbourne and Newcastle could have been retained as they were reportedly in very good condition and more capable than the ANZACs.

Back in the late 90s there appears to have been the attitude, it's big, it's grey, it's a battleship, it will do, besides we gave the peace dividend.

Retaining HMAS Melbourne and Newcastle was a no brainer.

Acknowledging both these ships strengths and weaknessess, it would of at least secured a fleet of 13 instead of 11 combatants through the 2020's.

While crewing is always a challenge,I guess we could juggle with crews coming off ships going into major upgrades, re
ANZAC's And HOBARTS.

Now just what did we spend that payment from Chile on for these two assets.


A round of beers!



Cheers S