Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Navy would also be wary of an incoming Government deciding that if the 2 FFGs are still in good nick than what's the hurry with the Hunters and put them back a few years.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The question of perception in relation to the FFG's future is interesting.
To keep or dispose of the ships does send a signal to our neighbours near and far no matter what ever we decide.
The default of a defence force is, that if we actually have to actively use it, then it has in fact failed in it's duty to deter.
The future of the FFG's makes for an interesting study of opportunity and message.
Regards S
Surely a decision to keep the two FFG's in the fleet would only be linked with an increasd projection of the requirement of surface combatants. Currently 8 Anzac frigates, 2 FFG's and 1 DDG (with the 2nd not far from operational), with FFG's retiring when DDG's are complete as they replace FFG's in fleet aerial protection. Moving to a fleet of 3 DDG's and 8 Anzac FFH's (ie 11 combat ships). Future frigate program will include 9 FFG/H ships, taking future surface combatants to 12. I would think augmenting fleet numbers by prolonging usage of the FFG's, would mean an interim number of surface combatants of 3 DDG's, 2FFG's & 8 FFH's (ie 13 surface combat ships). However the "Future Frigates" are currently set at only 9. If Def and Gov have decided we need 13 once DDG's are complete, then we would be planning to maintain 13 with "Future Frigates" , which would mean 10 instead of 9.
In short, the decision on the FFG's is likely to be made on the planned force requirements that are being planned, not on that it would be great to keep them.
In short, the decision on the FFG's is likely to be made on the planned force requirements that are being planned, not on that it would be great to keep them.
Last edited:
While I tend to agree that keeping the last 2 FFGs is quite unlikely (unless something occurs) it does not necessarily hold that this would mean a planned total of 13 MFU in the long run. It could simply allow a more phased approach to transition for 'in services' ships. When you look at the number of ANZACs Sitting on the stand in Henderson undergoing upgrade (there are three of them now) retention of the FFG's could allow for the transition of 'available MFU' between the ANZAC upgrade and the delivery of the Hunter Class. Maintaining them should not be too much of a streach in the short term as a lot of gear go removed from the first four.
However, I tend to agree thsi is a pipe dream in the current situation. We will just have to give them to NZ ...... sorry the devil made me do it.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Give em the FFGs? make them pay for them, 15 decent Rugby Players will do
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Alex, agree.
As I said above earlier, I find it hard to see the two remaining FFGs being maintained in commission (at least until the Hunter class start to commission), unless something happens in the next little while. But if they were kept in commission, it doesn't necessarily signal a permanent increase to 13 MFUs in long run as you've pointed out.
Whilst technically the RAN currently has 11 MFUs in commission (2 x FFG, 8 x FFH, 1 x DDG), from an operational point of view the situation is a little different, 2 x FFGs, 5 x FFH (3 x FFH on the hardstand in Henderson), and 1 DDG in commission for the last 12mths working up and getting closer to FOC.
In reality there are around 7 FFG/FFH operational + 1 DDG working up.
So yes, potentially there is an argument to keep the 2 remaining FFGs in commission for a bit longer until the FFH have completed their upgrades and the 3 DDGs are at FOC.
Will that happen? Probably not.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I thought I read somewhere that the Brisbane's commissioning date was 23 Oct, which is tomorrow, if not it can't be far away.
A new labor government that delayed the ongoing build program would get beaten up in turn with their own recent valley of death propagander.
Yes we know both sides were to blame, but when was truth part of politics.
Both could have done better but Labor have repeatedly gutted defence. Even when they 'buy' equipment they scrimped in other areas that reduced the capability of the services to train and respond. It would get quite galling to listen to the announcement of 'how much effort was going into defence' while there was insufficient funds foreffective training or systems that were worth a damn.
Being on a Type 12 with visually aimed Seacat in the late 80's was an absolute travesty ..... at the state in whihc the ANZAC was delivered was hardly any better.
Sadly we live in the world of minority politics. While the majority of Australians may support defence the parties are likley to pander to minority groups in marginal electrorates as that is these votes that may decide the election.
This is why you see an over focus on certain issues and a degree of pandering and idiocy. The Jerusalem announcment during the Wentworth by-election falls into the category ... no matter what you think of that proposal (I have no strong views) ... in the circumstances it just came across as a load of opportunitisic bollocks that simply pissed a lot of people off .... including those folk to our north.
While the Politicians are more worried about being elected any programme of national interest is at risk .... particularly if this will give them the votes of the swing voters to get in. The continous ship building programme will be hard to stop for the 9 frigates and the start of the submarines but it is not beyond reality that the system may be 'reveiwed' in the future. We have been there before with the ANZAC and a multitude of other opportunities.
Appologies for the slight polticial slant ... but it pays to be realistic.
Last edited:
I am hoping that the pain and the bipartisan support and the complexity of the on going build programs results in key capability not being a political football. I think the 3 naval building programs are on good foundations.
At the moment, with an election looming and economic crisis seemingly not far off, I don't think preservation of the FFG's being a priority. Actually I wonder if we can't flog them off to someone while they are still worth something.
At the moment, with an election looming and economic crisis seemingly not far off, I don't think preservation of the FFG's being a priority. Actually I wonder if we can't flog them off to someone while they are still worth something.
I am not too concerned about either government interfering with the shipbuilding program. At worst the Labor party would simply view it a job creation program.
As Alexa pointed out it is all the other stuff that goes with it that could be the issue. The navy will need a lot more missiles for all those extra VLS. We will need to buy additional CIWS and possibly even ABM. The Harpoon missile will need to be replaced. The navy will also want UAV and perhaps UUV. In other words both political parties still have ample opportunities to stuff things up.
Reading about a situation in one thing, but to hear firsthand from someone who lived through it brings greater knowledge and understanding.
Thanks for your insights.
Of course if you kept the two ffgs in play a bit longer - the kiwis could be fitted into the build programme for the Hunters-
say build slots 6 and 8 if my math is right.
also these days we can lift the ffg’ s and keep them in dry storage rather than see them rot at the zoo
say build slots 6 and 8 if my math is right.
also these days we can lift the ffg’ s and keep them in dry storage rather than see them rot at the zoo
What price for a second hand FFG.
The unknown until there is a sale and ink is on the contract.
We will wait and see and see if the return is better than what we forgo.
Out of curiosity what would it cost to keep the two FFG's in working order for say 5 years.
Complete with a SINGLE skeleton crew,they would do no more than run the two ships a couple of short tips each year to test the vessels machinery and systems .
Regards S
t68
Well-Known Member
mmm an interesting landing craft might suit the LCM-1E replacement?
my only concern if the 65 tonne is the max cargo or just a figure for speed ideas.
CNIM new LCX multi-missions landing craft appears at Euronaval 2018
But in saying that id still like to sea the Damen 120LST with Skippy on the side
my only concern if the 65 tonne is the max cargo or just a figure for speed ideas.
CNIM new LCX multi-missions landing craft appears at Euronaval 2018
But in saying that id still like to sea the Damen 120LST with Skippy on the side
Last edited:
Thanks for the post.
An interesting craft with the same width as our LCM1E.
Length may limit just two side by side within the Canberra Class well deck.
Maybe a concept for down the track.
Any update on our landing craft carrying MBT sized loads, or is it just not doable in anything but the most placid of sea conditions.?
Regards S
With the well decks being just short of 70 meters in length you could actually fit 4 of these in there though that may limit room for any other boats. The issue with these craft however if the single ramp, Not so much for disembarking on the beaches but rather loading on the ship. Would slow the process down as they would have to flood the deck, switch the vessels back around etc etc all taking up time. That being said perhaps a limited purchase of these having 2 of them and 2 LCM-1E per a ship (plus spares/training craft) could work. With the for and aft ramps on the LCM-1E could allow most assets to drive straight through it and onto the CNIM LCX however not shore on the weight handling capacity of the aft ramp on the LCM-1E.
Lot of options out there really, Lot of considerations and plenty of effects to account for with which ever decision.
Speaking of Landing craft, has anyone got an explanation as to why our LHDs (certainly Canberra during RIMPAC) only embark 3x LCM1Es plus an LCM8 and that configuration seems to prevail?
Noting that the LCM8 has even less, 57 tonnes, capacity than the newbies.
Noting that the LCM8 has even less, 57 tonnes, capacity than the newbies.
I would guess to this loading delay would be for the first launch only. Returning boats would be loaded as they arrive.
The first launch should get the most warning and prep time so may not be such a big disadvantage.
The higher transit speed should compensate for any loading delays.
Ok .... does it fit in the LHD well dock? It is longer by 6.2m and deeper by 300mm. It also has a greater air draft (not much point if it is going to contact the overhead structure).......... and you cannot load through it to another unit. ...................... so it has to be backed in. It will be interesting to see how those water jets right at the back of the structure would interact with the steel beach. To be honest backing one of this in looks like a pain. We have some experiance with stern landing craft and it is not always positive.
What is the advantage as you can really only preload 2. If you have four carried then the other two would have to leave to let the loaded pair out and then re-enter the dock. This is a lot of mucking about and appears to make these harder to operate. Added to this the payload is the the same with the only advantage being 30 knots ..... when empty.
Just because something is fast does not make it a good idea. The LHD's carry four LCM E1 (all of which appear to have the same capacity as the LCX) and all of which can be laoded while the dock is dry as you can drive through to the back pair. This allows the first load out as soon as you flood down.
This is a gripe of mine. If something is to be proposed it should come with an assessment as to why it is better than what we have.............. so why would this suit the LCM-1E (noting this is not on the cards currently)? Whit si the practical advangate?
Agree an LCH replacement would appear to be a good idea but this certainly does not have any traction in DoD at the moment.
Last edited:
- Status