Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Fedup]

My understanding was Austal invested money for their facility to manufacture steel components/ modules so it is significant. If they actually sold technology to the Chinese….pretty dumb. US companies face serious consequences for this sort of stuff, foreign companies, likely more so.

 

[seaspear]

Looking up the congressman does not show him to be part of any intelligence committees and sometimes has shown questionable intelligence
Neal Dunn - Wikipedia apologies for citing WIKI

 

[CJR]

Austal has previously owned a stake in the Chinese shipyard building high speed ferries. And given their LCS design is in part descended from fast trimaran ferry designs it's likely there was some tech-transfer as part of those ship-building operations.

 

[John Fedup]

Looking up the congressman does not show him to be part of any intelligence committees and sometimes has shown questionable intelligence
Neal Dunn - Wikipedia apologies for citing WIKI

Questionable for sure albeit not quite as bad as some other newbie GOP members.

 

[John Fedup]

Austal has previously owned a stake in the Chinese shipyard building high speed ferries. And given their LCS design is in part descended from fast trimaran ferry designs it's likely there was some tech-transfer as part of those ship-building operations.

I wonder if it makes a difference whether the tech transfer occurred before or after the LCS award. If before then the procurement people should have pointed that out at the time. Then again considering how the LCS turned out, having the Chinese duplicate it…perhaps a good outcome!

 

[StingrayOZ]

from the AFR story..

Dr Dunn said his concerns were not just because Austal’s main competitor – the US-owned ship builder, Eastern Shipbuilding Group, was one of the biggest employers in his Florida electorate and had lost a contract to Austal several years ago.

Yeh, I would be surprised if Austal was working on anything particularly secret or complicated regarding submarines, they haven't historically been a submarine builder or part supplier. Most likely they are taking on low tech but skilled labor intensive work like hatches and doors, not nuclear power plants and torpedo's and nuclear weapons, which is what the politician seems to imply.

“I felt shocked. These are our deepest secrets here. We’re talking about manufacturing nuclear submarines, nuclear weapons that go on a submarine, and how it all works together. There’s nothing more secret than this,” Dr Dunn said.

Hands up if you believe Austal is building nuclear weapons? Doesn't seem likely.

I would also be very surprised if they were selling secrets to the Chinese. Again, Austal has only recently been doing some sub contracting work. Having an investment in China doesn't make them a spy. General Motors, Motorola, Tesla, General Electric has factories in China, are they selling military secrets?

As for the Chinese having Littoral ships that are similar in design, doesn't mean Austal sold secrets. America was quite late to the small aluminium boat concept.

Type 22 missile boat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The aluminium hull Type 22 for example was launched in 2004, where as the first LCS was launched in 2008.

Again, seems unlikely that Austal is building nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, selling secrets to the Chinese from the LCS program, and using a time machine to get them to before the LCS program started. The LCS program. The one everyone loves. And then got US submarine contracts after doing this.

Plenty of criticism can be levelled at Austal. But I don't see how any of this fits together.

 

[At lakes]

Yeh, I would be surprised if Austal was working on anything particularly secret or complicated regarding submarines, they haven't historically been a submarine builder or part supplier. Most likely they are taking on low tech but skilled labor intensive work like hatches and doors, not nuclear power plants and torpedo's and nuclear weapons, which is what the politician seems to imply.

v
Naval news advises that Austral has been awarded a contract for work on the Command Deck Module (what ever that is)

Austal Secures Command Deck Module Contract For Virginia-class submarine program - Naval News

Austal announced that it has been awarded a support contract by GDEB for the US Navy Virginia-Class submarine program.

www.navalnews.com

 

[alexsa]

I’ve been wondering about the exact same thing. ADV is usually only used for ‘Auxiliaries’ with either partial or full civilian crews?

I also find the term “Boat” for a ~60 metre vessel somewhat unfitting. Wouldn’t “Patrol Vessel” make more sense?

It would be good if the DSR includes a proper rethink in how we structure our patrol assets. The current set up seems unnecessarily messy.

The first two Capes for Navy were purchased by a bank and chartered to Defence. The are still a warship (Naval vessel) for the purpose of the Navigation Act 2012 as being commissioned is not a requirement under the act.

Section 10 is applicable

10 Act does not apply to naval vessels etc.

This Act does not apply to, or in relation to:

(a) a warship or other vessel that:

(i) is operated for naval or military purposes by Australia or a foreign country; and

(ii) is under the command of a member of the Australian Defence Force or of a member of the armed forces of the foreign country; and

(iii) bears external marks of nationality; and

(iv) is manned by seafarers under armed forces discipline (however described); or

(b) a Government vessel that is used only on government non‑commercial service as a naval auxiliary; or

(c) a vessel used by a foreign country for customs or law enforcement purposes.

Navigation Act 2012 (legislation.gov.au)

At the time the decision was made not to commission these two. It seems their duration was intended to be short. Things subsequently changed and extra 'evolved' capes were ordered with it being deemed cheaper than refurbishing the Armidales. They have treated these in the same manner and again I expect this reflects the fact they are still seen as a stop gap. It does obviate the need for ships crests and other paraphernalia. It also makes their hand over to border force a tad easier (which is why I expect they have never been fitted with the 25mm autocannon and rely on bog standard 50 cals rather that the mini typhoons).

 

[StingrayOZ]

Naval news advises that Austral has been awarded a contract for work on the Command Deck Module (what ever that is)

Well One presumes that is module with the control/command deck in it.
Many modern submarines have rafted modules that then go into the hull. So they may not actually be building anything structural, but like the interior fitout modules. Think kinda like the joinery in a kitchen.

Heres one from an Astute.

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

They may even use aluminium for some of this.

Again, this would be Austal USA, building them in the USA, with US workers, US management, US government oversight etc. Logically looking at AUKUS this would make it easier for in the future to Austal Australia to send Australian workers over there, or have US workers come to Australia.

With the LCS program wrapping up some people might be looking for work and be interested in relocating, even if only temporarily.

Austal seems to have found its niche in the US, with the flight II of the spearhead class, which looks like taking more of the medical role within the US Navy and away from super big hospital ships like Comfort and Mercy. Which have always been problematic, and then in covid proved to be very difficult to use, even in cities like new york with highly developed port facilities.

The cats can move very quickly into positions at high speed with minimal crew. You can then fly your doctors and nurses in nearby and move them onto the ships. Being a cat, they are stable platforms, and for medical purposes, usually located in well sheltered bays etc. The Cat design allows a small ship to have a big interior volume and very few ladders/stairs which is obviously ideal for a medical ship. They are big enough to land large helicopters directly onto the ships, but do not need to embark them permanently.

Being much smaller and more numerous, with shallow drafts, you can locate them much closer to where they are needed and at more austre ports or bays.

But even then, that program isn't limitless. Austal picking up some other work would make a lot of sense for them.

Like most military items, ships and submarines aren't just made out of one material anymore. Welding plate steel to a hull and welding aluminium are different arts.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Well One presumes that is module with the control/command deck in it.
Many modern submarines have rafted modules that then go into the hull. So they may not actually be building anything structural, but like the interior fitout modules. Think kinda like the joinery in a kitchen.

Heres one from an Astute.
View attachment 50038

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

They may even use aluminium for some of this.

Again, this would be Austal USA, building them in the USA, with US workers, US management, US government oversight etc. Logically looking at AUKUS this would make it easier for in the future to Austal Australia to send Australian workers over there, or have US workers come to Australia.

With the LCS program wrapping up some people might be looking for work and be interested in relocating, even if only temporarily.

Austal seems to have found its niche in the US, with the flight II of the spearhead class, which looks like taking more of the medical role within the US Navy and away from super big hospital ships like Comfort and Mercy. Which have always been problematic, and then in covid proved to be very difficult to use, even in cities like new york with highly developed port facilities.

The cats can move very quickly into positions at high speed with minimal crew. You can then fly your doctors and nurses in nearby and move them onto the ships. Being a cat, they are stable platforms, and for medical purposes, usually located in well sheltered bays etc. The Cat design allows a small ship to have a big interior volume and very few ladders/stairs which is obviously ideal for a medical ship. They are big enough to land large helicopters directly onto the ships, but do not need to embark them permanently.

Being much smaller and more numerous, with shallow drafts, you can locate them much closer to where they are needed and at more austre ports or bays.

But even then, that program isn't limitless. Austal picking up some other work would make a lot of sense for them.

Like most military items, ships and submarines aren't just made out of one material anymore. Welding plate steel to a hull and welding aluminium are different arts.

Austal USA also has a US Navy order for two of the new Navajo-class rescue and salvage ships and a floating dry dock as well as a contract to build up to 11 of the US Coast Guard's Offshore Patrol Cutters, as they expand their steel building portfolio. They're one of the companies that the USN contracted to design a version of the Light Amphibious Warfare ship. And they're expected to compete for contracts building the USN's medium and large unmanned surface vessels.

 

[Going Boeing]

This article gives an indication of Austal USA’s order book, the move to steel shipbuilding has been vindicated.

Hiring surge - Austal USA

 

[StingrayOZ]

This article gives an indication of Austal USA’s order book, the move to steel shipbuilding has been vindicated.

Hiring surge - Austal USA

Its a interesting explanation why after the LCS they had to diversify and why they are now looking at various builds. Austal USA is an American arm of an Australian company, it looks like they are finding their niche as a small sized builder taking on smaller runs and support type projects.

the explaination of the submarine build module provides the details.

Other companies build the Virginia-class and Columbia-class submarines, and that isn’t changing. But Ryder said the Navy wants to make sure the industrial base is there to support its desired production rates, and that’s where Austal comes in. It knows how to build modules, so it’s going to be doing that: Command and Control Systems Modules and Electronic Deck Modules for the two sub programs.

Building the cylindrical pressure hull is the kind of specialized job Austal won’t be taking on. “What we build is going to slide into that hull as a module,” Ryder said. The process is beginning with a module being shipped in for Austal to outfit; by 2026 it’ll be building them from scratch and shipping them up the East Coast for installation.

 

[Tbone]

So with the reports coming out of the France Australia meeting marles stating that no conventional submarine will be built to fill the gap.
I can’t see how we can fill the gap without them.. the lote looks like going ahead but I don’t think this will cover the needs next decade.

 

[Morgo]

So with the reports coming out of the France Australia meeting marles stating that no conventional submarine will be built to fill the gap.
I can’t see how we can fill the gap without them.. the lote looks like going ahead but I don’t think this will cover the needs next decade.

Why don't you think post LOTE Collins will be able to cover it vs a new build conventional sub, especially when the timing of SSNs entering service (and hence the size of the gap) is unknown?

How long would it take to build and get a conventional sub into service?

How much would this distract from and slow down the SSN build?

 

[Lolcake]

Why don't you think post LOTE Collins will be able to cover it vs a new build conventional sub, especially when the timing of SSNs entering service (and hence the size of the gap) is unknown?

How long would it take to build and get a conventional sub into service?

How much would this distract from and slow down the SSN build?

Marles hinted at basically what Dutton leaked a while back. Was asked if we had to wait till the 2040s, he basically said there was no need for a new stop gap sub and we wouldn't have to wait anywhere near the 2040s for a Nuke sub. That eludes to an off the shelf subs from existing UK or US shipyards.

Dutton was a month or two away from announcing the deal pre-election, I imagine its the same deal with some refinement.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So with the reports coming out of the France Australia meeting marles stating that no conventional submarine will be built to fill the gap.
I can’t see how we can fill the gap without them.. the lote looks like going ahead but I don’t think this will cover the needs next decade.

Remember the context of this. I am pretty sure Australia will never be buying a conventional french sub, or a nuclear french sub. I do think the shared approach on making 155mm rounds make sense. Australia supplies explosives, france can make the finished rounds.. Build bridges between nations and industry and move on and forward.

Labor has said they would looking other other capabilities that could be used help that capability. Things being mentioned were more surface ships or P8 and or Drones.

The issue with the LOTE, is you further lose subs while you are doing the lote. We are also doing the lote at the same time as we are pulling the DDG's out of the water and doing further upgrades on the Anzacs so less hours there too. Even the OPV's will need upgrades (like a gun). We are also upgrading the F-35 so they also get reduced effective numbers and flight hours.

Maybe the excess personal from the RAN and the RAAF can move into the army for the next 10 years. But the army isn't getting the IFV.. so maybe they can practice marching.

But the defence review will fix everything. Its going to fix industry, industry workforce, sovereignty, defence recruitment, defence procurement, readiness, aukus, the subs, the land vehicles, the air force, the budget, the relationship with Japan, France, South Korea, Germany, the Uk and the US.. And its going to do it all in about two weeks time. We are going to have this amazing force that will deter China no less, but also make friends with them. Quite clever really.

I don't know or think new conventional are perhaps the answer, but they would address some of those issues. Smith and Gus must be very smart people, brilliant really, to be able to fix all these problems so quickly, without spending basically anymore money, with out a time machine to make decisions 10 years ago, and to fix the ongoing difficulties coming towards Australian defence. Unbelievably smart. Impossibly smart. There must be solutions normal unwashed, unintelligent slobs just can't see.. But also, for some reason, neither Gus nor Smith were able to implement them when they were leading this very same area. I certainly hope the defence review isn't just about realigning our expectations and lowering our threat perception.

To think a quick defence review is going to fix the last ~30 years of defence and shift it to fix the future ~5-10 years of challenges coming towards us. It makes me wonder why we didn't put Smith and Gus in this type of role 10+ years ago. Can you imagine if we had such capable and forward thinking people as minister of defence between 2010-2013 and chief of the defence force between 2005-2011 the things that could have been achieved!!

 

[Tbone]

Text deleted because you have copied and pasted without providing original commentary. You have a habit of doing this and you are banned from replying to posts on this thread for seven days.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Tbone]

Could we be possible acquiring the improved 1996 los angels class submarine. Will be currently 2023/24 upgrades and a core refueling to extend its life 10 more years.
It a 3year process so would be ready by 2027 and every year after that. 6-7 are budgeted for by the US.
This article really does present a point that would benefit everyone and give Australia a nuclear gap sub before building our own.
I’d be happy

 

[ngatimozart]

Could we be possible acquiring the improved 1996 los angels class submarine. Will be currently 2023/24 upgrades and a core refueling to extend its life 10 more years.
It a 3year process so would be ready by 2027 and every year after that. 6-7 are budgeted for by the US.
This article really does present a point that would benefit everyone and give Australia a nuclear gap sub before building our own.
I’d be happy

Read back through the thread. This has been debated ad nauseum and well explained why it's not gonna fly.

 

[Going Boeing]

The issue with the LOTE, is you further lose subs while you are doing the lote. We are also doing the lote at the same time as we are pulling the DDG's out of the water and doing further upgrades on the Anzacs so less hours there too. Even the OPV's will need upgrades (like a gun).

When the LOTE was confirmed, they stated that it would be completed in conjunction with each 2 year Collins Full Cycle Docking so that it will not result in more subs being unavailable than usual. It would be naive to think that the first one will not run over the planned 2 years.

The attached chart was in an article in November 21 and shows that during the Collins/SSN transition period the available fleet will be only 4-5 vessels but none are involved in FCD’s, although there will be the usual 12 month Half Cycle Dockings for the Collins boats 5 years after completion of the LOTE.



@Going Boeing A source for this chart please. You've been on here long enough to know the rules.

Ngatimozart.

My apologies for the lack of a link but extensive searches have failed to find the original article. I had saved the chart for reference and it was a good way to show why the RAN does not expect the LOTE to adversely affect the Collins class availability thus I included it in my post. I will continue the search and, if found, will include the link. GB