Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
AndyinOz
Member
Australia will be responsible for the waste resulting from the building and running of the reactors utilised in the RAN nuclear submarine program. Hence the search for a place to build and operate a repository for this material. It would seem that the government is back at square one as far as identifying and deciding on a potential location. Of course Australia does already store radioactive waste but the material in the submarines reactors is of quite a different nature and requires a much different storage regime.
"As part of satisfying our obligations, Australia has committed to manage all radioactive waste generated through the acquisition and operation of our nuclear-powered submarines. "
The Hon Richard Marles MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Defence
This is very impressive stuff.Speak of the devil and he shall appear!
Babcock throws their hat into the ring for a AU/NZ small frigate.
Australia-NZ could combine on deal for smaller, missile-laden frigates
British defence giant Babcock has pitched a light frigate design to Australia amid jockeying by shipbuilders ahead of a major navy review.www.afr.com
The idea seems to be to build them perhaps at ASC instead of the full compliment of Hunters.
I still think that is dumb.
Even if NVL builds 6 corvettes, that barely keeps Henderson busy. They need volume. They could build 4-6+ OPV at a time. So the time needed to build 4-6 ships is similar as to build 1 ship. By the time 2027 rolls around, Civmec's construction halls will be empty, and ships could be at Henderson, or Osborne, or captain cook, or Civmec/forgacs tomago site getting finished/fitted out/sea trials.
I think I could find someone to buy some armed OPVs very quickly.
Romania cancels 1.2 bln euro warships deal with France's Naval Group
Osborne is so busy. Osborne will also be busy with Hobart upgrades, collins upgrades and Anzac upgrades, Hunter builds (even if reduced) and building SSNs.. They have ~$15 billion in work over the next 5 years.
Once civmec and NVL have finished 12 ships, their deal is done and is free to look at other work. If we selected something like the Babcock A140, it would take until 2027 at least, to have a build design, equipment ordered, suppliers in place etc. We would barely have enough time to get that project ready to build before Civmec needs to be fed more.
Things like the amphib project also won't keep them busy. They could easily have 3 A140 in build within the hall and another outside at the same time.
These are full digital ship yards. Metal is cut by machine, shaped by machine, mostly welded by machine, machine bent pipe, wiring loom by machine, painted by machine. This isn't thousands of workers crawling over a site hammering in rivets and holding oxy torches.
Cost to build. Is somewhat meaningless. Australia has this huge automated super yards in Australia in Osborne and Henderson. The issue isn't build cost, its work. The yard is much faster and more efficient than our political system.
Henderson alone can fabricate something like 100,000t of steel per annum. While a bit of a meaningless metric, the message is that 2000t per year is nothing in terms of fabrication in these new automated mega facilities.
It sounds to me like finishing the Arafuras, and then having “something else” ready for Civmec to chew on is the way of the future.
AFAIK its not a stake as such. But some sort of agreement that NVL and CIVMEC are tied together and breaking that would be like trying to break naval group and ASC, which costs hundreds of millions.
Civmec spent big in Henderson for their massive digital yard. I assume they have significant leasing of that facility. They formed the Australian Maritime Ship building and Export Group (AMSEG). CIVMEC doesn't just build ships at Henderson, they also do oil and gas stuff. So you can't just kick them out. Its a multipurpose site for them. AFIK they put up the infrastructure money, not the government. Its their facility, with joint areas such as the lift.
CIVMEC are famous for shaping steel, not building ships. That Henderson facility is massive. It was designed to mass produce mid sized vessels. It can paint a whole OPV like a car factory paints a car, drive the whole thing through a spray booth.
View attachment 50698
View attachment 50699
That is showing a Hobart, a Anzac and two OPV being built in the assembly hall all at the same time. Its freaking massive and setup for mass production of medium sized ships, and could accomodate larger ship building, at least steel fabrication.
Industry and the Australian Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel: The Role of CIVMEC - Second Line of Defense
By Robbin Laird The Australian Offshore Patrol Vessel or the Arafura Class OPV program is the launch program for the new Australian approach to shipbuilding. Termed a “continuous shipbuilding process,” the core point is to have an ongoing shipbuilding effort, rather than a start and stop...sldinfo.com
Austal seems to have wound down operations and is finishing the patrol boat stuff.
WA company Austal cuts 300 ship-building jobs
Ship builder Austal is cutting 300 jobs as it winds down the building of Australian Customs vessels and two Navy vessels for Oman.www.watoday.com.au
BAE basically owns the ASC staff until the end of the Hunter contract. Again, kicking BAE out of ASC would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, definitely very expensive, billions. BAE is also no doubt also going to be involved in the SSN AUKUS stuff.
I'm not so sure. These days, cupboards are bare.. If we started to make stuff, I am pretty sure people would gladly take it. There is no rule saying Australia's ukraine/taiwan aid can't be in combat ships.
I thought the new buildings at civmec should have been future proofed from the beginning, the main hall should have had the same height across all 4 bays allowing any sized ship and not just 2 frigate/destroyer central and 2 opv/corvette either side. The blast and paint hall double the depth and height to accomodate any ship(not just opvs), the smaller fab workshop could have been the same size as the existing building but shipbuilding specific. The steel yard could have been moved to the otherside where the empty reserve is(next to asc)
Imo. going forward civmec should take over maintenance/upgrades instead of shipbuilding and the bae yard at Henderson demolished/upgraded and a new shipbuilding facility built. (300m x 600m block of land.)
The facility at Kimba was nothing to do with the RAN Nuclear program but how the government deals with existing waste from Lukas Heights and the medical waste produced. I believe currently this waste is spread out around the country at different medical sites and Lukas Heights itself.
The government have been clear that waste from AUKUS will be stored on a Defence site yet to be determined so I do not think this cancellation affects AUKUS.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The article is behind a paywall so not able to read the full article. Based on what can be read it appears that this is just Babcock doing what Navantia and NVL have already done. Until the Navy surface fleet review has been completed and the CoA make a decision on how to achieve any or all of the review recommendations, these 'offers' are just commercial posturing. The reality is that it will be just Australia that may be looking for a new class of vessel. NZ have only just received their 2nd frigate back from its MLU so there will be no plan to replace them for the next 10-15 years. The existing OPVs were tied up due to manning shortfalls as were the 4 IPVs (before 2 were sold to the Irish Naval service). The only new vessel the RNZN was planning for was the SOPV but that can has been well and truly kicked down the road.Babcock throws their hat into the ring for a AU/NZ small frigate.
Australia-NZ could combine on deal for smaller, missile-laden frigates
British defence giant Babcock has pitched a light frigate design to Australia amid jockeying by shipbuilders ahead of a major navy review.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
You can get it via incognito mode.
NZ interest will depend on what, when, capability and how much, but noise from Wellington does indicate that there is thinking going on about frigate replacement.
SwingShift
Member
That would make it the perfect time to start planning it. I’m not advocating for or against another ANZ frigate program, or a particular primes pitch, purely flagging that planning now for delivery in 10-15 years in this industry would be showing forward leadership and vision, the opposite of what has gotten us (Oz) into our current fleet and workforce predicament. Assuming NZ wouldn’t need the first ships off the line, 15 years may be perfect timing.
The Kimba site was specifically for storing low level waste from ANSTO's OPAL reactor and, as far as I know, had nothing to do with Defence plans. The fact it fell through is both somewhat humorous and also very disappointing as the waste intended to be stored there would give you a smaller radiation dose than standing in front of a microwave.A decade-long process to establish a nuclear waste facility near Kimba in South Australia has collapsed, with the government abandoning the plan in a decision that could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.
This might be a bit of a set back for AUKUS. I’m assuming we won’t need to store sub waste till well into the 40s but still a high volume of nuclear waste (+17000 cubic meters) sitting around the country looking for a home.
AUKUS alarm after nuclear dump in South Australia is axed — The Australian
The decision by the federal government over the SA site could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.apple.news
OldTex
Well-Known Member
You seem to be confusing ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I doubt ANSTO wants to know about every microwave in Australia.
I'm talking about ionising radiation, and the point stands that a microwave gives off more radiation (although non-ionising) than the waste they were planning to store at Kimba. That particular line was a probably poorly quoted version of what I was told when I visited Lucas Heights last year.
The way I would see things panning out will be at least 6 more Arafura's or Arafura derivitives followed by a GP frigate in the 2030s. Given AUKUS is now a thing it wouldn't surprise me if Babcock got the inside running.Speak of the devil and he shall appear!
Babcock throws their hat into the ring for a AU/NZ small frigate.
Australia-NZ could combine on deal for smaller, missile-laden frigates
British defence giant Babcock has pitched a light frigate design to Australia amid jockeying by shipbuilders ahead of a major navy review.
Whether Australia and NZ would team up on this is another matter. I don't see a partnership neccessarily benefitting either country. In Australia's case they may not have the spare shipbuilding capacity and in NZ case they could buy elsewhere for less. Given that NZ and Australia have gone almost completely different directions with the basic ANZAC design it could be possible that they could settle on the same hull but with radically different fit outs.
The gist of the article was that an admittedly unnamed source said the Kiwi navy had told Australian officials that if the Albanese government went down the path of selecting a light frigate such as the Arrowhead, New Zealand would be keen to partner. The NZ defence minister stated that a decision on the ANZAC frigate replacement frigate would need to made in a couple of years, which would seem to match up with the timing of and tier two warship decision that will be made for Australia.
It also points out that any political fallout with Britain that might occur as a result of any cutback in the Hunter program would be mitigated if something like the Type 31 were selected.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I was involved in the SA Royal Commission into a possible nuclear waste disposal industry in South Australia. Whilst I don’t think all of the technical reports were ever published, I think it is fair to say that the inquiry demonstrated that there are multiple sites in SA with physical characteristics that would make them safe and secure for long term nuclear waste storage. This waste storage could include the safe disposal of spent nuclear reactor cores from RAN SSNs. The main problem was economic, not technical.A decade-long process to establish a nuclear waste facility near Kimba in South Australia has collapsed, with the government abandoning the plan in a decision that could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.
This might be a bit of a set back for AUKUS. I’m assuming we won’t need to store sub waste till well into the 40s but still a high volume of nuclear waste (+17000 cubic meters) sitting around the country looking for a home.
AUKUS alarm after nuclear dump in South Australia is axed — The Australian
The decision by the federal government over the SA site could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.
A suitable site would need to be geologically stable, have safe road and preferably rail access, have a finite number of controllable access points, be separate from any inhabited area by several kilometres, not share a water table with agricultural land, and have suitable accommodation within a practical distance for a site workforce. Multiple locations, including several ex mine sites, would meet these criteria.
In my view designating a suitable SSN nuclear waste disposal site is necessary (we will have to dispose of them), but quite feasible. It needs a proper planning process undertaken that can impartially assess suitable locations and identify a preferred site. For public acceptability this ought to be a transparent process, which may be where Kimba fell short. Putting the waste on Defence land may be administratively convenient, but does not guarantee the best site.
One of the sites I am thinking of would have ample space to safely dispose of nulcear waste from all of the US, UK and French SSNs built to date combined. If this issue stopped being a political football, a large safe nuclear waste depository site is something Australia could contribute to a genuinely collaborative multi-nation SSN program.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
140m and close to 6000t is a small Frigate? The Hobarts are only 7-8m longer and about 1500t heavier. I wonder if someone is making assumptions here about which Arrowhead design they are talking about, Babcock also has the smaller Arrowhead 120 design to offer, a bit funny they would be calling the larger of their two frigate designs, "a small frigate"
Australian geology is excellent for such things, IIRC. Very old, very stable rock for the most part.
I know I'm guilty of it as well but the discussion of tiers seems to miss a very important point, their definition is not actually defined.
Basically if you have three Burke's, arguably the Hobart's would be your tier 2 capability, if the biggest and best you had was an Arafura with a mini Typhoon upfront (50cal), then your Capes with a couple of MAG 58s would be your tier 2.
The FFGs, when ordered were very much second tier, multiple reviews and assessments had determined they were not a suitable or capable supplement to, let alone replacement for the Darings. Two decades later, they were our first tier surface compatant as we had nothing more capable.
Basically if you have three Burke's, arguably the Hobart's would be your tier 2 capability, if the biggest and best you had was an Arafura with a mini Typhoon upfront (50cal), then your Capes with a couple of MAG 58s would be your tier 2.
The FFGs, when ordered were very much second tier, multiple reviews and assessments had determined they were not a suitable or capable supplement to, let alone replacement for the Darings. Two decades later, they were our first tier surface compatant as we had nothing more capable.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
A good example of this is the Darussalam class of the Brunei Navy, same basic design as the Arafura class but far better armed, what so many "experts" fail to understand, is they are the Brunei Navy's equivalent of the Hobart class, their Teir 1 ship. In the USN the Perry class was designed as a Tier 3 at best, behind the Cruisers and Destroyers.
