Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

Yes waiting

surface ships are expensive and now offer very little bang for your buck. I don’t think we will even replace the Hobarts with a new class in 2050

my fantasy…

TEXT DELETED

@Reptilia You don't learn do you. A one three month ban for your post.

Ngatimozart

EDIT Ban changed to three months after it was noted that you have had seven warnings for similar behaviour.

Ngatimozart.

 

[hauritz]

China will not be invading Australia anytime soon. I don't see that as the threat. The threat is that China will start to build its empire on Australia's doorstep and will eventually expand it power and influence into this region. Eventually his could leave Australia in much the same situation as the Ukraine having to face down a much more powerful foe with virtually no allies to depend on.

Ultimately you build a military to support and attract allies ... not to try and take on China by ourselves.

I also don't think it is realistic at this stage to see new frontline warships in service until the 2030s and that we will be forced to use the assets we already have at our disposal.

Aircraft can be obtained more quickly than ships. I would be tempted to use some of the unused funding from delays in our submarine and frigate programs for additional P-8s. Certainly also worth moving ahead with new weapons, AI, UAVs, USVs, UUVs or whatever.

There will be more Chinese incursions into this region over the coming years and the only asset we have under construction that could deal with that is the Arafura. While I don't see the Arafura as a frontline warship I do see at least some potential to increase its capabilities. Same with the LHDs.

Apart from that we are hamstrung by poor decisions that were made decades ago. We should have kept building Hobarts and we should have built Collins 7 and 8, but we didn't. Hopefully we won't have to pay for those bad decisions.

 

[Redlands18]

surface ships are expensive and now offer very little bang for your buck. I don’t think we will even replace the Hobarts with a new class in 2050

my fantasy…
My moneys on a whole bunch of autonomous loyal wingman gen 2/3, uuv’s, drone aerial refuelers and lhds from which they are all launched.
alot more air bases too.

1-2 billion dollars for a good surface vessel or up to 200-400 autonomous loyal wingman for the same price…

35 billion suppossbly gets you
9 Hunter class frigates…
or
Potentially 7000 fighter like uav’s… (5 mill per unit)

Guys I really would cut out the Fantasy Fleet stuff, especially on this Thread, the Mods get very tough on it.

 

[John Newman]

surface ships are expensive and now offer very little bang for your buck. I don’t think we will even replace the Hobarts with a new class in 2050

my fantasy…
My moneys on a whole bunch of autonomous loyal wingman gen 2/3, uuv’s, drone aerial refuelers and lhds from which they are all launched.
alot more air bases too.

1-2 billion dollars for a good surface vessel or up to 200-400 autonomous loyal wingman for the same price…

35 billion suppossbly gets you
9 Hunter class frigates…
or
Potentially 7000 fighter like uav’s… (5 mill per unit)

In my almost 11 years here on DT I’ve seen dumb posts, really dumb posts and exceptionally dumb posts too, this one? Well, words escape me ..... almost.

My eyes are bleeding, but if I get this right, it appears the suggestion is all naval units, except LHDs, are a waste of money or obsolete, true?

I have one simple question:

“what happens when those fleet of LHDs are sent to the bottom by swarms of anti-ship missiles and/or torpedoes???”

 

[Bob53]

The lead times now, for all of the reasons mentioned above are scary. It’s potentially 1938 and we are talking about delivering capabilities Weill in to the 1950s.

what really frustrates me and this me slightly off subject, is that the rise of China, the ambitions of Putin and nut case scenarios esposed by North Korea and Iran didn’t just start last week.

China started their build up in the very early 2000s with a stated claim on Taiwan , when did Russia invade Georgia and Crimea. North Korea has been after nukes for 30 years, and so on but no political party considered my of these as as any risk to Australia. Now we find ourselves scrambling.

 

[Bob53]

Williamstown's ship building days have probably passed.
But here is a thought.
The City of Melbourne has a population greater than the combined populations of WA and SA.
It is also a major manufacturing hub for the nation and is well recognized for tertiary Education.
Lets not forget that 10 of our 16 MFU's had some form of constructed work completed at Williamstown.

But yes, Williamstown's ship building days have probably passed.

The ship building baton went west some years ago

Cheers S

How hard could it be to do an upgrade of an existing facility while it’s not in use with probably Australia biggest manufacturing and trade centre almost at its door step? It looks like an answer to many of the capacity questions posed here.

 

[Sierra Mike]

How hard could it be to do an upgrade of an existing facility while it’s not in use with probably Australia biggest manufacturing and trade centre almost at its door step? It looks like an answer to many of the capacity questions posed here.

Forget it. Williamstown is history.
The production facilities were being mothballed at completion of the LHD/AWD builds. The orientation of the yard is completely wrong for modern ship building techniques. That is one of the reasons it has been let go. The land is too valuable and significant acquistion of public land would be required around Point Gelibrand to make it a viable modern ship yard. As much as it grieves me to say Osbourne has been chosen as the future and all that will remain at Williamstown is the graving dock and 150years of history.

 

[spoz]

Williamstown was maxed out building FFG7s; there is a limit on the size of the building slip imposed by the presence of Nelson Place/Battery Road on one side and the shipping channel out of the Yarra and the swinging basin on the other. That’s why Osborne was developed for the DDGs.

Dog town is not the place it used to be; it is now full of up market apartment buildings, eateries etc. The chances of ever building another warship there are probably zero; particularly with BAE who owns it now having Osborne.

 

[John Newman]

How hard could it be to do an upgrade of an existing facility while it’s not in use with probably Australia biggest manufacturing and trade centre almost at its door step? It looks like an answer to many of the capacity questions posed here.

Agree with the points made by Sierra Mike and Spoz.

But let’s assume BAE, or more likely the Commonwealth, stumps up the money to upgrade the site.

You’d now have three naval shipbuilding precincts that would require a sufficient continuous flow of work to avoid the infamous ‘valley of death’ being repeated again once the ‘imaginary patrol frigate’ project was completed.

It would be doomed to fail, not going to happen.

If more capacity was required, then enlargement of Osborne or Henderson, is really the only logical way to go.

 

[Bob53]

Agree with the points made by Sierra Mike and Spoz.

But let’s assume BAE, or more likely the Commonwealth, stumps up the money to upgrade the site.

You’d now have three naval shipbuilding precincts that would require a sufficient continuous flow of work to avoid the infamous ‘valley of death’ being repeated again once the ‘imaginary patrol frigate’ project was completed.

It would be doomed to fail, not going to happen.

If more capacity was required, then enlargement of Osborne or Henderson, is really the only logical way to go.

All points noted but flys in the face of having no available work force or facility to build a 2000-4000 ton ships If we needed. I don’t doubt it’s probably done and dusted…am familiar with the site but another head scratcher for me

 

[Scott Elaurant]

This discussion of kill the OPV, or build better armed corvettes or build patrol frigates, and do it all ASAP, is fantasy.

Would we all like to see more MFUs in the RAN sooner than later? Of course, but it’s not that simple.

How long will it take to create a budget, change the Force Structure Plan, produce an RFI, then a shortlist of contenders, then an RFT, maybe cull the short list, finally pick a design, negotiate a contract, etc, etc? We should be well into the Hunter build by then, and other building projects too.

And if that wasn’t enough, there is the not so small matter of shipbuilding manpower (or lack of) and some infrastructure requirements.

Current Osborne projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingSAFactsheet.pdf

* Collins class - current workforce perform FCD and shortly start LOTE
* SSN - workforce doesn’t yet exist, has to be built and grown
* Hunter class - workforce being built (block prototyping, etc) but will need to grow substantially for real production, which is not that far away
* OPV - production will start to wind down soon
* DDG upgrade - starts shortly after OPV project ends, I would imagine the OPV workforce will either move/split across the DDG and Hunter build.

Osborne infrastructure:
* ASC maintenance hall - was used to build the boats, now FCD and upcoming LOTE
* SSN build halls, were started for Attack class, will probably need adjustment, still to be completed
* BAE - will use the new build halls (built and owned by ANI) for Hunter class program
* ASC Shipbuilding build halls - originally used for DDG construction, now used for OPV, will likely be used for DDG upgrade
* Shiplift x 2 - one for Collins, one for ships, submarine shiplift may require enlargement for SSNs?

Not much excess capacity, especially manpower, to start a Patrol Frigate project ASAP.


Current Henderson projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingWAFactsheet.pdf

* Patrol Boats - Austal currently building two PB classes, Austal also has commercial projects, PB projects come to an end shortly
* Collins class - ASC perform MCD and other sustainment
* Anzac class - BAE workforce, AMCAP comes to an end shortly, sustainment continues, maybe further upgrades?
* OPV x 10 - Civmec workforce employed up to approx 2030

Projects to start between now and 2030:
* Mine warfare/Hydrographic ships x 8 - based on OPV, likely to be built by Civmec, or in their build hall alongside OPV fleet
* Joint Support Ships x 2 - one to replace Choules, one additional
* Ocean Protector replacement
* Undersea Surveillance Support ships - size and number unknown?
* Forward Support vessel - size/configuration unknown?
* Replacement LHD (LCM-1E) landing craft
* Army watercraft - LCM8, Large Landing Craft (LCH replacements), Riverine Patrol craft

Some of the infrastructure upgrades required are:
* Dry Dock - future maintenance, but also likely to be required for the 2 x JSS and Ocean Protector build projects
* Transfer systems for larger ships and ship maintenance
* Possibly new halls required for JSS block work, etc

So ......

I struggle to see where, or how, a whole new Frigate project can be slotted in quickly amongst the other projects, infrastructure, and find the manpower to do so, apart from completely trashing the NSP and starting again (can’t see that happening).

If, and it’s a very big ‘if’, the Government decided tomorrow the RAN required a new fleet of Frigates ASAP, overseas build appears to be the only option.

Builders in Japan, South Korea, Italy and Spain are some of the obvious locations that could happen.

But that would be political suicide for any Government to send that work overseas.

Anyway, no simple solution, and just my opinion of course.

Cheers,

John thanks, this is an interesting post in terms of infrastructure details. For the future SSN build, the “drumbeat” may now be critical in order to replace the Collins Class rapidly. The original Collins build was at a one year “drumbeat with at one stage all six hulls in the ASC site together in parallel. So while everyone has been focusing on the date to replacce the first Collins SSK, in many ways the time to replace the last one (Rankin) is more critical. For the Attack/SSN build, do you know how many sub hulls they were planning to build in parallel?

I ask because obviously this will be a critical constraint on delivery time, assuming sufficient workers can be recruited and traind in the interim. Do you think there might be potential to expand the SSN build facility to allow more parallel construction? I assume there will need to be upgrading of the ASC sub building halls anyway to meet nuclear engineering standards for the SSN build. So that would be an obvious time to expand for more construction capacity.

I think this was already an issue for the relpacement of Collins Class in a timely manner to ensure we are putting safe submarines to sea, With the pressure now for an immediate boost to the RAN’s at sea strength, it will become even more critical.

 

[Stampede]

Williamstown was maxed out building FFG7s; there is a limit on the size of the building slip imposed by the presence of Nelson Place/Battery Road on one side and the shipping channel out of the Yarra and the swinging basin on the other. That’s why Osborne was developed for the DDGs.

Dog town is not the place it used to be; it is now full of up market apartment buildings, eateries etc. The chances of ever building another warship there are probably zero; particularly with BAE who owns it now having Osborne.

Yep , Williamstown is certainly a prime bit of real estate located close to town with proximity to the bay.
If ships were to built there it would be as a compliment to the others yards out west and only in a major defence of the realm type situation.
We are not at that stage.
Focus will be shipbuilding in SA and WA.

Mind you, while the yards are old and now dated, there is still potential until they are finally turned into retail / commercial and residential spaces.



Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

Williamstown is at best into the future is a block assembley supplier/maintenance hub. It can potentially still support/aid the naval industry but a site to build them no. We have moved big into hard stands because of the massive effieiciencies the provide over a dry dock whhich Williamstown lacks the actual land space to be used to update the site to support such a set up. So keep it is a support site sure, But its not the primary site of Osborne or even Henderson.

As for submarine drumbeat, Well all depends how many boats we decide to have. One thing I am curious on but unable to find the info on is in regards to the level of enrichment and lifespan of a reactor. Dont imagine I will get a straight answer if any purely on the national security grounds aline but where we are to build 8 at a minimum if we went to a 3 year drumb beat long term would a lower level of enrochment (Hypothetically 66%) work into a 24 year life span? Im just wondering if it is possible then if it would be feasible to have our reactors built for a shorter time frame potentially allowing our boats to be built in shorter drumbeats rather then every 4 years get them every 3 years.

 

[oldsig127]

.... Do you think there might be potential to expand the SSN build facility to allow more parallel construction? I assume there will need to be upgrading of the ASC sub building halls anyway to meet nuclear engineering standards for the SSN build.

Bad assumption. The new submarine build facility is exactly that. New, not a modification. Existing submarine yard is Osborne Nth, the Hunters will be built in the now completed new Osborne South facility and the new Submarine yard is in the expansion are west of the existing Sub facility.

One sub yard for Collins life extensions etc, one for new construction.

Links to site plans are all over the two RAN threads

oldsig

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Williamstown is at best into the future is a block assembley supplier/maintenance hub. It can potentially still support/aid the naval industry but a site to build them no. We have moved big into hard stands because of the massive effieiciencies the provide over a dry dock whhich Williamstown lacks the actual land space to be used to update the site to support such a set up. So keep it is a support site sure, But its not the primary site of Osborne or even Henderson.

As for submarine drumbeat, Well all depends how many boats we decide to have. One thing I am curious on but unable to find the info on is in regards to the level of enrichment and lifespan of a reactor. Dont imagine I will get a straight answer if any purely on the national security grounds aline but where we are to build 8 at a minimum if we went to a 3 year drumb beat long term would a lower level of enrochment (Hypothetically 66%) work into a 24 year life span? Im just wondering if it is possible then if it would be feasible to have our reactors built for a shorter time frame potentially allowing our boats to be built in shorter drumbeats rather then every 4 years get them every 3 years.

Vonnoobie the degree of nuclear fuel enrichment is a separate question to the time for the submarine drumbeat. USN has lots of spare highly enriched uranium (HEU) from dismantled nuclear warheads following the drawdown of nuclear weapon numbers after the treaties at the end of the cold war. So they can easily produce highly enriched uranium (HEU) reactor cores for use in their PWR reactor SSNs. The main constraint for them is the backlog in production of the reactor cores. These are often ordered in advance of the SSN. I understand UK gets HEU from the USN as well for Rolls Royce to build their reactor cores as well. The latest US reactors are getting up to 35 years out of a reactor core. Columbia Class is aiming for 40 years.

The French program relies on low enriched uranium (LEU) reactor cores which need to be replaced more often. This used to be about every six years but the French have improved this up to 10 years. Subject to the availability of a new core, the French can refuel one of their SSNs in a couple of weeks. That has to happen in France, so if it was an RN SSN it would still be unavailable to the RN for a couple of months, by the time it transited to France and back.

I understand a HEU core can be manufactured in around a year, subject to the availability of the HEU uranium. The French Navy get their LEU from their nuclear power program, which is large (>50 reactors) so they have plenty. I assume it still takes them a year to manufacture a core from their LEU supply.

So in both cases (HEU via USN or LEU via French Navy) the uranium fuel supply is not really a constraint and the manufacture of the reactor core takes around a year each. The reactor itself, assuming good quality manufacturing, will last 40 years, or the life of the submarine. The hard bit is getting the uranium fuel core, not building the nuclear reactor itself. There are probably many classified details I do not know, but that is my overall understanding.

 

[John Newman]

John thanks, this is an interesting post in terms of infrastructure details. For the future SSN build, the “drumbeat” may now be critical in order to replace the Collins Class rapidly. The original Collins build was at a one year “drumbeat with at one stage all six hulls in the ASC site together in parallel. So while everyone has been focusing on the date to replacce the first Collins SSK, in many ways the time to replace the last one (Rankin) is more critical. For the Attack/SSN build, do you know how many sub hulls they were planning to build in parallel?

I ask because obviously this will be a critical constraint on delivery time, assuming sufficient workers can be recruited and traind in the interim. Do you think there might be potential to expand the SSN build facility to allow more parallel construction? I assume there will need to be upgrading of the ASC sub building halls anyway to meet nuclear engineering standards for the SSN build. So that would be an obvious time to expand for more construction capacity.

I think this was already an issue for the relpacement of Collins Class in a timely manner to ensure we are putting safe submarines to sea, With the pressure now for an immediate boost to the RAN’s at sea strength, it will become even more critical.

I’m a bit confused by your use of the term ‘parallel’, we never performed parallel construction of the Collins class, or never planned it for the Attack class or will perform it for the upcoming SSNs.

Yes it’s possible, and normal, to have multiple subs (or ships) under construction at the same time, but not in ‘parallel sync’, they will all be in vastly different stages of the production process, eg, the drumbeat.

Yes the Collins class had a nominal 12mth drumbeat at the start between all six boats, but there were also varying, and significant, delays for each boat resulting in all being delivered late, all six were never at the same stage of construction.

From memory the Attack class was to have a 24mth drumbeat, yes there would have been multiple boats in the new build hall under construction at the same time, but never parallel sync, and assuming there were no delays (which you would have expected to happen early), they would have been delivered at 24mth intervals.

The future SSN drumbeat? Well that is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ question, something we won’t know for at least another 12mths or so, but I’d assume it would be based on a 24mth drumbeat, but who knows?

If you look at both the current UK and French SSN programs, their drumbeats and deliveries have been all over the place (google their programs to see the details).

The US SSN drumbeat is far better (as is the Japanese SSG program), but that is because there are multiple shipyards involved in the production process alternating deliveries.

Getting back to here in Oz, it doesn’t matter how big the new build hall is, we are simply never going to have multiple duplicate workforce’s working on multiple boats at exactly the same time.

We would also require duplicate production equipment and suppliers being able to deliver multiple components at ‘exactly’ the same time too.

It’s just not going to happen.

The best that can be hoped for is once we are up to speed after the first few boats are completed, is to be able to ‘speed up’ the drumbeat, anything else is pure fantasy.

Getting back to Collins (and the existing ASC shed), the first boat is due to start LOTE in 2026, be delivered back in 2028, and be operational for another 10yrs, eg, until 2038.

This will be repeated every 24mths, with the last boat to retire in 2048.

People can wish and want all they like for a faster build process, but look at the UK and France, very experienced SSN builders, it’s just not that simple, it’s not simple for the US either, even with multiple yards.

 

[Volkodav]

I’m a bit confused by your use of the term ‘parallel’, we never performed parallel construction of the Collins class, or never planned it for the Attack class or will perform it for the upcoming SSNs.

Yes it’s possible, and normal, to have multiple subs (or ships) under construction at the same time, but not in ‘parallel sync’, they will all be in vastly different stages of the production process, eg, the drumbeat.

Yes the Collins class had a nominal 12mth drumbeat at the start between all six boats, but there were also varying, and significant, delays for each boat resulting in all being delivered late, all six were never at the same stage of construction.

From memory the Attack class was to have a 24mth drumbeat, yes there would have been multiple boats in the new build hall under construction at the same time, but never parallel sync, and assuming there were no delays (which you would have expected to happen early), they would have been delivered at 24mth intervals.

The future SSN drumbeat? Well that is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ question, something we won’t know for at least another 12mths or so, but I’d assume it would be based on a 24mth drumbeat, but who knows?

If you look at both the current UK and French SSN programs, their drumbeats and deliveries have been all over the place (google their programs to see the details).

The US SSN drumbeat is far better (as is the Japanese SSG program), but that is because there are multiple shipyards involved in the production process alternating deliveries.

Getting back to here in Oz, it doesn’t matter how big the new build hall is, we are simply never going to have multiple duplicate workforce’s working on multiple boats at exactly the same time.

We would also require duplicate production equipment and suppliers being able to deliver multiple components at ‘exactly’ the same time too.

It’s just not going to happen.

The best that can be hoped for is once we are up to speed after the first few boats are completed, is to be able to ‘speed up’ the drumbeat, anything else is pure fantasy.

Getting back to Collins (and the existing ASC shed), the first boat is due to start LOTE in 2026, be delivered back in 2028, and be operational for another 10yrs, eg, until 2038.

This will be repeated every 24mths, with the last boat to retire in 2048.

People can wish and want all they like for a faster build process, but look at the UK and France, very experienced SSN builders, it’s just not that simple, it’s not simple for the US either, even with multiple yards.

Boats four and five were twins. The fast track changes were trialled on boat three, while four and five were delayed and then basically completed side by side.

Boat six had all the changes from the start and was effectively the new baseline the others were progressively upgraded to until heavy weight torpedo and replacement combat system were introduced.

 

[John Newman]

Boats four and five were twins. The fast track changes were trialled on boat three, while four and five were delayed and then basically completed side by side.

Boat six had all the changes from the start and was effectively the new baseline the others were progressively upgraded to until heavy weight torpedo and replacement combat system were introduced.

Not exactly twins, yes commissioned together, but no other dates are ‘twins’ of each other:

* boat four - laid down 4/3/1993 - launched 12/3/1998 - delivered 21/7/2000

* boat five - laid down 17/2/1994 - launched 1/5/1999 - delivered 25/8/2000

* both commissioned 23/2/2001

 

[Rock the kasbah]

Yep , Williamstown is certainly a prime bit of real estate located close to town with proximity to the bay.
If ships were to built there it would be as a compliment to the others yards out west and only in a major defence of the realm type situation.
We are not at that stage.
Focus will be shipbuilding in SA and WA.

Mind you, while the yards are old and now dated, there is still potential until they are finally turned into retail / commercial and residential spaces.



Regards S

Yeah I was wondering do you reckon the arafuras could possibly be built there
Build handy stuff at the modern facilities
Please understand I believe we are gonna need alot of arafuras

 

[Volkodav]

Not exactly twins, yes commissioned together, but no other dates are ‘twins’ of each other:

* boat four - laid down 4/3/1993 - launched 12/3/1998 - delivered 21/7/2000

* boat five - laid down 17/2/1994 - launched 1/5/1999 - delivered 25/8/2000

* both commissioned 23/2/2001

Four and five were delayed and then completed side by side. Configuration wise they were twins, they were, as far as I know, the only boats in the class completed to the same baseline.