Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Sandson41]

Aparently it is possible to launch a 127mm shell at an aircraft. Some shells are proximity rather than contact fused. Wanna be a good shot, but would unlikely need a second one. I'm not thinking this is its ideal purpose though and is a bit of a hail Mary option

Relying on my memory here, but I recall an article shortly after Anzac commissioned where they had used the five inch to down a target drone. The mount was new to the RAN and they must have wanted to try it out for AA work.

IIRC they only needed a round or two. It could certainly make short work of something like a Bayraktar.

 

[devo99]

The 127mm gun is good for about 25 km, and aligns more with strike capability (albeit close in shore bombardment). Good for stuff where a Tomahawk or NSM is overkill as they are a lot cheaper per shell and there is a lot more onboard (in the hundreds of shells). Perhaps useful in cleaning up an island where an NSM had earlier destroyed the anti ship defence and you can get within range. Or support to an amphibious team landing to keep an enemy at distance.

In the late stage of a battle, when missiles have been depleted or in short supply on both sides (a real possibility), then the 127mm gun becomes an anti ship weapon. Eventually gun fights become knife fights if they go on long enough, and the 127mm has a long blade (potentially a confusing metaphore, my apologies).

Aparently it is possible to launch a 127mm shell at an aircraft. Some shells are proximity rather than contact fused. Wanna be a good shot, but would unlikely need a second one. I'm not thinking this is its ideal purpose though and is a bit of a hail Mary option.

The real pinnacle of versatility in naval guns at the moment is the Otobreda 127/64. It has a much higher rate of fire than the Mk 45 Mod 4 (32 rpm vs 20 rpm) and much longer range (up to 100km vs 38km) with more shell types to choose from. If the RAN wasn't so set on the Mk45 and commonality with the USN it would definitely be the way to go.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The devil can very much be in the details, and trying to get the selection made within the next year so that contracts can be signed and first steel cut in/by 2026 could easily lead to details which whilst minor, still matter or have an effect on a build and delivery into service.

While you're absolutely right, there is also no other choice here. The failure of successive governments to plan ahead has resulted in the need for urgent overseas builds. Otherwise how small are we prepared for our navy to shrink? All involved will have to learn to do things efficiently. Not something the public service is renowned for, but necessary all the same.

 

[SammyC]

The real pinnacle of versatility in naval guns at the moment is the Otobreda 127/64. It has a much higher rate of fire than the Mk 45 Mod 4 (32 rpm vs 20 rpm) and much longer range (up to 100km vs 38km) with more shell types to choose from. If the RAN wasn't so set on the Mk45 and commonality with the USN it would definitely be the way to go.

Nice advantage on the firing rate for the oto, and I think this is the gun the Canadians chose for their CSC frigates.

Looking at the specs the oto has a slightly longer barrel than the Mk45, which gives it about a 6% muzzle speed increase and a corresponding longer effective firing range when on standard shells (still around the 30km).

I'm wondering if BAE are developing a mod 5 to match the oto firing rate and muzzle velocity. If they are not I think they may need to pull their socks up.

I think the additional range out to 80-100km is obtained using Diehl/Leonardo's Vulcano extended range ammunition, so its more the bullet rather than the gun.

The Americans tried extended range shells and failed miserably (spending a small fortune doing so), looks like the Italians and Germans were more effective. It appears to work as well, I see the Germans have tested it and accepted it into service. They say it is good for its word. I had missed this, and shooting out to 80-100km makes a big difference in capability for a 127mm gun. Thanks for raising it.

Interestingly the literature from BAE says the Vulcano shell is compatible with the Mk45, so we should be able to use it in our fleet. Looks like the USN has conducted successful test firings from the Mk45 using Vulcano.

I haven't heard anything about the RAN procuring this ammunition (or for that matter anybody else). From what I can find, production seems to be in the very early stages (LRIP at best) and I suspect it might be expensive.

I will note that Vulcano have a similar 155mm shell that has a better range than the Excalibur. They also do a 76mm, but not a 57mm. All however seem to be in LRIP or earlier.

Late edit. I did come across this news release from NIOA in Oct 22 (ammunition producer to the ADF and others), stating they have an agreement with Diehl to transfer 127mm technology and IP to enable production. It doesn't say if this includes the Vulcano range, but it's an interesting start. I think their current production lines are going flat stick on 155mm orders, so it would likely be a while before they turn attention to 127mm. The sea battles haven't started yet.

NIOA, Diehl unveil naval ammunition partnership

 

[iambuzzard]

I know that Australia has had vessels in service that were built in overseas yards, with some good results and others not so good (Supply-class problems comes to mind...). However, foreign vessels designed/built for Australia in overseas yards is not quite the same as Australia having an overseas yard built warships for the RAN to foreign design specifications and fitout.

In the rush to get orders placed and work started, there is the distinct potential that elements which might be ineffective or otherwise cause problems could get overlooked. I seem to recall reading about the need for a recent RAN vessel built overseas having to use a different paint than the yard normally used because something about the paint made it illegal to use aboard an Australian vessel. A slight detail like this is something which could easily be overlooked, yet end up with Australia receiving vessels that cannot be used without further modification, (or waivers, etc). The devil can very much be in the details, and trying to get the selection made within the next year so that contracts can be signed and first steel cut in/by 2026 could easily lead to details which whilst minor, still matter or have an effect on a build and delivery into service.

The Oliver Hazard Perry Class with 4 built in the US and 2 at Williamstown were good ships for their time. Melbourne and Newcastle soldier on in South America.
With Williamstown Dockyards up for sale surely someone can buy them and restart a new facility. Tradesmen and women will need to be found , but we need to think outside the box. The government(s) have got to stop this pork barrelling in certain states. Ship building has virtually become a national emergency and we have to diversify. If we have two hot production lines in WA and SA producing Frigates use Williamstown for OPV sized vessels. Unless of course, the Victorian Government send the state into insolvency!!!

 

[Todjaeger]

While you're absolutely right, there is also no other choice here. The failure of successive governments to plan ahead has resulted in the need for urgent overseas builds. Otherwise how small are we prepared for our navy to shrink? All involved will have to learn to do things efficiently. Not something the public service is renowned for, but necessary all the same.

There are in fact different choices available, the questions on which ones are 'best' or are the most likely to succeed are of course currently unknown and will likely only become known after the fact. It is also quite unfortunate that if poor choices are made, this will likely remain unknown until too late.

From where I sit, it appears that the RAN have several problems which have been growing in significance recently which has negatively impacted the number of ships in the fleet which are available for service. One of the first being the numbers (and types) of personnel available to serve aboard RAN warships. Building more/new warships, either in Australian or in overseas yards, will not directly address any crewing shortfalls. Likely the second in importance is the number of warships in serviceable condition.

Now the second reason could, potentially, be successfully addressed a number of different ways. Right now it does appear that some of the steps taken to address short-term availability issues make the most sense, given the current confluence of issues. Retiring some of the earlier and older ANZAC-class frigates, especially if they have not been fully upgraded, makes the most sense to me given that apparently not all of the frigates can currently be adequately crewed and that vessels of this class have started having issues with parts availability.

Over a medium to long-term period, I think there are a few potential solutions available. The one which is apparently currently being sought by gov't is the selection of a new GP frigate design (yet TBD) which will be constructed in a split build between a TBD overseas yard and a TBD (and possibly also built/staffed) yard in WA. Now this could indeed end up actually working and being successful and I readily admit this.

However, given what the current plan appears to be, there are a number of areas where an issue or issues could arise which could delay or even derail gov't plans for the RAN altogether. When one looks at past Australian warship procurement history post-WWII and particularly the more recent history one typically sees several years pass between when RFI's or RFT's are sent and contracts signed following contender selection/design winner award, and then usually at least another year or two before first steel gets cut. Like it or not, this really is not a fast process. Given the increases in complexity of both modern warships and their respective mission systems, I suspect that there is not much opportunity or room to really speed parts of the process up. Long lead-time items remain long lead-time items and would still have to be ordered anywhere from several months to multiple years ahead whatever date the kit needs to be present for installation.

Now for another reality check. From what I have observed, most large and complex defence procurement programmes (not just Australian ones, but worldwide) tend to experience delays at various stages, and/or cost increases beyond original projections. More commonly though it seems as though both situations occur.

From where I sit, the current AusGov plan only really looks workable if everything goes according to plan and I have to honestly ask, how often does that actually happen?

Looking at what is appears available about the GP frigate procurement, some time between now and some point in 2025, a design selection is supposed to get made, alongside the selection of an overseas yard to build the chosen design, and contracts signed placing the orders for the first three vessels of the new class so that first steel can be cut some time in 2026. However, it is quite possible that the RAN and/or Defence might look at what is being offered and decide that the designs are inadequate for the RAN's needs and/or operating environment and request changes made to the designs being offered. If this were to occur and IMO there is a real potential for this, given the distances RAN vessels might need to transit which could mandate greater range than is usually designed into many frigates, this could push the design select back to later on in 2025, or even out into 2026 or 2027. This is likely one of the first areas where something could go 'wrong' and upend the GP frigate acquisition programme.

Now once the winning design is actually selected, then the contracting can be done, once negotiations have been completed and things signed. Right now, the plan seems to have contracts getting signed in 2025 following selection, but as mentioned above, this might have to happen later if design selection is delayed. The plan also seems to assume that any negotiations ahead of contract signing do not encounter 'problems' which is not something I would be comfortable assuming. One must remember that the situation Australia is current in does not leave Australia in a particularly strong negotiating position. This could mean that Australia ends up needing to pay top price for the warships and designs ordered, and/or other terms in the contracting may not be favourable to Australia. Areas of particular concern would be any agreements or warranties on defects, as well as delivery dates or deadlines. These situations could lead to delays in contracts getting signed as Australia seeks more favourable terms whilst overseas companies seek to leverage Australia's weak negotiating position.

All the above itself does not even touch on what can go wrong or delay the actual, or anything which would need to happen for the domestic build in Australia to start either. It should illustrate though that the currently ambitious acquisition timeline could easily end up getting delayed or derailed.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Oliver Hazard Perry Class with 4 built in the US and 2 at Williamstown were good ships for their time. Melbourne and Newcastle soldier on in South America.
With Williamstown Dockyards up for sale surely someone can buy them and restart a new facility. Tradesmen and women will need to be found , but we need to think outside the box. The government(s) have got to stop this pork barrelling in certain states. Ship building has virtually become a national emergency and we have to diversify. If we have two hot production lines in WA and SA producing Frigates use Williamstown for OPV sized vessels. Unless of course, the Victorian Government send the state into insolvency!!!

Regarding the Williamstown Dockyards, I can believe that someone would want to buy the property to develop it, but I rather doubt that there would be much interest in re-establishing it as a functioning naval shipyard. IIRC the site itself is at this point limited in terms of space for upgrades and/or expansions to naval yard facilities, which means any future construction would be limited to vessels with LOA under 140m and ~4,100 tons at full load. Further, if involved in naval construction work the yard and company would be dependent on gov't, Defence and the RAN for orders. Should there be a gap in orders placed, then the reconstituted yard could easily idle or close completely.

 

[spoz]

What gets me is that, according to their website, there are more than 16,000 people in the RAN. What are they all doing? That’s the most we’ve had in the 50+ years I’ve been associated with it, yet we seem to have less people actually at sea. In the 70s it was more than 6,000 from a total of, if I remember correctly a little over 15,000. Now, we can’t get more than something between 3 and 4 thousand from 16,000? Sounds like priorities might be a little skewed.

 

[Armchair]

What gets me is that, according to their website, there are more than 16,000 people in the RAN. What are they all doing? That’s the most we’ve had in the 50+ years I’ve been associated with it, yet we seem to have less people actually at sea. In the 70s it was more than 6,000 from a total of, if I remember correctly a little over 15,000. Now, we can’t get more than something between 3 and 4 thousand from 16,000? Sounds like priorities might be a little skewed.

I imagine that for the next 10 years an increasing proportion will be at sea but they will be on USN SSNs
It does not address the question you pose directly but
In this document

https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2024-05/The%20cost%20of%20Defence%202024-2025.pdf?VersionId=ZkjLPscM1wPIapVeeu.g0yKCVumbDHFO#page71

The figure on page 75 (that ASPI derived from budget papers) shows the decline of available ship days from around 16k to 12k per year since 2008. There are fewer vessels available to send to sea and some of those vessels (such as DDGs) have smaller crews than their historical replacements.

 

[SammyC]

What gets me is that, according to their website, there are more than 16,000 people in the RAN. What are they all doing? That’s the most we’ve had in the 50+ years I’ve been associated with it, yet we seem to have less people actually at sea. In the 70s it was more than 6,000 from a total of, if I remember correctly a little over 15,000. Now, we can’t get more than something between 3 and 4 thousand from 16,000? Sounds like priorities might be a little skewed.

Good point. Doing the numbers...

At sea positions (current snapshot)

• 3 Hobarts @180 each: 540
• 7 ANZACs @ 180 each: 1,260
• 2 LHDs @ 300 each: 600
• 1 Choules @ 70: 70
• 2 AORs @ 120 each: 240
• 6 Arafuras @ 40 each: 240
• 8 Capes @ 20 each: 160
• 6 subs @ 60 each: 360
• 3 Huons @40 each: 120
• 2 Leeuwins @ 55 each: 110
• Total: 3,700

General rule of thumb is we need two shore positions for every one sea position for rotations and fatigue management. That gives 11,000 odd positions required for long term sustainment. This will change a little bit with the ANZACs, Huons and Leeuwins decommissioning.

The 16,000 also includes those in early training (ADFA, Creswell, Cerberus) and unavailable for sea postings. Call this in the order of 1,000 people (I'm guessing). It also includes those promoted out of sea postings (CMDRs, WOs and above). Call that 500. It also includes an allowance for those on long term medical, pending discharge and the like. Additionally there are some service people that rarely go to sea, such as doctors, dentists and nurses. Call that all another 500. So that takes the number to 13,000.

Then we have the Naval air wing. I don't know the size of this but I'll guess in the order 1,500. That accounts for 14,500.

As armchair pointed out, there is another 400 planned to go into the SSN training program. That takes it to 15,000.

So that leaves about a 1,000 odd positions unaccounted for. I'm sure I've missed something.

 

[iambuzzard]

Regarding the Williamstown Dockyards, I can believe that someone would want to buy the property to develop it, but I rather doubt that there would be much interest in re-establishing it as a functioning naval shipyard. IIRC the site itself is at this point limited in terms of space for upgrades and/or expansions to naval yard facilities, which means any future construction would be limited to vessels with LOA under 140m and ~4,100 tons at full load. Further, if involved in naval construction work the yard and company would be dependent on gov't, Defence and the RAN for orders. Should there be a gap in orders placed, then the reconstituted yard could easily idle or close completely.

That's why I suggested OPV sized vessels. I live in Melbourne and I understand the space limitations.

 

[Reptilia]

Regarding the Williamstown Dockyards, I can believe that someone would want to buy the property to develop it, but I rather doubt that there would be much interest in re-establishing it as a functioning naval shipyard. IIRC the site itself is at this point limited in terms of space for upgrades and/or expansions to naval yard facilities, which means any future construction would be limited to vessels with LOA under 140m and ~4,100 tons at full load. Further, if involved in naval construction work the yard and company would be dependent on gov't, Defence and the RAN for orders. Should there be a gap in orders placed, then the reconstituted yard could easily idle or close completely.

Would have been a nice small site for Hanwha if they truly wanted a slice of the Australian market.
2 options- $80-$100 million for the smaller site 9.9 hectare lot + 1.9 hectare car park or up to $200 million that includes 5 extra hectares with 10 workshops/offices.
Steel Patrol boats or OPVs, FFX III/IV Frigates, or with some upgrades. 150m ships.
Hendersons focus could have been on the large ships, AORs, LHDs etc.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Nice advantage on the firing rate for the oto, and I think this is the gun the Canadians chose for their CSC frigates.

The guns aren't exactly the same. The OTO is physically larger and heavier, more automated I believe, but is less man power intensive.
Fitting that may mean less room for missiles, but also a reduction in crew.

The Americans tried extended range shells and failed miserably (spending a small fortune doing so), looks like the Italians and Germans were more effective.

A lot of the problems come down to cost and barrel life. The US not being terribly interested doesn't mean that the Europeans are more successful. It may just meet their needs better.

Different strokes for different folks.

With Williamstown Dockyards up for sale surely someone can buy them and restart a new facility. Tradesmen and women will need to be found , but we need to think outside the box. The government(s) have got to stop this pork barrelling in certain states.

If we were really interested in activating a site for naval construction. Civmec still has the Tomago yard in Newcastle. It still has hundreds of trades people employed, mostly on mining and civil projects these days not only that, Newcastle still has a ship building industry. Ferries and commercial shipping is still built and maintained there. There are two major military contractors there with operational yards. It used to have a 15,000t lift there which was sold off in 2012.

Carrington, Newcastle

Thales has managed and operated the Maritime Precinct in Carrington (Newcastle) since 2017.

www.thalesgroup.com

Our Facilities | Newcastle I Civmec

Our east coast facility is strategically located on 227,000 square metres of land, just 14 kilometres from the port of Newcastle in New South Wales.

www.civmec.com.au

Plus radar, marine wiring, marine engine suppliers, maritime safety etc. The port of Newcastle is one of the largest busiest ports in the world, the largest port on the east coast of Australia, and used to be the largest and busiest coal port in the world (2022). TAFE and the university are nearby. They train sailors, for Australia's maritime and trades for mining workforce there.

Plus not far from FBE, but far enough away, 3 hr drive from Sydney, <6 hrs from Brisbane- which for Sydney means commutable from Sydney, nearby Williamstown RAAF base. Has its own airport, can fly direct to Melbourne or Brisbane same day, for FIFO if needed.

If we are talking about an international being able to come in and setup shop, it would seem to be a logical place. Its not a Greenfields site, its the biggest marine industry in Australia, perhaps the southern Hemisphere. Newcastle Itself has a population of nearly 350,000, has the best rail, port, highway infrastructure in the country.

The mining in Newcastle is dying, coal is dying as a product, and the mines are coming to the end of there natural lives with less investment, its still a decade or two away, but everyone knows its coming. So you have half a million people desperate for industry to replace it.

If there was a bit of priority about investing in the place, the NSW government probably would have ordered ships from there rather than from China.

CODOCK is super busy. This is causing problems for the Navy and for the NSW government.

Navy pulls rank as repairs to defective warship add to Manly ferry woes

The return of one of Sydney’s largest ferries has been delayed by a year due to a Spanish-built warship jumping the queue for a dry docking at Garden Island.

www.smh.com.au

Unfortunately, you can't just drive a Many ferry with engine issues to WA or SA. Being over 1000t means limited places to dry dock them.
Sydney loves its large ferries, they are as iconic as Melbourne trams, the bridge, opera house or Ularu.

Even worse they were to be replaced by Chinese ferries, who have no character or class, and have been a technical and reliable nightmare. And floundering around Sydney harbour is just asking for media embarrassment. They aren't built for 4m swells and 100kmph winds or to carry 1100 tourists during the summer.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/blighted-emerald-ferries-to-finally-get-motors-replaced-after-years-of-steering-failures-and-engine-faults/news-story/6e4309dba62510349f2af2071d4acec0

New Manly ferry suffers another steering failure on Sydney Harbour

The Fairlight, one of three ferries bought to replace the larger Freshwater-class vessels, has suffered nine steering failures since it entered service in 2021.

www.smh.com.au

Leaked memo warns new Manly ferries risk becoming airborne in heavy swells

Captains of the new Manly ferries have been warned against sailing directly into waves near the entrance to Sydney Harbour in heavy swells.

www.smh.com.au

Seeing the old girls waiting for repair might be the crisis we need to start taking marine capability on the east coast seriously. Reactivating them was like reactivating the Iowa class in terms of pride and obvious solution to the crisis in transport. The ultimate case study in overseas builds undermining the entire nations productivity.

It isn't just a crisis in the navy regarding ships. Its happening too in the civilian sector. Look at the crisis with Antarctic ships, and other government ships. Our boats are now built offshore are literally being battered and we struggle with the whole water thing.

Transport for NSW annual budget is bigger than the Australian defence budget. So having state and national priorities work in sync should make sense.

 

[Redlands18]

The guns aren't exactly the same. The OTO is physically larger and heavier, more automated I believe, but is less man power intensive.
Fitting that may mean less room for missiles, but also a reduction in crew.


A lot of the problems come down to cost and barrel life. The US not being terribly interested doesn't mean that the Europeans are more successful. It may just meet their needs better.

Different strokes for different folks.


If we were really interested in activating a site for naval construction. Civmec still has the Tomago yard in Newcastle. It still has hundreds of trades people employed, mostly on mining and civil projects these days not only that, Newcastle still has a ship building industry. Ferries and commercial shipping is still built and maintained there. There are two major military contractors there with operational yards. It used to have a 15,000t lift there which was sold off in 2012.

Carrington, Newcastle

Thales has managed and operated the Maritime Precinct in Carrington (Newcastle) since 2017.

www.thalesgroup.com

Our Facilities | Newcastle I Civmec

Our east coast facility is strategically located on 227,000 square metres of land, just 14 kilometres from the port of Newcastle in New South Wales.

www.civmec.com.au

Plus radar, marine wiring, marine engine suppliers, maritime safety etc. The port of Newcastle is one of the largest busiest ports in the world, the largest port on the east coast of Australia, and used to be the largest and busiest coal port in the world (2022). TAFE and the university are nearby. They train sailors, for Australia's maritime and trades for mining workforce there.

Plus not far from FBE, but far enough away, 3 hr drive from Sydney, <6 hrs from Brisbane- which for Sydney means commutable from Sydney, nearby Williamstown RAAF base. Has its own airport, can fly direct to Melbourne or Brisbane same day, for FIFO if needed.

If we are talking about an international being able to come in and setup shop, it would seem to be a logical place. Its not a Greenfields site, its the biggest marine industry in Australia, perhaps the southern Hemisphere. Newcastle Itself has a population of nearly 350,000, has the best rail, port, highway infrastructure in the country.

The mining in Newcastle is dying, coal is dying as a product, and the mines are coming to the end of there natural lives with less investment, its still a decade or two away, but everyone knows its coming. So you have half a million people desperate for industry to replace it.

If there was a bit of priority about investing in the place, the NSW government probably would have ordered ships from there rather than from China.

CODOCK is super busy. This is causing problems for the Navy and for the NSW government.

Navy pulls rank as repairs to defective warship add to Manly ferry woes

The return of one of Sydney’s largest ferries has been delayed by a year due to a Spanish-built warship jumping the queue for a dry docking at Garden Island.

www.smh.com.au

Unfortunately, you can't just drive a Many ferry with engine issues to WA or SA. Being over 1000t means limited places to dry dock them.
Sydney loves its large ferries, they are as iconic as Melbourne trams, the bridge, opera house or Ularu.

Even worse they were to be replaced by Chinese ferries, who have no character or class, and have been a technical and reliable nightmare. And floundering around Sydney harbour is just asking for media embarrassment. They aren't built for 4m swells and 100kmph winds or to carry 1100 tourists during the summer.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/blighted-emerald-ferries-to-finally-get-motors-replaced-after-years-of-steering-failures-and-engine-faults/news-story/6e4309dba62510349f2af2071d4acec0

New Manly ferry suffers another steering failure on Sydney Harbour

The Fairlight, one of three ferries bought to replace the larger Freshwater-class vessels, has suffered nine steering failures since it entered service in 2021.

www.smh.com.au

Leaked memo warns new Manly ferries risk becoming airborne in heavy swells

Captains of the new Manly ferries have been warned against sailing directly into waves near the entrance to Sydney Harbour in heavy swells.

www.smh.com.au

View attachment 51421

Seeing the old girls waiting for repair might be the crisis we need to start taking marine capability on the east coast seriously. Reactivating them was like reactivating the Iowa class in terms of pride and obvious solution to the crisis in transport. The ultimate case study in overseas builds undermining the entire nations productivity.

It isn't just a crisis in the navy regarding ships. Its happening too in the civilian sector. Look at the crisis with Antarctic ships, and other government ships. Our boats are now built offshore are literally being battered and we struggle with the whole water thing.

Transport for NSW annual budget is bigger than the Australian defence budget. So having state and national priorities work in sync should make sense.

Also Newcastle is a contender for the East Coast Submarine Base.

 

[Todjaeger]

That's why I suggested OPV sized vessels. I live in Melbourne and I understand the space limitations.

But it is not 'just' a space limitation, as I understand it, though the space limitations certainly played a part.

BAE acquired the Williamstown dockyard as part of the acquisition of Tenix Defence with the original dockyard having been built by the Colony of Victoria in 1874. One impact of this is that by the time the HMNZS Otago and HMNZS Wellington were built in Williamstown for the RNZN, the facilities themselves were rather dated. With an outdated facility in need of investment to modernize, and with limited (and expensive) options to expand the facility to enable construction of more/larger vessels, it appears that BAE determined the likely ROI for what Williamstown would need would not be worthwhile and shuttered the facility with the workforce having moved on.

Now yes, another entity could potentially take over Williamstown and make the investments needed to re-open the facility (this would include raising a skilled workforce) but how much would it cost? How long would it take to get re-opened? Also how long would it take a company actually start to see some return from such investment? For that matter, how likely would a company actually see a positive return? If a newly re-opened facility can only build OPV's and smaller frigates and is likely dependent on the RAN placing orders, what are the chances that the RAN, Defence and/or gov't ends up either not placing enough orders to sustain the facility with work, or perhaps even cancelling orders already placed.

We have already seen the number of Arafura-class OPV's get cut, as well as Hunter-class frigates, and the fate of the national shipbuilding plan as yet remains unknown. All of this suggests to me that perhaps another or more shipyards are not really a good idea, unless they are able to be viable whilst not dependent on orders from the CoA. One potential way to be independent would be to have facilities which are able to engage in producing a range of vessel sizes, displacements and types.

 

[icelord]

Also Newcastle is a contender for the East Coast Submarine Base.

That project is 15-20 years away from options.

I did some early planning assesment for a company looking at East Coast base. Newcastle is a difficult position, limited in space with berths and maintenance being in seperate areas as well as security wise, a nightmare.

Brisbane is purely political option and just as difficult, with a 4hr transit on the surface before diving not something submariners would like.

Port Kembla was preferred option but up against a local member who didnt want it, industry that supported it and the Navy liking its shallow to deep water being the least of the 3 ports.

But this could all change in 15yrs when the discussions are being brought up again after a media announcement

 

[Reptilia]

That project is 15-20 years away from options.

I did some early planning assesment for a company looking at East Coast base. Newcastle is a difficult position, limited in space with berths and maintenance being in seperate areas as well as security wise, a nightmare.

Brisbane is purely political option and just as difficult, with a 4hr transit on the surface before diving not something submariners would like.

Port Kembla was preferred option but up against a local member who didnt want it, industry that supported it and the Navy liking its shallow to deep water being the least of the 3 ports.

But this could all change in 15yrs when the discussions are being brought up again after a media announcement

Could always take a big chunk out of the Coal depot at Kooragang and the adjacent lot when it’s gone.

 

[ADMk2]

The real pinnacle of versatility in naval guns at the moment is the Otobreda 127/64. It has a much higher rate of fire than the Mk 45 Mod 4 (32 rpm vs 20 rpm) and much longer range (up to 100km vs 38km) with more shell types to choose from. If the RAN wasn't so set on the Mk45 and commonality with the USN it would definitely be the way to go.

The Otobreda doesn't have a 100k range. Sub-calibre ammunition types integrated with that weapon do. It's an ammunition question, not a "gun" question and for all the alleged advantages of the Vulcano ammunition, there hasn't been a huge rush in the market for them for some reason (cough -cost)...

 

[ADMk2]

Good point. Doing the numbers...

At sea positions (current snapshot)

• 3 Hobarts @180 each: 540
• 7 ANZACs @ 180 each: 1,260
• 2 LHDs @ 300 each: 600
• 1 Choules @ 70: 70
• 2 AORs @ 120 each: 240
• 6 Arafuras @ 40 each: 240
• 8 Capes @ 20 each: 160
• 6 subs @ 60 each: 360
• 3 Huons @40 each: 120
• 2 Leeuwins @ 55 each: 110
• Total: 3,700

General rule of thumb is we need two shore positions for every one sea position for rotations and fatigue management. That gives 11,000 odd positions required for long term sustainment. This will change a little bit with the ANZACs, Huons and Leeuwins decommissioning.

The 16,000 also includes those in early training (ADFA, Creswell, Cerberus) and unavailable for sea postings. Call this in the order of 1,000 people (I'm guessing). It also includes those promoted out of sea postings (CMDRs, WOs and above). Call that 500. It also includes an allowance for those on long term medical, pending discharge and the like. Additionally there are some service people that rarely go to sea, such as doctors, dentists and nurses. Call that all another 500. So that takes the number to 13,000.

Then we have the Naval air wing. I don't know the size of this but I'll guess in the order 1,500. That accounts for 14,500.

As armchair pointed out, there is another 400 planned to go into the SSN training program. That takes it to 15,000.

So that leaves about a 1,000 odd positions unaccounted for. I'm sure I've missed something.

CDT teams, "Joint" positions, staff allocated to CASG. The Australian Submarine Agency and on and on it goes...

 

[John Fedup]

The Otobreda doesn't have a 100k range. Sub-calibre ammunition types integrated with that weapon do. It's an ammunition question, not a "gun" question and for all the alleged advantages of the Vulcano ammunition, there hasn't been a huge rush in the market for them for some reason (cough -cost)...

Cost, if that is the case, I guess the RCN won’t be getting many Vulcano shells, perhaps none.