Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
As a taxpayer I want to see a shipbuilding program that replaces the entire fleet on a regular basis. To me that's building tiers 1&2 on an 18 month cycle in minimum batches of six (none of this 3 Hobarts are enough crap), that way they're around 20 years old when we retire/sell/mothball them. Supplement Henderson's work with the other assets (LHDs, AORs, LCs, etc), build blocks at other yards if need be.
It's not a lofty ambition, it's quite doable it just needs the political will and bipartisanship to go through with it. Heaven forbid we developed a supply industry around it with the knowledge that there is continuous work.
I've been reading the thread, I finally got the free time for it.
May I ask why this animosity against EU yards?
The "first 3 ships built abroad, of a class of 10+ frigates, while keeping changes to the minimun" doesn't sound very very familiar to some of you?
P.s. nothing against Koreans, I studied in Seoul and my family was Bolivian diplomats in 70s japan before the country became "cool". I grew with a lot of Nisei culture around myself.
And IMHO you should always went japanese first, the attack submarines to the french was .... we saw how it ended.
You think Naval group/Fincantieri or Navantia wouldn't be able to deliver before the end of the decade if you put the order? Not saying that we have the winning models, but the capacity is there.
On the automation, are we ending up in a stereotype? Where Japanese and Koreans are automated but we aren't?
I think them both Koreans and Japanese have amazing shipbuilding capabilities, the Koreans have the monopoly on LPG/LNG ships.
At the same time remember the ships Europeans Yards field are way more added value than their Asian counterparts.
This is what happened when Mitsubishi tried to enter the Cruise ship market.
www.mhi.com
2 bln losses and 2 years of delay....
Just saying, let's appreciate the Japanese and Koreans models, and probably with this healthy competition they are going to become even more advanced in their models, but their goodness doesn't translate automatically in Europe shipyards=bad.
And there was another post on how Asian shipyards are smoking European ones.
May I ask why this animosity against EU yards?
The "first 3 ships built abroad, of a class of 10+ frigates, while keeping changes to the minimun" doesn't sound very very familiar to some of you?
P.s. nothing against Koreans, I studied in Seoul and my family was Bolivian diplomats in 70s japan before the country became "cool". I grew with a lot of Nisei culture around myself.
And IMHO you should always went japanese first, the attack submarines to the french was .... we saw how it ended.
You think Naval group/Fincantieri or Navantia wouldn't be able to deliver before the end of the decade if you put the order? Not saying that we have the winning models, but the capacity is there.
On the automation, are we ending up in a stereotype? Where Japanese and Koreans are automated but we aren't?
I think them both Koreans and Japanese have amazing shipbuilding capabilities, the Koreans have the monopoly on LPG/LNG ships.
At the same time remember the ships Europeans Yards field are way more added value than their Asian counterparts.
This is what happened when Mitsubishi tried to enter the Cruise ship market.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Global Website | Notice Regarding Booking of Extraordinary Loss from Cruise Ship Business
Tokyo, April 25, 2016 - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) hereby announces its intent to book an extraordinary loss from its cruise ship business in the company's consolidated financial results for fiscal year (FY) 2015 (ending March 31, 2016).
www.mhi.com
2 bln losses and 2 years of delay....
Just saying, let's appreciate the Japanese and Koreans models, and probably with this healthy competition they are going to become even more advanced in their models, but their goodness doesn't translate automatically in Europe shipyards=bad.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Although RAAF Base Pearce is heavily utilised for pilot training, there is infrastructure in place to support operational units that are deployed there.
The tempo of training is such that it’s unlikely that an operational unit would be deployed there on a permanent basis - perhaps an Army NASAMS unit could be based on Garden Island to cover FBW.
Take your point Meriv. I would view the European yards as good, and if our only options were the A200 or the A3000 we would be happy with the eventual ship and I'm sure it would be fine.
I think Navantia are in a sore spot due to some of the negative items at the moment, in particular the AORs. Some of this is an outcome of having previously provided several platforms to the RAN (Hobarts, LHDs and AORs) and the enevitable attention that some of the problems with them get. There are plenty of good and successful aspects about all three of these projects as well, just right now when decisions are being made for the GPF acquisition, the cards are not in their favour.
Separately, there is a notable strategic switch to facilities and providers in our region, in preference to Europe. In my view that comes down to an acceptance and recognition that we are part of SE Asia and Oceania whether we like it or not, and a maturation of regional providers like Hanwa and Mitsubishi into capable defence businesses. The army has gone the same way with their vehicles and big guns.
I would view that the Korean and Japanese defence providers are in the box seat for a much larger allocation of our future procurements, not just the GPF, on the basis of strategic alignment. When war comes, they will be who we fight next to. Helps to have similar gear.
I think Navantia are in a sore spot due to some of the negative items at the moment, in particular the AORs. Some of this is an outcome of having previously provided several platforms to the RAN (Hobarts, LHDs and AORs) and the enevitable attention that some of the problems with them get. There are plenty of good and successful aspects about all three of these projects as well, just right now when decisions are being made for the GPF acquisition, the cards are not in their favour.
Separately, there is a notable strategic switch to facilities and providers in our region, in preference to Europe. In my view that comes down to an acceptance and recognition that we are part of SE Asia and Oceania whether we like it or not, and a maturation of regional providers like Hanwa and Mitsubishi into capable defence businesses. The army has gone the same way with their vehicles and big guns.
I would view that the Korean and Japanese defence providers are in the box seat for a much larger allocation of our future procurements, not just the GPF, on the basis of strategic alignment. When war comes, they will be who we fight next to. Helps to have similar gear.
Also the two European designs are not in service with their host navies in the configuration that will be offered to the RAN with upgrade paths. Those circumstances work in favour of the Japanese and Korean builders. On the flip side, the Germans and Spanish seemingly have more experience in moving a build off shore.
The Australian government is accelerating production of the Ghost Shark program with the first production variant due in 2025. It is part of the governments $7 billion plan for the development and acquisition of subsea warfare capabilities. Anduril Australia will construct a manufacturing facility for production of these vessels.
Not sure how many of these things will be eventually acquired.
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
.
Not sure how many of these things will be eventually acquired.
Government to accelerate production readiness of Ghost Shark - APDR
Defence and Anduril Australia contract for the Ghost Shark program which will provide Navy with a long-range autonomous vehicle
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
While the quote this is in reply to is specifically about euro yards, I think the euros are falling out of favour. Not that they can't design and build great things, but often they are struggling for continuous orders from their own government.
There have been a few euro projects which left poor taste in Australia's mouth.
Australia’s Icebreaker Nuyina Questioned Due to Lack of Scientific Missions
Australia’s icebreaker RSV Nuyina which was promoted as representing a “quantum leap forward for scientific research capabilities,” continues to be a...
maritime-executive.com
Royal Australian Navy Down Two Replenishment Oilers As Ships Go In For Repairs - USNI News
The Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) two Supply-class fleet replenishment oilers are now out of service, with Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles confirming on Friday that HMAS Stalwart (A304) is now nonoperational following engine defects, joining sister ship HMAS...
news.usni.org
These two projects were meant to be straight forward acquisitions built in European yards from proven suppliers.
As pointed out, the French Attack class was its own set of challenges, the AWD had lots of initial build problems, which I think people blame on Navantia, The OPV's are a problem too, the Tiger ARH and NH90 helicopters are also a thing where Australia was just super disappointed after making a pretty huge commitment as a customer. Collins class too if we want to go back a bit.
People will cross-shop the Korean Navy and the Australian Navy, and think, we would lot to have that kind of level of capability for similar defence spending.
I think Australia is still open to giving Europeans are chance, but they will be met with sceptical assessment. Like how good is the yard, how fair are the contracts, is the design really proven, how many actual at sea days does it have, does it feature weapons we actually use. Will the parent navy help us out when we need help or want to further develop a platform.
There is a feeling in Australia that often Europeans are only interested in the commercial aspect, making money, selling a box. The fact the box doesn't work, doesn't deliver, is an orphaned design. In Australia we call this box flogging. Which, when you bring it all the way to Australia, then famously fails.
Australia needs strategic partners. Countries committing to spending big on defence, not paper thin capability with no further development.
Italy sending a carrier down to Australia was a sign that Italy, is committed to the region. Germany sending planes down, also commitment. Remembering Australia isn't spending money to stop and invasion of Australian territory, its to secure global order, and order that matters to Europe. Also that Australia sends support like C17s, E7s to do the heavily lifting in Germany/Ukraine when even the Americans can't. Are our European partners committed in the same way?
While European yards are generally good, are they the very latest, how much tonnage are they building a year and how are their costs.
Australia is pretty ruthless when it comes to assessment and aspirations. I don't think we seriously considered Asian builders before. Now we are. Japan and Korea are impressive. In every way.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would first consider the comment a (currently) rather accurate one, at least when one considers the tonnage of vessels delivered. Secondly I would not consider such a comment, particularly when factually accurate, an being indicative of any animosity.
If one looks at the tonnage of shipping (new construction) delivered in 2022, the top three nations for tonnage built are China, S. Korea and Japan. In fact, those three nations combined accounted for ~93% of tonnage built in 2022, see here.
If a region has that dominant a position in terms of production, it is rather difficult IMO to honestly claim animosity when others point it out. Now yes, these figures are for total shipbuilding tonnage so certain specific types of vessels might be more likely to be built in a different area, but for just basic yard capacity and skilled work force, then these nations are going to outstrip European nations in terms of what they have and could potentially bring to bear.
By this logic why buying US? At gross tonnage not only in the shipyards but almost all industries aren't they highly behind? Isnt because they transitioned to a service economy mainly?
Biggest car seller is Toyota (i own a Yaris), how many Type10 have been exported? It has been 10 years from the shift in Japanese constitution.
I understand and comprehend how your opinion on European export formed. And i would also be looking for alternatives after the bad experiences.
At the same time I wouldn't assume Korea and Japan are intrinsically different than Europeans. Since Korea still hasn't had a big naval export (I know of South American orders, I'm half Bolivian). Nor Japan, you are buying a closed box.
Still at parity of parameters they would be better partners than us just for geographically location. On this i totally agree.
I would just steer away from the Koreans, taking your words of box flogging
And from 빨리빨리 culture.
From an industrial POV i would prefer them thanks to their giant R&D in the military sector.
From a Geopolitical one I would choose the Japanese, simply because after having lived (even if just briefly) in Seoul, I think it is indefensible nor easy to evacuate, making the country way less independent than what it looks like IMHO.
Biggest car seller is Toyota (i own a Yaris), how many Type10 have been exported? It has been 10 years from the shift in Japanese constitution.
I understand and comprehend how your opinion on European export formed. And i would also be looking for alternatives after the bad experiences.
At the same time I wouldn't assume Korea and Japan are intrinsically different than Europeans. Since Korea still hasn't had a big naval export (I know of South American orders, I'm half Bolivian). Nor Japan, you are buying a closed box.
Still at parity of parameters they would be better partners than us just for geographically location. On this i totally agree.
I would just steer away from the Koreans, taking your words of box flogging
And from 빨리빨리 culture.
From an industrial POV i would prefer them thanks to their giant R&D in the military sector.
From a Geopolitical one I would choose the Japanese, simply because after having lived (even if just briefly) in Seoul, I think it is indefensible nor easy to evacuate, making the country way less independent than what it looks like IMHO.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
MerivI've been reading the thread, I finally got the free time for it.
And there was another post on how Asian shipyards are smoking European ones.
May I ask why this animosity against EU yards?
The "first 3 ships built abroad, of a class of 10+ frigates, while keeping changes to the minimun" doesn't sound very very familiar to some of you?
P.s. nothing against Koreans, I studied in Seoul and my family was Bolivian diplomats in 70s japan before the country became "cool". I grew with a lot of Nisei culture around myself.
And IMHO you should always went japanese first, the attack submarines to the french was .... we saw how it ended.
You think Naval group/Fincantieri or Navantia wouldn't be able to deliver before the end of the decade if you put the order? Not saying that we have the winning models, but the capacity is there.
On the automation, are we ending up in a stereotype? Where Japanese and Koreans are automated but we aren't?
I think them both Koreans and Japanese have amazing shipbuilding capabilities, the Koreans have the monopoly on LPG/LNG ships.
At the same time remember the ships Europeans Yards field are way more added value than their Asian counterparts.
This is what happened when Mitsubishi tried to enter the Cruise ship market.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Global Website | Notice Regarding Booking of Extraordinary Loss from Cruise Ship Business
Tokyo, April 25, 2016 - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) hereby announces its intent to book an extraordinary loss from its cruise ship business in the company's consolidated financial results for fiscal year (FY) 2015 (ending March 31, 2016).
2 bln losses and 2 years of delay....
Just saying, let's appreciate the Japanese and Koreans models, and probably with this healthy competition they are going to become even more advanced in their models, but their goodness doesn't translate automatically in Europe shipyards=bad.
I wasn’t actually criticizing Europe in general in praising Japanese and Korean shipyards. IMO the weak link is UK Shipbuilding, due to decades of underinvestment. USA shipbuilding also struggles to compete in cost terms but their sub build quality is high.
I agree Naval Group could probably still supply subs to the RAN if contracted to build in France. I have previously here complimented the French sub construction capability. I would have preferred Australia switched to the French SSN when the AUKUS decision was made. I doubt the French would be keen to try building in Australia again now on political grounds.
It is certainly true that all shipyards specialise so it is dangerous to generalise. Even small countries like Finland can become dominant in niche markets they specialise in (icebreakers and cruise ship). But in the categories they specialise in the Japanese and Korean yards are hard to beat. Happily for us that includes frigates and diesel subs.
There is a degree of automation in all shipyards but IMO the Japanese are still the current leaders in both automated ship construction and constructing highly automated ships.
Something often overlooked in the general South Korean and Japanese shipbuilding industries is their heavy utilisation of relatively cheap immigrant labour from South East Asia. Their yards are full of Filipino workers but their equity laws aren't quite as strong as in Europe, Australia and the US.
Their yards are definitely highly automated but that's not the only factor behind their huge output capacity and relatively low costs.
Their yards are definitely highly automated but that's not the only factor behind their huge output capacity and relatively low costs.
The US lost its way. Zumwalt and LCS. It went too big and too small, with weird priorities (no obvious enemy to focus the scope and design?).. Also the cancelled CGX program.
Future burkes being acquired to be built in the 2040s have been cancelled to fund submarines.
Arleigh Burke class Guided Missile Destroyer DDG US Navy
arleigh burke class guided missile destroyer ddg navy
www.seaforces.org
Navy Wants to Buy Two Arleigh Burkes a Year While Developing DDG(X) Concept - USNI News
The Navy is committed to buying two Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers per year in tandem with developing its new DDG(X) program, the top surface warfare requirements officer said Wednesday. While the first priority for the Navy’s surface warfare division director on the chief of naval...
news.usni.org
The US and other countries have experienced very similar issues to what Australia has experienced. New classes were late to arrive (including the Burkes), then by interrupting the production by doing other things, a hole quickly developed in fleet numbers. Other predicted projects were cancelled, so Burkes are still with us and will be for likely a long time. The Constellation program is in tatters, because instead of off the shelf, they turned it into a completely new ship sharing basically nothing with the original design. CGX and Zumwalt were cancelled or curtailed. Ticos were a stop gap, that became critical.
But the US Navy is huge, so they still had two yards churning capable destroyers out for like 3 decades.
Korea and Japan seem to be really committed to repeat orders. They can't be caught napping. Its not so much the yards are magical. Its that they have constant stream of steady work they deem important.
But also both have very competitive designs, lots of indigenous sourced supply lines that could be duplicated here, creating true second sources, that can be coordinated effectively.
Its not just about a yard being able to weld a hull together. That isn't the issue here. People see a ship being built, and see it in the yard with all the metal workers, painters and sparkies, but there is a much bigger industry behind that, and it isn't in the shipyard.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The post cold war “peace dividend” (a concept of naive pollies) had a significant impact on the military supply chain in many western nations and is particularly true wrt naval shipbuilding.
Same here , my tenants are for Bangladesh. That's the main Fincantieri workforce in the Cruise Sector. But I think in the military branch you mainly have Europeans and I bet the same for the Asian Competitors.
Possibly, I haven't seen the numbers for MHI's military yard specifically.
Unfortunately one country not currently experiencing issues with ship building is China. The problem faced by the US and by extension Australia is that we can’t realistically ever match China’s ship building capability.The US lost its way. Zumwalt and LCS. It went too big and too small, with weird priorities (no obvious enemy to focus the scope and design?).. Also the cancelled CGX program.
Future burkes being acquired to be built in the 2040s have been cancelled to fund submarines.
Arleigh Burke class Guided Missile Destroyer DDG US Navy
arleigh burke class guided missile destroyer ddg navywww.seaforces.orgNavy Wants to Buy Two Arleigh Burkes a Year While Developing DDG(X) Concept - USNI News
The Navy is committed to buying two Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers per year in tandem with developing its new DDG(X) program, the top surface warfare requirements officer said Wednesday. While the first priority for the Navy’s surface warfare division director on the chief of naval...
The US and other countries have experienced very similar issues to what Australia has experienced. New classes were late to arrive (including the Burkes), then by interrupting the production by doing other things, a hole quickly developed in fleet numbers. Other predicted projects were cancelled, so Burkes are still with us and will be for likely a long time. The Constellation program is in tatters, because instead of off the shelf, they turned it into a completely new ship sharing basically nothing with the original design. CGX and Zumwalt were cancelled or curtailed. Ticos were a stop gap, that became critical.
But the US Navy is huge, so they still had two yards churning capable destroyers out for like 3 decades.
Korea and Japan seem to be really committed to repeat orders. They can't be caught napping. Its not so much the yards are magical. Its that they have constant stream of steady work they deem important.
But also both have very competitive designs, lots of indigenous sourced supply lines that could be duplicated here, creating true second sources, that can be coordinated effectively.
Its not just about a yard being able to weld a hull together. That isn't the issue here. People see a ship being built, and see it in the yard with all the metal workers, painters and sparkies, but there is a much bigger industry behind that, and it isn't in the shipyard.
China is also only required to deploy these ships in their own region. The US on the other hand has world wide commitments and can only realistically deploy a fraction of its fleet in the Chinese region. It also has to support these ships logistically. The ships themselves need to be bigger and more heavily armed compared to their Chinese counterparts in order to counter China’s home ground advantage. The USN would not only need to deal with Chinese navy but also its Air Force and Lind based missiles.
Really the US is fortunate that its two biggest regional allies, ROK and Japan have such healthy ship building industries.
It’s worth remembering that most of the tonnage built in Korea for export are merchant ships, or ships adapted from mer ships such as tankers. They are high in tonnage and low in technology density. Europe tends to build warships, cruise ships and mega yachts which have much higher technology density than tankers, container ships or bulk carriers. While Japan can build both, it has not yet exported warships - and certainly has not built in another country - nor has Korea done that. Both Meko (Anzacs) and Navantia (Hobarts) have done that; and in Australia. In my view, that considerably levels the playing field.
I no longer have any insight into the process but on the grapevine I hear that it is a very tough competition. I wouldn’t write anybody off just yet.
So that it’s clear I’m not pushing an agenda, I might add that my favourite would be an FFM - if the language issue can be dealt with.
I no longer have any insight into the process but on the grapevine I hear that it is a very tough competition. I wouldn’t write anybody off just yet.
So that it’s clear I’m not pushing an agenda, I might add that my favourite would be an FFM - if the language issue can be dealt with.
Looking at the proposed platform for the LCH replacement/ Land 8710 ph2 being the Caimen-500. I can't help but to feel a little "underwhelmed". Given the profile of our planned armour vs ASLAV's and 113's, I thought we'd go with something a little large with little more legs than 2,000nm - something around the Damen LST100-120 size, payload, endurance, helicopter capable.
It seems to tick a lot of very similar boxes with the US LAW program?
The devil is in the details, but another missed opportunity?
It seems to tick a lot of very similar boxes with the US LAW program?
The devil is in the details, but another missed opportunity?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I have posted on the Army thread the August issue of DTR (currently free) which contains an interview with MAJGEN Vagg, Head of Army Capability and it goes into Land 8710 in some detail, worth the read. The LST120 is a lot bigger than the Army is looking at.