Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

Civmec with an extra 2 bays at the silveryachts site would be the same as Osborne.
One fabrication hall, one hall would be for consolidation of units and one would be for block assembly. (+separate pipe and paint sheds)
The 2 shorter outer bays in the main hall would likely be dedicated to the LCH program after the Arafura build.

Effectively Henderson (Civmec plus Silveryachts) in final form would have four large bays and two small bays (all 170m plus in length) for use across the GPF, LCH and LOCSV programs and possibly future patrol boats. They could be used for a range of purposes, but at maximum capacity I would think that each could be used for final ship assembly, matched to vessel size. The small bays are long enough that you might get two smaller vessels (sub 80m) in at a time.

So potentially 8 hulls in build at full rate, not including anything in the water. It would be busy, but possible. I'm not saying that is what it would do, just that it would be possible. Call it maximum wartime crazy rate.

The six bays above would all be able to share the broader site infrastructure for unit construction, fitout and painting. I would view these would be large enough to handle this side of the work for all programs without need for the above bays.

The main Civmec fabrication building (the northern one) is a taj mahal in its own right. This is near twice the size of the Osborne fabrication shed and almost the same size footprint as the main Civmec hall (the southern one). Its possible that a lot of unit assembly, particularly smaller sections, could be done within the fabrication building, in addition to sheet cut and weld.

There are two additional paint and fab combo sheds in the Civmec area, one of which is also large enough to do bigger block assembly (80m x 60m). Plus there are pipe fab sheds.

There is space in the Henderson area if needed to build additional block assembly, fabrication or painting buildings if needed. There is a lot of space.

Osborne for comparison has two 190m assembly bays, one 160m block assembly shed and then its fab shed (plus a bunch of smaller ones).

 

[spoz]

It’s not about the physical facilities, it’s about the construction planning; supply chain and material management; work package development and deconfliction; systems alignment, set to work and integration; pipe installation; cable pull and termination; and a hundred other things you can’t really grasp if you haven’t been involved in the building of complex warships. And then working how you deal with those things given the idiosyncrasies of your particular site (and they are all different). You just can’t build it up at what is effectively a greenfield site overnight (and Arafuras and LCM/H don’t count).

 

[Volkodav]

It’s not about the physical facilities, it’s about the construction planning; supply chain and material management; work package development and deconfliction; systems alignment, set to work and integration; pipe installation; cable pull and termination; and a hundred other things you can’t really grasp if you haven’t been involved in the building of complex warships. And then working how you deal with those things given the idiosyncrasies of your particular site (and they are all different). You just can’t build it up at what is effectively a greenfield site overnight (and Arafuras and LCM/H don’t count).

It's about the people, facilities improve efficiency and capability, but it is the knowledge, skills and institutional memory of the workforce that makes the difference.

ASC was a new workforce on a Greenfields site back in 2010, it was a painful gestation but they got there. The reality is it takes years to build capability and decades to cement it.

The worst thing about the situation is the less experienced, currently less capable workforce in WA, is better paid, substantially so, job for job, than the SA workforce.

 

[Underway]

As a German design that is fit for purpose does not appear to exist currently. The biggest risk of a German option would be to schedule.

These ships are supposed to start construction in the next 12-24 months and be in service less then 5 years after that.

Considering that one of the criteria was that the overseas build had to an existing ship with minimal changes…. Does that mean the Egyptian variant of A200?

How does that suit the RAN? For starters it would be a reduction in capability from the current ANZAC’s on multiple aspects.

Fit for purpose? All the designs that were selected by the RAN in the initial review were fit for purpose. Otherwise they wouldn't have handed the list to the gov't. The fact it was down selected to the final 2 is even more evidence it will match the mission requirements.

And the entire class naturally might be an initial reduction in some capabilities from the ANZACs as the Hunters exist so they don't have to carry as heavy a load. But I guarantee there will be some capabilities that are better as well.

 

[Armchair]

Fit for purpose? All the designs that were selected by the RAN in the initial review were fit for purpose. Otherwise they wouldn't have handed the list to the gov't. The fact it was down selected to the final 2 is even more evidence it will match the mission requirements.

Arguably the Navantia offering didn’t meet the publicly stated requirements (ALFA3000 does not exist as a ship in service and it is not really the GPF frigate on Navantia’s books). I wonder if this was really a competition in two parts. Select the most suitable frigate in service in Japan or Korea and match it against a fall back from a known builder (that would facilitate integration of existing RAN systems at some point). Speculation on my part, but one way of making sense of how the bids seem to have fallen out.

 

[SammyC]

It’s not about the physical facilities, it’s about the construction planning; supply chain and material management; work package development and deconfliction; systems alignment, set to work and integration; pipe installation; cable pull and termination; and a hundred other things you can’t really grasp if you haven’t been involved in the building of complex warships. And then working how you deal with those things given the idiosyncrasies of your particular site (and they are all different). You just can’t build it up at what is effectively a greenfield site overnight (and Arafuras and LCM/H don’t count).

I do get the process side of construction. I was trying to describe the potential capacity based on the (future) infrastructure, which is one of the limitations on production. So is labour, so is raw materials.

The point I was making is that Henderson in its final form is likely to have a higher theoretical capacity, based on its infrastructure, than Osborne. It's not likely to be limited by labour or materials. No more than that.

Yes, the process takes a long while to refine, become efficient and reach the capacity of a facility (set by the above three principles), but with effort and time it can usually be obtained. Volks I do see it took Osborne about a decade to get to where they are. I think they are a good outfit and I admire them.

I have no illusions to where the shipbuilding skills of the combined Henderson precinct is at present (low), or how long it would take to get to the same level as Osborne (years). It's basically a heavy duty fabricator and a light boat builder. With some Germans thrown in.

I suspect however that I have a different take for how to get to the end point for Henderson. The learning curve timeframe for this facility should not be the same as Osborne. It should be quicker. The second is always faster.

If I may use an analogy.

In my other life I run chemical plants down the road from Henderson. Right now we are finalising a new factory to come online in a few months time. Its several billion dollars and has taken the last five years to construct. It needs an entirely new operations crew and all of its procedures and systems. It's pure greenfield.

That plant is however one of several plants in the business, and the others have all been helping by training their engineers, maintainers and operators with fundamental skills, providing our procedures for standard activities and loaning our senior staff to help their own establishment. We also entered a joint venture with another company who is an expert in this product, and they have their senior staff seconded to the facility as well. And we have been doing this for some time. All the other plants have a role in making sure that the new plant can start up, start producing, get efficient, and get there quickly. Our bonuses depend on it.

Now that's for a few hundred staff, Henderson is several thousand, but the principle should be the same.

Henderson will need support from its future sibling stablemate Osborne to set up and learn. It will need the same from the future ship provider, be that TKMS or Mitsubishi. It will need other specialists to guide it as well. It's a sacrifice from the donor organisations, but essential to the success of all. Learning curves can be short if that is conducted, and disastrous if not.

My observations of the Arafura build indicate to me that there was not much of this sharing and helping going on. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is my take on it. Consequently it was not suprising it had problems.

 

[StevoJH]

Fit for purpose? All the designs that were selected by the RAN in the initial review were fit for purpose. Otherwise they wouldn't have handed the list to the gov't. The fact it was down selected to the final 2 is even more evidence it will match the mission requirements.

And the entire class naturally might be an initial reduction in some capabilities from the ANZACs as the Hunters exist so they don't have to carry as heavy a load. But I guarantee there will be some capabilities that are better as well.

My understanding was that.

The original requirement outlined by the Government was that the ship had to be an existing ship that is to be offered without changes. The only exception to that was to be with safety systems such as fire suppression if these do not meet Australian Standards.

So that means that an existing baseline of ship needs to be offered, at least for the initial 3 overseas built ships.

For A200 that would require one of the previously constructed variants to be offered. All of which have much in the way of weapons and sensor systems not currently in RAN service, and thus the likelihood of becoming an expensive orphan to operate in the medium term.

For Morgami either the existing or evolved baseline should theoretically be fine as they are both already under construction (or will be by the time the selection process is complete).

The only catch with Mogami is that it will require missiles (ESSM and Tomahawk) to be integrated into the existing Mk.41 VLS, as AFAIK the only SAM currently integrated is RAM, with plans to add an indigenous SAM in the near future. It would also require replacement of missiles canisters (bolted on) with NSM and possibly substitution of ASW torpedo.

If I have misunderstood the brief I apologise.

 

[Reptilia]

Effectively Henderson (Civmec plus Silveryachts) in final form would have four large bays and two small bays (all 170m plus in length) for use across the GPF, LCH and LOCSV programs and possibly future patrol boats. They could be used for a range of purposes, but at maximum capacity I would think that each could be used for final ship assembly, matched to vessel size. The small bays are long enough that you might get two smaller vessels (sub 80m) in at a time.

So potentially 8 hulls in build at full rate, not including anything in the water. It would be busy, but possible. I'm not saying that is what it would do, just that it would be possible. Call it maximum wartime crazy rate.

The six bays above would all be able to share the broader site infrastructure for unit construction, fitout and painting. I would view these would be large enough to handle this side of the work for all programs without need for the above bays.

The main Civmec fabrication building (the northern one) is a taj mahal in its own right. This is near twice the size of the Osborne fabrication shed and almost the same size footprint as the main Civmec hall (the southern one). Its possible that a lot of unit assembly, particularly smaller sections, could be done within the fabrication building, in addition to sheet cut and weld.

There are two additional paint and fab combo sheds in the Civmec area, one of which is also large enough to do bigger block assembly (80m x 60m). Plus there are pipe fab sheds.

There is space in the Henderson area if needed to build additional block assembly, fabrication or painting buildings if needed. There is a lot of space.

Osborne for comparison has two 190m assembly bays, one 160m block assembly shed and then its fab shed (plus a bunch of smaller ones).

My assumption…
The only real difference is the extra lane in the fabrication hall at Henderson and the 2 outer bays in the main hall for Arafura, LCH, LOSV.

 

[Underway]

My understanding was that.

The original requirement outlined by the Government was that the ship had to be an existing ship that is to be offered without changes. The only exception to that was to be with safety systems such as fire suppression if these do not meet Australian Standards.

So that means that an existing baseline of ship needs to be offered, at least for the initial 3 overseas built ships.

For A200 that would require one of the previously constructed variants to be offered. All of which have much in the way of weapons and sensor systems not currently in RAN service, and thus the likelihood of becoming an expensive orphan to operate in the medium term.

For Morgami either the existing or evolved baseline should theoretically be fine as they are both already under construction (or will be by the time the selection process is complete).

The only catch with Mogami is that it will require missiles (ESSM and Tomahawk) to be integrated into the existing Mk.41 VLS, as AFAIK the only SAM currently integrated is RAM, with plans to add an indigenous SAM in the near future. It would also require replacement of missiles canisters (bolted on) with NSM and possibly substitution of ASW torpedo.

If I have misunderstood the brief I apologise.

I don't think expensive orphan is the right term. All the systems used by both ships are in service somewhere else, the German offering in particular as there are multiple systems across Europe. An orphan would be something entirely bespoke (like the CEAFAR radar on the ANZACs for example). And you're getting 11 ships. It's not a one off per ship so that means something as well.

 

[hauritz]

There has obviously been a lot happening behind the scenes with the A-200 proposal. I have hardly found any information at all of the TKMS proposal. Everybody assumes it is the Egyptian Variant but that seems to miss the whole point of the modular MEKO concept. What Germany maybe offering is a very much baseline A-200 to which Australia gets to choose what modules it wishes to incorporate.

 

[spoz]

The missile family used for AAW in the RAN is the Standard family, fired from a Mark 41 launcher. We have a very considerable investment in those, anything else would be an orphan in Australia; and anyway would not be favoured as they are viewed as offering less performance.

CEAFAR is not an orphan in Australia, being fitted to Hunter - and conceivably retrofitted to Hobart in the future. Again, it is seen as being superior to the alternatives in the Australian environment; and therefore is very probably if offered would get the offerer brownie points. That is actually an area where the Meko might have some advantage through involvement in AMCAP etc.

There are other systems which the RAN would very much prefer if they can manage it - 9LV springs to mind - and, after all, the Meko is marketed as being easily adaptable to the customers weapons systems; something which we are familiar with from the Anzac program.

So I wouldn’t write the Meko off just yet.

 

[Reptilia]

The missile family used for AAW in the RAN is the Standard family, fired from a Mark 41 launcher. We have a very considerable investment in those, anything else would be an orphan in Australia; and anyway would not be favoured as they are viewed as offering less performance.

CEAFAR is not an orphan in Australia, being fitted to Hunter - and conceivably retrofitted to Hobart in the future. Again, it is seen as being superior to the alternatives in the Australian environment; and therefore is very probably if offered would get the offerer brownie points. That is actually an area where the Meko might have some advantage through involvement in AMCAP etc.

There are other systems which the RAN would very much prefer if they can manage it - 9LV springs to mind - and, after all, the Meko is marketed as being easily adaptable to the customers weapons systems; something which we are familiar with from the Anzac program.

So I wouldn’t write the Meko off just yet.

16 Tactical length cells though… can’t do much with that.

 

[iambuzzard]

16 Tactical length cells though… can’t do much with that.

We need 32 Mk.41 VLS at the minimum

 

[swerve]

For light frigates, meant as supplements to the major units? You're saying that doubling the number of destroyers & frigates isn't enough: even the second tier units have to have at least twice the firepower of your current first line frigates.

Given what's been happening in the last few years, perhaps more attention should be paid to defence against attacks by large numbers of small, cheap devices, which I don't think means more Mk 41 VLS.

 

[Going Boeing]

There has obviously been a lot happening behind the scenes with the A-200 proposal. I have hardly found any information at all of the TKMS proposal. Everybody assumes it is the Egyptian Variant but that seems to miss the whole point of the modular MEKO concept. What Germany maybe offering is a very much baseline A-200 to which Australia gets to choose what modules it wishes to incorporate.

The mystery deepens.

In Pat Conroy’s recent address to the National Press Club, he specifically mentioned that the number of VLS launchers in the RAN fleet was being increased to 880. Doing the numbers, that means that the 11 GPF’s will have 32 VLS each - the A200 is only equipped with 16 so Conroy’s statement would indicate that TKMS is offering a more capable version with 32 VLS (or the Government has already decided that they are purchasing the evolved Mogami and stating those numbers was a major slip by Conroy).

 

[Wombat000]

I hope we’ve moved on from 16 cells.
its todays standard, not tomorrows. I can’t help but feel it’d just an investment into earlier insufficiency.

 

[old faithful]

We need 32 Mk.41 VLS at the minimum

While I agree with the number of VLS, the MEKO does have some cool features, like IR reduction with exhaust on or below the water line, reduced radar cross section.
Double the ASM with 16 NSM, and the base standard 16 x mk41 cells.
It's still a handy ship.
Although it's not capable of air defence on its own, 64 ESSM contributes well to a BG.
And 16 NSM is a reasonable shortish range deterrent if area denial is a factor.
It is a GP frigate.
It's also stated that it has a 10 month build cycle (best case) which is attractive.
If 32 cells were able to be fitted, it's range is great, it's build time is great, if fitted with Ceafar and giraffe, it would be a good option.
Having said that, I do like the evolved Mogami!

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

the A200 is only equipped with 16 so Conroy’s statement would indicate that TKMS is offering a more capable version with 32 VLS (or the Government has already decided that they are purchasing the evolved Mogami and stating those numbers was a major slip by Conroy)

I don't think it's a slip. TKMS has already said they're offering the theoretical A210, which has 32 VLS cells.

And 16 NSM is a reasonable shortish range deterrent if area denial is a factor.

I personally don't think that having lots of NSMs is a relevant factor for choosing the winning design. It's a good missile in as far that it's been designed to be difficult to detect, but it's also slow and has a "meh" range, with a small warhead. Would be fine against green and brown water navies, but not the PLAN. I don't think a couple more NSMs would get past their defences, because even with it being harder to spot they'll still have time to get intercepting missiles in the air.

That's one reason why the Royal Navy is using NSM just as an interim measure, because it's affordable and better than the ancient Harpoons they had. But they're still pushing on with the new missile with the French.

Now if the A210 was packing 16 LRASMs, in addition to the 32 Mk 41 VLS calls,= and TKMS was offering to pay the integration costs, I would understand. But what scenario is going to be successfully completed thanks to 16 NSMs per ship instead of 8?

 

[SammyC]

I'm thinking 16 would meet minimum need, remember that's equivalent to 64 ESSM, which is more than sufficient for point defence.

Note the original wording for the capability in the surface combatant review was to "provide air defence through a limited number of point and self defence systems". SeaRAM would probably satisfy this definition. 16 VLS with ESSM is an upgrade on that.

32 cells would be beneficial and would be one of the extra features of the Mogami weighed up when evaluating the two proposals.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The mystery deepens.

In Pat Conroy’s recent address to the National Press Club, he specifically mentioned that the number of VLS launchers in the RAN fleet was being increased to 880. Doing the numbers, that means that the 11 GPF’s will have 32 VLS each - the A200 is only equipped with 16 so Conroy’s statement would indicate that TKMS is offering a more capable version with 32 VLS (or the Government has already decided that they are purchasing the evolved Mogami and stating those numbers was a major slip by Conroy).

Not to be a pendant, but he actually didn't use the term "VLS", just "launch cells". We can reasonably interpret that as VLS cells (discounting AShM launchers). Yet we should be open to the possibility this was not necessarily a belling the cat comment in terms of what the GPF must offer.