Please help me understand how using existing top weight margin for VLS rather than shipping containers changes that in any way?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Unfortunately days gone bye
Why would you build in Melbourne?
Still a major manufacturing hub with excellent educational facilities.
Constructed a significant proportion of the existing RAN fleet
Has a population greater than that of WA and SA combined.
Many other attributes
Why, Because we took a turn in the road and did not invest in “Willie”
It’s future is now residential and Lattes
Best of luck to SA and WA
We now need to make these two locations work.
No more changes , just commitment!
Cheers S
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
If we go to war they'll have to reopen it.
Sure if you have time go look at the last 100 ADF stories and do a scorecard positive and negative. They are ridiculously biased.
Hysterical overreaction. Right wing He pointed out a time when things went bad. That’s all. For a first post you have made a fool of yourself.
They are not "shipping containers" they are deployable systems that use a container interface.
When they are not there the space can be used by additional RHIBs, fast interceptor craft, light amphibious craft, additional helicopters etc.
I hope a DDG version is ordered as an addition to the fleet. Actually, no park that, I hope a DLG type is ordered.
Six is a good number, in fact I know a few who were of the opinion we should have built six modified Type 23 instead of the MEKOs as the ANZACs, then three Flight IIA Burke's and six new FFGs, with twelve corvettes.
The FFGs would logically be F-100s, or F124s, maybe even something locally designed. They would be new, and the Type 23s would now be being replaced by Type 26.
The corvettes would be replaced by GPFs, the Burke's by Type 83(?) and the FFGs by Hunter FFGs.
Maybe adjust the numbers to five each DDG/DLG, FFG(ASW), FFG(GP) supported by ten GPF. Not an Armidale, Cape or Arafura in sight.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Looking at things from a pragmatic POV, would it be realistic for the Williamstown Dockyard to be re-opened and effective? IIRC one of the reasons why BAE ended up closing the facility was that it was no longer really large enough to handle vessels larger than ~120 or 130 m LOA, and there was no economically viable way to expand the facility. If the workforce has dispersed by either moving onto other workplaces and/or retired, and the physical facility itself is both too small and would need to be updated/refurbished before being used again, then I do not see a way for Williamstown to be made useful again absent a prolonged conflict requiring a whole-of-nation response.
It is both a cost and time issue. There would be costs associated with acquiring the site and then making the infrastructure fit for purpose again, or significantly greater costs (and time) involved if the site were to be expanded so larger vessels could be worked on. IIRC the Adelaide-class FFG's were close to the max size Williamstown could build. Good for their time, but frigates and destroyers now are more into the 140m+ LOA, and 6,000+ tonnes displacement range.
I suspect that establishing the sort of skilled workforce such a hypothetical naval yard would require would take longer to raise and train than reconstruction would, unless the yard were to also be significantly expanded. Pretty much the only way to get skilled workers for such a facility would require either conscription of workers from mining industries, and/or poaching already experienced yard workers from other Australian yards. As little as I like the apparent plan to establish a naval construction facility in WA for warship production, I think that will be more efficient and effective than trying to get Williamstown back into service.
If there were to be any serious efforts made to get former Australian yards back into service, Codock in Sydney would be a better idea IMO, as the site, whilst space limited (it is on an island after all) did already have facilities large enough to construct ~150m long AOR's with full load displacement of 18,000 tonnes. These facilities would need to be refurbished or rebuilt in some fashion, and of course the workforce established but I suspect the end result would be a more useful facility, provided gov't could and would continue to sustain the facility by placing orders for work. Given Australia's boom-bust cycles for naval construction and the apparent demise of the national shipbuilding plan, I am dubious about Australia managing to keep Osborne and/or whatever ends up built in WA going as a viable, functioning facility.
The thing I never understood was closing Cockatoo Island and keeping Williamstown.
Codoc was out premier yard, it was established to build cruisers and did so during and after WWI. Success was built there.
It's an island, just reclaim land and expand it.
Too late now but in hindsight it was the one to keep.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH I suspect politics was involved, which is in large measure why I remain so dubious about SEA 3000 or at least what has come out regarding it and the naval review itself.