Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

Which is more or less what I expected. It also means that Australia is establishing another new facility and workforce, rather than expanding on existing facilities and infrastructure, whilst using and increasing an established and trained workforce. Not unlike past Australian naval shipbuilding history where Australia has had existing facilities and workforces, but instead prefers to setup new yards for a project or two before relocating naval construction yet again.

I would agree with you in the longer historical context.

I think now a part of the strategy is perhaps redundancy. If one facility is damaged, then the other remains available.

I also know in the last great war Australia was pumping out ships from every available slipway. The second one still provides that surge capacity in the event we need heaps of ships, including cargo carriers.

In the event the world calms down, perhaps one ship yard will be required to shut down.

 

[Stampede]

Alice Springs would work well with the trans continental cannal from Darwin to Port Agusta in SA. It would also serve as a massive desalination system to irrigate central Australia.

I'm only half joking.

A former colleague explained the concept to me years ago. It's the sort of thing some Arab countries, China, or the USA of old would do.

 

[spoz]

Osborne yard needs an extension to the syncrolift for it to lift the supply class. Future destroyer/cruiser build or anything 180m and under. Possible extension to the dry berth too.

The dry berth would be more than big enough for a ship of Supply’s size. The synchro lift would need an extension, which I believe is already in the plans.

 

[Reptilia]

The dry berth would be more than big enough for a ship of Supply’s size. The synchro lift would need an extension, which I believe is already in the plans.

https://previewapi.transparency.gov.au/delivery/assets/80a82ed1-3e33-027b-b7e0-6493f97f18f8/19665b17-d45d-4292-9a09-4c277bab4158/2024-25%20Australian%20Naval%20Infrastructure%20Pty%20Ltd%20Statement%20of%20Corporate%20Intent.pdf

The recent upgrades were the shiplift(capacity), dry berth to 160-170m(to support Hunter class), wharf extension to 320m(2x Hunter class), new paint shed etc etc.
Upgrade to increase lifting capacity has been done(See below) but not sure they will continue with an extension anytime soon.

ANI

We’re proud to share a major milestone in our Marine Works program with the successful testing of the upgraded shiplift at Osborne. | Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI)

We’re proud to share a major milestone in our Marine Works program with the successful testing of the upgraded shiplift at Osborne. This upgrade has significantly increased the shiplift’s lifting capacity and completes the integration with our Self-Propelled Modular Transporters (SPMTs)...

www.linkedin.com

https://www.steel.org.au/getattachment/7dc4adac-0b82-463d-b292-b62c1501fe7d/Techport-Shiplift-case-study.pdf

‘The shiplift is the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, capable of supporting a vessel up to 9,300 tonnes(now more). It is 156 meters long, 34 metres wide and lowers 18 metres into the water to launch and dock ships. The Hoist Lift Capacity is the largest and the first of its type manufactured for Rolls Royce, with a lift capacity capable of 625 tonnes per hoist. It has been specifically designed with the potential for future expansion of an additional 50.5m or another seven standard modular sections, which would give the shiplift a total lifting capacity up to 22,000 tonnes.’

Not sure we will ever see it grow to 206m.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would agree with you in the longer historical context.

I think now a part of the strategy is perhaps redundancy. If one facility is damaged, then the other remains available.

I also know in the last great war Australia was pumping out ships from every available slipway. The second one still provides that surge capacity in the event we need heaps of ships, including cargo carriers.

In the event the world calms down, perhaps one ship yard will be required to shut down.

TBH I do not see establishing multiple naval yards as providing any sort of real redundancy in the event of conflict, not anymore at least. Having multiple sites where vessels can undergo maintenance and repair, yes, there would be redundancy in that (which AFAIK Australia has with facilities at FBE and FBW as well as ASC).

One significant problem IMO is that despite what was possible during WWII in terms of naval construction, I just do not see there being a modern equivalent to the Bathurst-class being possible. There are just too many complex components and systems used aboard modern vessels, many of which have long lead times, for it to be likely that a rapid replacement construction programme could be conducted. Sure, hulls might be able to get effectively mass produced, but eventually there would be a shortage of one or more systems like GT's, diesels, shafts, gearing, radars, or something else entirely and production would have to stop and wait. It also means that an adversary could potentially halt Australian warship production during a conflict without even needing to directly strike an Australian facility, by preventing Australia from receiving the components which Australia needs to import.

 

[Volkodav]

TBH I do not see establishing multiple naval yards as providing any sort of real redundancy in the event of conflict, not anymore at least. Having multiple sites where vessels can undergo maintenance and repair, yes, there would be redundancy in that (which AFAIK Australia has with facilities at FBE and FBW as well as ASC).

One significant problem IMO is that despite what was possible during WWII in terms of naval construction, I just do not see there being a modern equivalent to the Bathurst-class being possible. There are just too many complex components and systems used aboard modern vessels, many of which have long lead times, for it to be likely that a rapid replacement construction programme could be conducted. Sure, hulls might be able to get effectively mass produced, but eventually there would be a shortage of one or more systems like GT's, diesels, shafts, gearing, radars, or something else entirely and production would have to stop and wait. It also means that an adversary could potentially halt Australian warship production during a conflict without even needing to directly strike an Australian facility, by preventing Australia from receiving the components which Australia needs to import.

This occured in WWI.

Australia had been near the start of a massive naval expansion when WWI began. Local infrastructure had been built and expanded to permit local construction to support this.

Destroyers had been built in the UK, dismantled into kits and sent to Australia for assembly and Codock had begun building cruisers.

HMAS Brisbane had been completed but HMAS Adelaide was delayed due to the loss of critical components in transit from the UK.

The lesson learnt from this when consideration was given to building new ships post WWI, was (shock horror) that Australians couldn't build ships and we should buy them from overseas.

Imagine if instead the finding was Australia needs improved infrastructure so we can still build ships, even when our supply lines are interdicted?

 

[OldTex]

One significant problem IMO is that despite what was possible during WWII in terms of naval construction, I just do not see there being a modern equivalent to the Bathurst-class being possible. There are just too many complex components and systems used aboard modern vessels, many of which have long lead times, for it to be likely that a rapid replacement construction programme could be conducted.

What was possible during WW2 cannot be replicated now due to the increased complexity of the modern item. A modern corvette would be at least an order of magnitude more complex than a 'Flower' class corvette during the war. The same or even more with aircraft. What was produced during WW2 would not even be considered in a modern conflict.

 

[SammyC]

TBH I do not see establishing multiple naval yards as providing any sort of real redundancy in the event of conflict, not anymore at least. Having multiple sites where vessels can undergo maintenance and repair, yes, there would be redundancy in that (which AFAIK Australia has with facilities at FBE and FBW as well as ASC).

One significant problem IMO is that despite what was possible during WWII in terms of naval construction, I just do not see there being a modern equivalent to the Bathurst-class being possible. There are just too many complex components and systems used aboard modern vessels, many of which have long lead times, for it to be likely that a rapid replacement construction programme could be conducted. Sure, hulls might be able to get effectively mass produced, but eventually there would be a shortage of one or more systems like GT's, diesels, shafts, gearing, radars, or something else entirely and production would have to stop and wait. It also means that an adversary could potentially halt Australian warship production during a conflict without even needing to directly strike an Australian facility, by preventing Australia from receiving the components which Australia needs to import.

While something like the Mogami is not a Bathurst equivalent, and unlikely ever will be, being able to punch out 2-3 per year off a production line in conjunction with 1-2 Hunters over a conflict that may last several years would underpin strategic resiliance. I agree with your point on overseas supply lines being a significant vulnerability.

I'm thinking the Bathurst equivalent is actually likely to be something like a drone or minimum crewed ship. I could see an environment where there are hundreds or thousands of blue bottle, ghost shark and ghost bat ISR and/or mini EW style drones saturating the forward environment. Sitting back and spread out are also dozens of usx defiant style armed drones, with just a handfull (4-8) of strike missiles and torpedos. They can target off the ISR drones and otherwise remain silent. Medium sized crewed OPVs act as service ships and comms links to the drones. Large crewed frigates and destroyers then just act as quarterbacks and defensive shields.

 

[StingrayOZ]

What was possible during WW2 cannot be replicated now due to the increased complexity of the modern item. A modern corvette would be at least an order of magnitude more complex than a 'Flower' class corvette during the war. The same or even more with aircraft. What was produced during WW2 would not even be considered in a modern conflict.

I don't think we need to overtly focus on building every type of ship during a war. I'm not sure the war will be long enough. I'm not sure we could train the crew fast enough even if it was years.

But maintaining ships, repairing ships, yes. Building drone ships, building drone aircraft. Yes.

Replacing major fleet vessels and manned ships during even WW2 was a big hassle and ask. Which is why you need to have what you need to have before the conflict. Even for the US building major surface combatants during a war was a major endeavor. We can't expect that we will have 10-20 years lead time, then use that time to build the fleet we need for war. We need the major fleet units to be there ready to go, crew trained.. You can't just conscript a fleet of sailors anymore to man modern surface combatants and submarines.

The reason why we built corvettes isn't because that was the best ship type, it was because that is what we could build.

As for why to build in Australia. Look around. How confident are we on our American built subs arriving? If you don't build it here, it may never arrive. Even with the best yards and the best of alliances and for all the right strategic reasons, there is, doubt.

We don't want to play the high attrition manned platform game. We will lose that, and lose badly. We could certainly do what ukraine is making, and make drones. Sea and air. They aren't making destroyers and Fighter jets. Although previously, they did during peacetime.

TBH im not sure anyone will be able to make anything during a global war. Chances are shipyards will likely be continuously targeted by drones. I'm not sure you can expect that for 12 months nothing is going to happen to a shipyard and that it will operate at better than peacetime capacity.. Shipyards are notoriously unmovable, big, close to the oceans and seas, and often contain flammable items, like welding gas, paint, oils, fuels, etc.

 

[spoz]

We also built three Tribal class destroyers (Arunta, Warramunga and Bataan) and 6 River class frigates, with more on the way at the end of the war. And we completed three Grimsby class sloops (Parramatta, Warrego and Swan) whose construction had begun before the war.

 

[seaspear]

With an actual need of the Sea 3000 ships being delivered quickly is there an argument for having them completed in Australia thus averting building some of the infrastructure of starting from scratch ,being able to take from existing ships like the Anzacs if required what items still in good order is there money to be saved doing this if that money is then directed towards the ships capability ,there would still be skilled employment for locals

 

[old faithful]

I don't think we need to overtly focus on building every type of ship during a war. I'm not sure the war will be long enough. I'm not sure we could train the crew fast enough even if it was years.

But maintaining ships, repairing ships, yes. Building drone ships, building drone aircraft. Yes.

Replacing major fleet vessels and manned ships during even WW2 was a big hassle and ask. Which is why you need to have what you need to have before the conflict. Even for the US building major surface combatants during a war was a major endeavor. We can't expect that we will have 10-20 years lead time, then use that time to build the fleet we need for war. We need the major fleet units to be there ready to go, crew trained.. You can't just conscript a fleet of sailors anymore to man modern surface combatants and submarines.

The reason why we built corvettes isn't because that was the best ship type, it was because that is what we could build.

As for why to build in Australia. Look around. How confident are we on our American built subs arriving? If you don't build it here, it may never arrive. Even with the best yards and the best of alliances and for all the right strategic reasons, there is, doubt.

We don't want to play the high attrition manned platform game. We will lose that, and lose badly. We could certainly do what ukraine is making, and make drones. Sea and air. They aren't making destroyers and Fighter jets. Although previously, they did during peacetime.

TBH im not sure anyone will be able to make anything during a global war. Chances are shipyards will likely be continuously targeted by drones. I'm not sure you can expect that for 12 months nothing is going to happen to a shipyard and that it will operate at better than peacetime capacity.. Shipyards are notoriously unmovable, big, close to the oceans and seas, and often contain flammable items, like welding gas, paint, oils, fuels, etc.

Agreed.
Also, wonder if Ukraine is working on making bigger munitions....I'm thinking in the kiloton/megaton class? Because if the SHTF for us here in Australia, that would be the easiest deterrent we could have, and possibly the cheapest.

 

[Todjaeger]

While something like the Mogami is not a Bathurst equivalent, and unlikely ever will be, being able to punch out 2-3 per year off a production line in conjunction with 1-2 Hunters over a conflict that may last several years would underpin strategic resiliance. I agree with your point on overseas supply lines being a significant vulnerability.

I'm thinking the Bathurst equivalent is actually likely to be something like a drone or minimum crewed ship. I could see an environment where there are hundreds or thousands of blue bottle, ghost shark and ghost bat ISR and/or mini EW style drones saturating the forward environment. Sitting back and spread out are also dozens of usx defiant style armed drones, with just a handfull (4-8) of strike missiles and torpedos. They can target off the ISR drones and otherwise remain silent. Medium sized crewed OPVs act as service ships and comms links to the drones. Large crewed frigates and destroyers then just act as quarterbacks and defensive shields.

What I have been trying to get at, is what real tactical or strategic advantage is there for Australia to establish another warship building concern at a brand new site? And are these advantages short-term or long-term advantages? Is it also possible that over a different period, the advantages end up actually being disadvantages?

It would seem, at least to me, that if an existing facility still has room for expansion and already has a skilled workforce in place that could be tapped to work on another/new project and/or used to mentor and skill personnel to expand the workforce, it would make more sense to further utilize what is already in place. Instead, it looks like decisions were instead made to develop a new site, establish a new workforce (which in turn will need time to become skilled) so that Australia ends up having two facilities in different states that will end up competing for future work, with neither likely to reach peak utilization or efficiency.

 

[Todjaeger]

With an actual need of the Sea 3000 ships being delivered quickly is there an argument for having them completed in Australia thus averting building some of the infrastructure of starting from scratch ,being able to take from existing ships like the Anzacs if required what items still in good order is there money to be saved doing this if that money is then directed towards the ships capability ,there would still be skilled employment for locals

We still do not know what design will be selected to become the SEA 3000 GPF, which also means we do not know what the fitout will be, or what potential options will exist to pull currently used RAN systems from the ANZAC-class frigates. Now personal belief is that if the earliest possible delivery dates for the SEA 3000 GPF is considered most important, then Australia would likely be better off ordering more than just the initial three vessels be built overseas.

As I understand the current state of things to be, the new yard likely will not be able to start working on the to be chosen frigate design until 2029 at the earliest, and quite possibly later than that if there are any issues encountered with the work currently being done on landing craft, or building the necessary facilities for warship construction, or raising an appropriate workforce. This does not even touch on any possible issues which could be encountered either with establishing supply chains for the SEA 3000 frigate construction, or adapting the design to be a 'Batch 2' design fitted with more standard RAN kit.

As for re-using kit pulled from RAN ANZAC-class frigates, that would almost certainly require some degree of redesign and/or systems integration and this might be possible for examples to be built in Australia, but I cannot foresee any vessels built overseas being so fitted, not if construction is to commence in 2026 or 2027. There is most likely just not enough time to do the work needed to fit new/different systems to a design which is supposed to start construction so soon, which in turn needs to happen this soon if the new frigates are to enter RAN service around the time the Hunter-class frigates enter RAN service.

 

[StevoJH]

What I have been trying to get at, is what real tactical or strategic advantage is there for Australia to establish another warship building concern at a brand new site? And are these advantages short-term or long-term advantages? Is it also possible that over a different period, the advantages end up actually being disadvantages?

It would seem, at least to me, that if an existing facility still has room for expansion and already has a skilled workforce in place that could be tapped to work on another/new project and/or used to mentor and skill personnel to expand the workforce, it would make more sense to further utilize what is already in place. Instead, it looks like decisions were instead made to develop a new site, establish a new workforce (which in turn will need time to become skilled) so that Australia ends up having two facilities in different states that will end up competing for future work, with neither likely to reach peak utilization or efficiency.

It’s purely politics and spreading the pork around.

Henderson makes sense as a commercial precinct, with the North West Shelf oil and gas.

But military shipbuilding should have been kept to Osborne once the decision was made to build the Hunter class there.

 

[Todjaeger]

It’s purely politics and spreading the pork around.

Henderson makes sense as a commercial precinct, with the North West Shelf oil and gas.

But military shipbuilding should have been kept to Osborne once the decision was made to build the Hunter class there.

Which means less bang for the buck in the short term, and quite possibly much less bang for the buck over the long term if there is not enough work ordered to keep both facilities active.

TBH I am almost at the point of suggesting pollies around Sydney with influence in Canberra should begin advocating for Codock to be reactivated and upgraded.

 

[seaspear]

We still do not know what design will be selected to become the SEA 3000 GPF, which also means we do not know what the fitout will be, or what potential options will exist to pull currently used RAN systems from the ANZAC-class frigates. Now personal belief is that if the earliest possible delivery dates for the SEA 3000 GPF is considered most important, then Australia would likely be better off ordering more than just the initial three vessels be built overseas.

As I understand the current state of things to be, the new yard likely will not be able to start working on the to be chosen frigate design until 2029 at the earliest, and quite possibly later than that if there are any issues encountered with the work currently being done on landing craft, or building the necessary facilities for warship construction, or raising an appropriate workforce. This does not even touch on any possible issues which could be encountered either with establishing supply chains for the SEA 3000 frigate construction, or adapting the design to be a 'Batch 2' design fitted with more standard RAN kit.

As for re-using kit pulled from RAN ANZAC-class frigates, that would almost certainly require some degree of redesign and/or systems integration and this might be possible for examples to be built in Australia, but I cannot foresee any vessels built overseas being so fitted, not if construction is to commence in 2026 or 2027. There is most likely just not enough time to do the work needed to fit new/different systems to a design which is supposed to start construction so soon, which in turn needs to happen this soon if the new frigates are to enter RAN service around the time the Hunter-class frigates enter RAN service.

The a 210 design is shown with a cea far radar so it should be possible to transfer some from older Anzac ship to the build

TKMS Unveils New MEKO A210 Frigate - Naval News

During Indo Pacific 2023, TKMS revealed it's third generation MEKO 200 design called the MEKO A210, which it intends to offer to Australia

www.navalnews.com

 

[Todjaeger]

The a 210 design is shown with a cea far radar so it should be possible to transfer some from older Anzac ship to the build

TKMS Unveils New MEKO A210 Frigate - Naval News

During Indo Pacific 2023, TKMS revealed it's third generation MEKO 200 design called the MEKO A210, which it intends to offer to Australia

www.navalnews.com

The model might show a CEA radar panel array, but that is not the same as there having been the detailed design work completed to fit CEA radar panels and everything else that would entail.

There is also the issue of the MEKO A210 at this point being a 'paper' design with no examples currently in production, or any supply chain established to provide the needed materials and components to build the design. All of these factors (or the lack thereof) could easily cause delays in any overseas production and therefore delivery to and entry into service with the RAN.

Not saying that pulling kit from decommissioned vessels cannot happen but the more changes or customizations made to a design, the longer it will likely take for work to actually get started with delivery dates also likely getting impacted. In some respects it almost seems like it would be wiser to just order more more modified ANZAC-class MEKO 200 frigates from TKMS, with the actual SEA 3000 GPF class being something else entirely which would just be a domestic build.

 

[d-ron84]

The a 210 design is shown with a cea far radar so it should be possible to transfer some from older Anzac ship to the build

TKMS Unveils New MEKO A210 Frigate - Naval News

During Indo Pacific 2023, TKMS revealed it's third generation MEKO 200 design called the MEKO A210, which it intends to offer to Australia

www.navalnews.com

There is also a model of the Mogami with alternate mast configurations.
Both options would require a fair bit of integration to use CEA radars and the 9LV CMS.

Edit: Thanks Todjaeger that is a more articulate answer then mine

 

[seaspear]

They are both paper designs, T.K.M.S in the article seem confident in their design work to fit a Cea far system so perhaps beyond customisation