Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

I don't know what year that would be (don't feel obliged to reveal), but it was probably hard to envision that a Hobart could evolve from them. They (F100/105) were really radically maxed out.

They didn’t, really. They share much of the design philosophy of the OHPs but are themselves a new design - although the hull form in particular does have some similarities. The “evolved FFG” thing was a marketing ploy.

 

[SammyC]

We will need a third yard eventually. It’s not just RAN that needs new ships.

I can't see it for a while, if ever.

Both Henderson (in the future) and Osborne (now) have a capacity higher than what is currently scheduled. I think they could both cope with a near doubling of tempo for the forecast ship classes without reaching internal shipyard bottlenecks. I think they are actually more likely to be restricted by supply chain factors outside the ship yard like engines, shafts, radars and the like.

I don't even see why the next generation of larger ships, such as replenishment ships, can't be built in one of the two existing yards in due course.

I think however it would be a while before we could build ships for others. I think we may more likely be called upon to help maintain existing ships rather than build new ships for other countries. Our ports and yards would be considered nearby safe facilities.

 

[SammyC]

Civmec is proud to announce the acquisition of Luerssen Australia. Find out more about this historic step in Australia’s Naval shipbuilding future from Civmec’s General Manager for Defence, Mark… | Civmec | 50 comments

Civmec is proud to announce the acquisition of Luerssen Australia. Find out more about this historic step in Australia’s Naval shipbuilding future from Civmec’s General Manager for Defence, Mark Clay. | 50 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

Civmec completes acquisition of Luerssen Australia - Civmec

This milestone strengthens Civmec’s role in Australia’s naval shipbuilding sector by bringing Luerssen Australia’s operations, workforce, and assets under full local ownership. The business includes a highly skilled team with deep experience in naval shipbuilding, mature engineering and training...

civmec.com

‘It is the intent that, Luerssen Australia will be renamed to ‘Civmec Defence Industries Pty Ltd (“CDI”)’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of Civmec.’

No great suprise. I imagine it may have been a condition of sale that the name was changed. Can't see Luerssen wanting their name to remain on a project they wanted out of.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yep. Japan is going to make sure that new-FFM works because they're relying on it and need it to be in service by 2028. Was it one of the videos posted in this thread that said MHI haven't once missed a deadline for delivering a ship in the last several decades?

Whereas what's the strategic problem for Germany if the A210 has a critical design flaw that takes years to fix?

Its not the same for germany. There is a company TKMS, not owned by the state, that has its own financial issues. Germany doesn't set its own trade policies, and doesn't have a completely independant armed forces and military spending within Germany has limits and a huge beucracy that can take forever, it fits with in NATO. It fits within the EU. Germany can't make special trade deals with Australia. So it's like a puzzle piece in a puzzle piece in a puzzle piece. Its not clear any deal can be made. Germany tends to prohibit politicians making special deals, there is too much transparency, openness, and ethics, even if they are in the national interest. We are trying to apply what the japanese are offering to europe.

TKMS also isn't the same company it once was. The 210 has significant risk. It's an interesting benchmark.

Japan the link between mitsubishi and the Japanese government is much stronger. Japan has total control of trade. Clearly they are prepared to make a deal. There is even more pressure on Japan. If they fumble this they will lose credibility outright, when they desperately need it.

If we go Japanese, it still may be of interest to the europeans, particularly if Australia can quickly develop full supply lines locally.

The relationship with Japan, would open the door to anything in their portfolio, including Aegis ships, submarines etc.

Both Henderson (in the future) and Osborne (now) have a capacity higher than what is currently scheduled. I think they could both cope with a near doubling of tempo for the forecast ship classes without reaching internal shipyard bottlenecks. I think they are actually more likely to be restricted by supply chain factors outside the ship yard like engines, shafts, radars and the like.

Most of these we buy outside of Australia. It would be more useful to make more of our supply chain soverign based here in Australia. Propellers, casting engines, assembling gas turbines, production of specific items etc.

There has been so much consolidation in these industries a single fire, a single mishap could destroy a significant portion of global capacity. Taking years to re-establish. Ramping manufacturing is not as easy as it once was. Its no longer WW2.

 

[Stampede]

We are doing it again.

When Cockatoo should have stayed our primary it was shutdown and Williamstown was expanded at great expense.

Then following the Australian built FFGs and ANZACs, the Hobart's were built in a brand new yard in Osborne SA.

Now Osborne is fully established Henderson WA is being expanded.

Where next? Somewhere in QLD, or perhaps Newcastle?

I’m thinking Alice Springs!!!!

it’s crazy for sure, but at the same time I just don’t see all these maritime builds plus civi work being realistic.

Unsure of the answer.
Maybe some additional block work in the Eastern states with consolidation in the west.

Given the time constraints maybe half the building is OS

Cheers S

 

[Antipode]

They didn’t, really. They share much of the design philosophy of the OHPs but are themselves a new design - although the hull form in particular does have some similarities. The “evolved FFG” thing was a marketing ploy.

Thank you! I wasn't even a glare in my parents eyes by the time of their procurement. I was under the impression that F-100 were the result of trying to fit the bigger platform systems in a FFG-7. The F-80s have definitely lost their SM-1 capability now BTW, they will perform limitedly until F-110 kick in.

Friendliness and expertise with US Navy systems seems like yet another reason for Australia to choose the Japanese deal.

 

[hauritz]

Certainly enough work for a third full time yard.

Just off the top of my head Australia has committed to a navy of 26 surface combatants, 8 subs, probably around 20 patrol vessels, at least 2 large amphibs, a couple of tankers and then you have an array of landing ships for the army as well as additional vessels for the ABF and other services. Then of course we will probably continue donating patrol boats and perhaps other vessels to island nations as part of the Pacific Maritime Security Project and probably a swath of auxiliary vessels on top of that.

I can easily see us in a position where we will need to deliver these vessels at a rate of 3 to 4 a year just to keep up with demand.

This doesn’t even factor in uncrewed vessels of which Australia need dozens.

 

[SammyC]

Certainly enough work for a third full time yard.

Just off the top of my head Australia has committed to a navy of 26 surface combatants, 8 subs, probably around 20 patrol vessels, at least 2 large amphibs, a couple of tankers and then you have an array of landing ships for the army as well as additional vessels for the ABF and other services. Then of course we will probably continue donating patrol boats and perhaps other vessels to island nations as part of the Pacific Maritime Security Project and probably a swath of auxiliary vessels on top of that.

I can easily see us in a position where we will need to deliver these vessels at a rate of 3 to 4 a year just to keep up with demand.

This doesn’t even factor in uncrewed vessels of which Australia need dozens.

I take a different view.

The Mistubishi shipyard in Nagasaki is not that much bigger in footprint than the Osborne precinct. Yet it produces an order of magnitude more ship tonnage (civilian and military). Our yards are light years away from this level of productivity, however it shows that there are lots of improvements that could be made to an existing facility to increase its output before it reaches capacity. Even if Osborne can only achieve 50% of the efficiency achieved in Nagasaki, Osborne will still be able to produce at startlingly higher rates.

My take on Osborne and Henderson (the future picture) is that we will have two yards running at about 25-30% nominal capacity when building the current forecast fleet.

To reinforce though, actual production capacity has less to do with the ship yard and more to do with the supply chain. You can't build ships if the steel is not arriving fast enough. You can't operate an engine room without a control system. And a missile system is useless without a radar. It doesn't matter how many yards we have, these will limit construction way faster.

If we had spare money, I would see better investments in our steel mills to be able to produce the necessay specification in bulk (note we don't even produce steel that is suitable for 155mm shells, Nioa has to import it from Germany). More cash into CEA to expand production. And the like. Even electrical cabling and switchgear is in short supply and heavily dependent on overseas providers.

Perhaps we fund Mitsubishi to increase electronics in Japan and Rolls Royce to expand its turbine plants in Europe. Maybe we ask MTU to build an engine factory in Australia to provide everything from small bore engines for vehicles, through to large high speed ship engines for the Navy.

 

[Volkodav]

I’m thinking Alice Springs!!!!

it’s crazy for sure, but at the same time I just don’t see all these maritime builds plus civi work being realistic.

Unsure of the answer.
Maybe some additional block work in the Eastern states with consolidation in the west.

Given the time constraints maybe half the building is OS

Cheers S

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.

 

[Volkodav]

They didn’t, really. They share much of the design philosophy of the OHPs but are themselves a new design - although the hull form in particular does have some similarities. The “evolved FFG” thing was a marketing ploy.

True, the F-100 had a lot of USN Destroyer Escort DNA as well as G&C design concept work, but it was not an evolved FFG-7.

My comment about an improved or evolved FFG-7 had more to do with Taiwan's concepts in the late 80s the fact that it had originally been planned to build six, not two, FFG-7s at Williamstown, and that there were in many ways superior warships to the Anzacs.

Delving more into coulda shoulda woulda fantasy, Williamstown could have built batches of two to four identical ships evolving and improving the design, as the US has done with the Burke's.

Imagine an evolved FFG-7 with an ASMD mast and 32 or 48 cell VLS? Maybe with a 5" gun.

One of the Taiwanese concepts had twin shafts and potentially a hybrid electric set up, allowing an expanded power generation plant to drive the shafts could have been incorporated.

We need to look at what we could have done to get more capability for less money in the past to help us not make the same mistakes again.

A high low mix makes sense, but we need to look at what the high end should be. The low end obviously has always been sloops, which evolved into today's modern GP Frigates. In the past, high end was cruisers, or cruiser built destroyers (Tribals, Battles, Darings) . Was us it now?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Perhaps we fund Mitsubishi to increase electronics in Japan and Rolls Royce to expand its turbine plants in Europe. Maybe we ask MTU to build an engine factory in Australia to provide everything from small bore engines for vehicles, through to large high speed ship engines for the Navy.

There are moves to bring the semiconductor industry supply chain to Australia.
We need the stuff here. Europe and Japan are too vulnerable. They are now within small light weight drone flight of their enemy.
We should offer a 1:1 dollar for dollar program to invest in joint ventures to duplicate key supply chain here that makes sense to have here.

Penske and MTU could easily strike a deal to make engines here under licence or as a joint venture.
We don't make the steel here for shells, because we don't order enough of them.

Delving more into coulda shoulda woulda fantasy, Williamstown could have built batches of two to four identical ships evolving and improving the design, as the US has done with the Burke's.

Imagine an evolved FFG-7 with an ASMD mast and 32 or 48 cell VLS? Maybe with a 5" gun.

Imagine if we just build continuously FFG-7s and had ~16+ of them included something like 5 or 6 48 cell ships.

 

[StevoJH]

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.

I mean it’s doable in engineering terms, at least as far as the salt lake basins. The channel would have to be quite deep and very wide.

It would probably take decades to make the soil productive though as it is very old and barren at the moment, so economically it would take way too long to get a return for any Australian Government to approve.

High speed rail down the east coast from Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney has the same problem. Labor and the Coalition aren’t willing to make the investment because the return on investment doesn’t fit within their 3 year electoral cycle.

Going back to shipyards, don’t forget the NSW State dockyard in Newcastle that also closed in the 1980’s. I remember looking at Google Maps in 2010-11 when I was at university in Newcastle and the signage was still visible on the shed roofs.

Are either Osbourne or Henderson capable of building ships the length of a replenishment ship or LHD?

It always seems that industrial projects in Australia (particularly shipbuilding) lack sufficient workforce to fully utilise any facilities that are built. For example comparing the workforce at Osbourne to what BAe has at Barrow alone, let alone along the Clyde yet wanting to build similar numbers of ship. No wonder the timeframes blow out so much.

 

[SammyC]

I mean it’s doable in engineering terms, at least as far as the salt lake basins. The channel would have to be quite deep and very wide.

It would probably take decades to make the soil productive though as it is very old and barren at the moment, so economically it would take way too long to get a return for any Australian Government to approve.

High speed rail down the east coast from Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney has the same problem. Labor and the Coalition aren’t willing to make the investment because the return on investment doesn’t fit within their 3 year electoral cycle.

Going back to shipyards, don’t forget the NSW State dockyard in Newcastle that also closed in the 1980’s. I remember looking at Google Maps in 2010-11 when I was at university in Newcastle and the signage was still visible on the shed roofs.

Are either Osbourne or Henderson capable of building ships the length of a replenishment ship or LHD?

It always seems that industrial projects in Australia (particularly shipbuilding) lack sufficient workforce to fully utilise any facilities that are built. For example comparing the workforce at Osbourne to what BAe has at Barrow alone, let alone along the Clyde yet wanting to build similar numbers of ship. No wonder the timeframes blow out so much.

If considering something like HMAS supply, she has a full load weight of around 20,000 tonnes, but a lightship of closer to 11,000 tonnes. I would have thought that is within the margins of the Osborne facility, perhaps the synchrolift might need to be a bit longer.

 

[Todjaeger]

This touches on of the major issues I have with SEA 3000 and the establishment of a naval construction yard in WA.

I take a different view.

The Mistubishi shipyard in Nagasaki is not that much bigger in footprint than the Osborne precinct. Yet it produces an order of magnitude more ship tonnage (civilian and military). Our yards are light years away from this level of productivity, however it shows that there are lots of improvements that could be made to an existing facility to increase its output before it reaches capacity. Even if Osborne can only achieve 50% of the efficiency achieved in Nagasaki, Osborne will still be able to produce at startlingly higher rates.

My take on Osborne and Henderson (the future picture) is that we will have two yards running at about 25-30% nominal capacity when building the current forecast fleet.

How close is the Osborne Naval Shipyard to fully taking up all the available space on site with facilities? Similarly, how close is the shipyard to fully utilizing those facilities? Also, what about the size of the workforce and particularly continuing production across multiple shifts?

What I am trying to get at, is if Osborne is not currently operating at max production capacity and there remains space for future expansion of the site, why is a whole new facility being established in another state, which will then also need to raise a workforce and then skill it? Also, what are the potential as well as probable outcomes for Australia establishing two separate warship production sites? My personal suspicion is that once the Hunter-class frigate build finishes in Osborne and the SEA 3000 frigate build finishes in Henderson the two sites are then going to compete with each other for future naval construction (assuming of course that the gov't or gov'ts of the day do not drop the ball again fail to place ship orders for years) and likely forcing one of the yards to close due to a lack of continuing work.

 

[Volkodav]

This touches on of the major issues I have with SEA 3000 and the establishment of a naval construction yard in WA.



How close is the Osborne Naval Shipyard to fully taking up all the available space on site with facilities? Similarly, how close is the shipyard to fully utilizing those facilities? Also, what about the size of the workforce and particularly continuing production across multiple shifts?

What I am trying to get at, is if Osborne is not currently operating at max production capacity and there remains space for future expansion of the site, why is a whole new facility being established in another state, which will then also need to raise a workforce and then skill it? Also, what are the potential as well as probable outcomes for Australia establishing two separate warship production sites? My personal suspicion is that once the Hunter-class frigate build finishes in Osborne and the SEA 3000 frigate build finishes in Henderson the two sites are then going to compete with each other for future naval construction (assuming of course that the gov't or gov'ts of the day do not drop the ball again fail to place ship orders for years) and likely forcing one of the yards to close due to a lack of continuing work.

Lots of space, even with the SSN facility going in at Pelican point. There are also older facilities that can be torn down and replaced, which is already happening.

 

[StevoJH]

If considering something like HMAS supply, she has a full load weight of around 20,000 tonnes, but a lightship of closer to 11,000 tonnes. I would have thought that is within the margins of the Osborne facility, perhaps the synchrolift might need to be a bit longer.

So HMAS Supply is ~175 metres long, HMAS Canberra is 55 meters longer at 230 metres.

According to the Syncrolift website, the lift at Henderson is limited to 150m x 25m x 9.4m with a mass limit of 8,000t. The longest Dry Berth is restricted to 190m length and a width of 24.5m.

Remembering also that ANZAC Class refit work is currently (at least as per Google Maps) carried out in the open air rather then in a covered dock or build hall which is probably not ideal with regards to weather and using mobile cranes rather then overhead gantry cranes.

So at currently Henderson cannot refit a Supply class tanker let alone build one. And the LHD's are significantly bigger again.

The Syncrolift at Osborne *might* be able to lift a Supply class, but would not be able to deal with Canberra.

BAE Henderson

BAE Henderson

syncrolift.com

Facilities & Operations | Australian Naval Infrastructure

Explore ANI's Facilities & Operations at Osborne Naval Shipyard, home to Australia's submarine sustainment, warship construction, and shared shipyard.

www.ani.com.au

 

[SammyC]

So HMAS Supply is ~175 metres long, HMAS Canberra is 55 meters longer at 230 metres.

According to the Syncrolift website, the lift at Henderson is limited to 150m x 25m x 9.4m with a mass limit of 8,000t. The longest Dry Berth is restricted to 190m length and a width of 24.5m.

Remembering also that ANZAC Class refit work is currently (at least as per Google Maps) carried out in the open air rather then in a covered dock or build hall which is probably not ideal with regards to weather and using mobile cranes rather then overhead gantry cranes.

So at currently Henderson cannot refit a Supply class tanker let alone build one. And the LHD's are significantly bigger again.

The Syncrolift at Osborne *might* be able to lift a Supply class, but would not be able to deal with Canberra.

BAE Henderson

BAE Henderson

syncrolift.com

Facilities & Operations | Australian Naval Infrastructure

Explore ANI's Facilities & Operations at Osborne Naval Shipyard, home to Australia's submarine sustainment, warship construction, and shared shipyard.

www.ani.com.au

Agree with you for Henderson. I was thinking that oilers would be more suited to the infrastructure at Osborne.

The LHDs would require a different approach. Might need an old fashioned ship for these, or a proper graving dock.

 

[seaspear]

Is there any information on the Sea 3000 contenders range ,Anzac class is given at 6000 n.m

 

[Todjaeger]

Lots of space, even with the SSN facility going in at Pelican point. There are also older facilities that can be torn down and replaced, which is already happening.

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.

 

[Reptilia]

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.

Henderson yard would also need an approx 180m syncrolift/contingency dock forward of the main hall for the supply class, hobarts, Anzacs and future gpf or anything under 180m + contingency dock for Virginia class submarines, astutes and future ssn aukus (97m-140m) and possibly other overseas vessels if needed.

BAE in the West would also need massive upgrades for the Hunters. (The lift and turntable or evolution of).

Landing craft medium and heavy, capes + evolved capes and opvs > spread between Darwin, Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane.
LHDs > FBE.