Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

StevoJH said:
Or NSW with CIVMEC, BAe, Thales or Babcock.

CIVMEC have an existing footprint in Newcastle, there is also significant free space still available on the old BHP site.

Thales have an existing footprint in Sydney, there are numerous legacy facilities in place that have been stripped of equipment but could probably be restored if the will existed. Sutherland dock can fit anything in the RAN except the AOR's and Canberra class.

Woolwich dock is also still around, it *should* be deep enough since a bunch of super maxi's yachts live there but no idea what would be required to install a new dock gate. Not a huge amount of space around the dock though and access could probably be
Click to expand...
I would suggest the ability to construct is less about drydocks or slips. These days its more about large sheds to build modules, with waterfront access to transport to another area for final assembly. There are lots of those with crews.

There is no reason to think that all the said facilities around Australia can not be brought into the production process. It's not just what Austal can build in its own premises.

If I remember correctly Forgacs in Newcastle made modules for ASC to assemble in Osborne for the AWDs. This model has been used in the past. It had its issues, but one assumes we can learn from the past to avoid those.

I would suggest it is not unlikely that Civmec will be subcontracted to make many of the LCH and future Mogami modules in their existing facility, and then transfer them to an assembly shed that Austal intends to build in the CUF. Civmec may even use their Newcastle yard or possibly even Port Hedland to make some parts.

Austal will have their own module fabrication facility eventually, some modules may even be able to be built in their existing halls, particularly for the LCHs. I note from the above senate estimates video, the new LCH assembly hall will be built with the Mogamis in mind

I'm pretty sure Civmec have learnt how to not make banana hulls.
 
Last edited:
SammyC said:
If I remember correctly Forgacs in Newcastle made modules for ASC to assemble in Osborne for the AWDs. This model has been used in the past. It had its issues, but one assumes we can learn from the past to avoid those.
Click to expand...
The issues were not with Forgacs, it was more with the primes. The AWD issue was more between BAE and Navantia. There is a whole report on it. Building in modules was not the problem, I believe most of the problem was happening in the main yard, and was due to lack of digital design work. Not building in modules.

Plenty of countries assembly warships in modules and weld together, its not inefficient. Its a far better way to surge capacity.

I don't see anyone starting up a new greenfields site in victoria. Where? How much? Whos paying for that? Victoria?

Civmec do have a sizeable site, that has built large surface warship modules in modern history, and Newcastle has a sizable ship building ecosystem in Newcastle. Its the logical case for ship building activity on the east coast. It is arguably stronger than the entire west coast as most of the east coast subcontractors or mini primes have offices or facilities there supporting that ship building ecosystem. (or within driving from CoDock etc)

I would press the Mogami sovereign build is happening too slow. We probably cannot accelerate it enough to meet 2029 deadlines, but we can certainly modernise that CIVMEC yard to accelerate building and assess perhaps some fitout can happen on the east coast or south Australia, which may be the actual bottleneck, not shaping and welding steel (which CIVMEC WA actually has pretty excellent capabilities in).

Ship building is a national endeavour.
 
SammyC said:
I would suggest the ability to construct is less about drydocks or slips. These days its more about large sheds to build modules, with waterfront access to transport to another area for final assembly. There are lots of those with crews.

There is no reason to think that all the said facilities around Australia can not be brought into the production process. It's not just what Austal can build in its own premises.

If I remember correctly Forgacs in Newcastle made modules for ASC to assemble in Osborne for the AWDs. This model has been used in the past. It had its issues, but one assumes we can learn from the past to avoid those.

I would suggest it is not unlikely that Civmec will be subcontracted to make many of the LCH and future Mogami modules in their existing facility, and then transfer them to an assembly shed that Austal intends to build in the CUF. Civmec may even use their Newcastle yard or possibly even Port Hedland to make some parts.

Austal will have their own module fabrication facility eventually, some modules may even be able to be built in their existing halls, particularly for the LCHs. I note from the above senate estimates video, the new LCH assembly hall will be built with the Mogamis in mind

I'm pretty sure Civmec have learnt how to not make banana hulls.
Click to expand...

It’s been documented on this thread a few times that Austal management “does not play well with others” and that Civmec has been excluded from all contracts and discussions wrt the LCM, LCH & Mogami construction which is a shame as Civmec have very significant facilities in place and are well positioned to assist in expediting the construction of these vessels.

If Conroy is aware of this, he should be leaning on Austal management and insisting that all available facilities are used in order to keep these projects on schedule.
 
StingrayOZ said:
The issues were not with Forgacs, it was more with the primes. The AWD issue was more between BAE and Navantia. There is a whole report on it. Building in modules was not the problem, I believe most of the problem was happening in the main yard, and was due to lack of digital design work. Not building in modules.

Plenty of countries assembly warships in modules and weld together, its not inefficient. Its a far better way to surge capacity.

I don't see anyone starting up a new greenfields site in victoria. Where? How much? Whos paying for that? Victoria?

Civmec do have a sizeable site, that has built large surface warship modules in modern history, and Newcastle has a sizable ship building ecosystem in Newcastle. Its the logical case for ship building activity on the east coast. It is arguably stronger than the entire west coast as most of the east coast subcontractors or mini primes have offices or facilities there supporting that ship building ecosystem. (or within driving from CoDock etc)

I would press the Mogami sovereign build is happening too slow. We probably cannot accelerate it enough to meet 2029 deadlines, but we can certainly modernise that CIVMEC yard to accelerate building and assess perhaps some fitout can happen on the east coast or south Australia, which may be the actual bottleneck, not shaping and welding steel (which CIVMEC WA actually has pretty excellent capabilities in).

Ship building is a national endeavour.
Click to expand...
Nobody could afford to set up a greenfields site in Victoria. We're broke. We couldn't afford to hail a cab.
 
This post would probably be better served in the ADF thread but...

If the federal government were serious about the direst strategic situation in decades, or whatever the line is, they would fund defence correctly and have these ship modules built in the multiple locations mentioned above. From Hunter to Mogami to Subs, these projects could be a lot further along (or be delivered quicker) with decent funding, coordination, and a bit of fire in the belly from Marles and Co.

I feel like there have been too many sacrifices at the altar of AUKUS to take their claims of strategic danger seriously. From Land 125 Ph3 to selling off estates, I don't believe they are funding the ADF well enough.
 
Going Boeing said:
It’s been documented on this thread a few times that Austal management “does not play well with others” and that Civmec has been excluded from all contracts and discussions wrt the LCM, LCH & Mogami construction which is a shame as Civmec have very significant facilities in place and are well positioned to assist in expediting the construction of these vessels.

If Conroy is aware of this, he should be leaning on Austal management and insisting that all available facilities are used in order to keep these projects on schedule.
Click to expand...
I think I'm one of the people who have used that phrase towards Austal. And I would view it is still correct.

The difference I suspect is the contracting mechanism. Civmec and Austal are never going to work together in any form of alliance or JV where they have to share and have equal authority.

Civmec acting as a subcontractor to Austal is however a different arrangement. Austal get top dog status and can do things their way. Civmec gets to limit liability and focus on what they are good at (welding steel).

I would suggest Civmec would be happy to make individual modules until the cows come home. They don't take on the integration risk, don't have the design risk and don't loose all the space in their shed. They get a contract that pays out on delivery and still get to keep dabbling in the oil and gas sector.

Also, Austal after Hanwa buys the US division is going to be a different beast. It would be a lot easier for the Government to purchase it outright.
 
Reality check.

We had a competent, capable yard build two FFGs and ten ANZACs, then starved it of work to the point it struggled to build blocks for the AWD.

We then invested in a new yard to build three DDGs, and when it got up to speed, we starved it of work and appointed a new prime to build frigates in slow time.

We do this to ourselves.

All we had to do was build timely replacements for the DDGs, i.e. a decade earlier, or the cancelled OCVs/corvettes (instead of the Arimidales) in Williamstown, before building a replacement for the FFGs, and building six follow on Collins, and we wouldn't be having any of the issues we are currently having.

Even if that didn't happen, just ordering a batch 2 AWD would have kept Osborne running at rate.

None of these things were unaffordable, in fact, back in the mining construction boom days they were highly affordable, and would have resulted in lower costs today.
 
The lack of a 4th and 5th AWD is in-excusable in hindsight.

Then we have what 15 year break before the hunters.. ultra fragile awd capabilities. excessive logistics for just 3 hulls. We never got to see any efficiencies because we built too few.

The people who made these decisions should be pointed out in a commission in how we ended up in such fragile defence capabilities. So that we can avoid the same mistake being repeated by new fools who think the same and don't understand anything.
 
If a batch 2 of the Hobarts had they been ordered, was Baseline 9 of Aegis available early enough that it could have been installed during construction?

If so, could the upgrade program for the first three ships have been cancelled or had a smaller and less expensive scale?
 
StevoJH said:
If a batch 2 of the Hobarts had they been ordered, was Baseline 9 of Aegis available early enough that it could have been installed during construction?

If so, could the upgrade program for the first three ships have been cancelled or had a smaller and less expensive scale?
Click to expand...
I think modern Aegis is pretty much all COTS racks. I think these days if space, power and radar are there the actual Aegis stuff don't really hold up construction> I would be pretty sure it could be accommodated. Or the build adjusted to make it work. It would still be better than what we did, which was nothing.

3 Ships isn't proper capability. We should have a requirement if we want always avalible capability we must have min 4 for surface combatants (or even aircraft). Because as soon as you need to upgrade or fix somethign that is broken, you break the rule of 3s.

It could have de-risked the upgrade, and most likely reduced the pressure on them. Having 3 BL 7 and 2 BL 9 would mean that you don't totally crater out the capability. You don't have to flog the hulls and the upgrades don't have to crash rate rapid.

Spain built 5, Norway built 5.. So what did Australia do? With the money, people local yard, custom design and localisation?

Built 3. glass Christimas decoration fragile capability. What does that mean for operations and sustainment? Hollowed out fickle virge of bankrupcy level project.
 
Volkodav said:
Reality check.

We had a competent, capable yard build two FFGs and ten ANZACs, then starved it of work to the point it struggled to build blocks for the AWD.

We then invested in a new yard to build three DDGs, and when it got up to speed, we starved it of work and appointed a new prime to build frigates in slow time.

We do this to ourselves.

All we had to do was build timely replacements for the DDGs, i.e. a decade earlier, or the cancelled OCVs/corvettes (instead of the Arimidales) in Williamstown, before building a replacement for the FFGs, and building six follow on Collins, and we wouldn't be having any of the issues we are currently having.

Even if that didn't happen, just ordering a batch 2 AWD would have kept Osborne running at rate.

None of these things were unaffordable, in fact, back in the mining construction boom days they were highly affordable, and would have resulted in lower costs today.
Click to expand...
Same crap has happened here in the UK. Yards have been run down by failure to keep buying ships. We even had a government sign a contract guaranteeing a shipbuilder money even if the government didn't order ships - & then the government didn't order them! That's how we got the River batch 2 OPVs: they were ordered to keep the builder building, & maintaining its capability, & we were going to give the yard a lot of the price even if we bought nothing, so why not? They were deemed to be the most useful ships the MoD could get a coherent order ready for in time to keep the yard working.

Some of our current shipbuilding woes are said to be due to the run down state of our shipbuilders after years of being trickle fed. Not enough skilled, experienced, people, & taking time to rebuild.
 
StingrayOZ said:
The lack of a 4th and 5th AWD is in-excusable in hindsight.

Then we have what 15 year break before the hunters.. ultra fragile awd capabilities. excessive logistics for just 3 hulls. We never got to see any efficiencies because we built too few.

The people who made these decisions should be pointed out in a commission in how we ended up in such fragile defence capabilities. So that we can avoid the same mistake being repeated by new fools who think the same and don't understand anything.
Click to expand...
Blame Kevin Rudd. Both Navy and Defence wanted four, we had a costed option for a fourth (about 1.7 billion in then (2008) dollars IIRC) and even a provisional name (Melbourne) but it was allowed, by Treasury and the Government, to expire. Possibly because the initial source selection was done by the Howard Government. Am I still bitter? - you bet I am.

And, despite what people with agendas might have said over the past 20 or so years, of the about 13 shipbuilding programs I have had involvement with the AWD Alliance structure was by far the best contracting model. Under what was called a “best for project” model it allowed us to get on with business without interminable arguments of how every little problem would be solved and who would pay. Sure, there some arguments between the parties, but only if there was a major issue (and I only remember 2 significant ones). That is in stark contrast to previous situations (and at least one since) where every minor issue was fought over.
 
spoz said:
Blame Kevin Rudd. Both Navy and Defence wanted four, we had a costed option for a fourth (about 1.7 billion in then (2008) dollars IIRC) and even a provisional name (Melbourne) but it was allowed, by Treasury and the Government, to expire. Possibly because the initial source selection was done by the Howard Government. Am I still bitter? - you bet I am.

And, despite what people with agendas might have said over the past 20 or so years, of the about 13 shipbuilding programs I have had involvement with the AWD Alliance structure was by far the best contracting model. Under what was called a “best for project” model it allowed us to get on with business without interminable arguments of how every little problem would be solved and who would pay. Sure, there some arguments between the parties, but only if there was a major issue (and I only remember 2 significant ones). That is in stark contrast to previous situations (and at least one since) where every minor issue was fought over.
Click to expand...
Don't you just love vindictive behaviour by certain politicians!!!! Just because it was a Howard Government option. At least Kim Beazley was a passionate defence minister. Most are just useless party hacks. You're not the only one bitter, Spoz. I'm just a layman but I get furious at the mindless, stupid, childish games that go on in Canberra regarding Defence!
 
Last edited:
spoz said:
Blame Kevin Rudd. Both Navy and Defence wanted four, we had a costed option for a fourth (about 1.7 billion in then (2008) dollars IIRC) and even a provisional name (Melbourne) but it was allowed, by Treasury and the Government, to expire. Possibly because the initial source selection was done by the Howard Government. Am I still bitter? - you bet I am.

And, despite what people with agendas might have said over the past 20 or so years, of the about 13 shipbuilding programs I have had involvement with the AWD Alliance structure was by far the best contracting model. Under what was called a “best for project” model it allowed us to get on with business without interminable arguments of how every little problem would be solved and who would pay. Sure, there some arguments between the parties, but only if there was a major issue (and I only remember 2 significant ones). That is in stark contrast to previous situations (and at least one since) where every minor issue was fought over.
Click to expand...
HMAS Melbourne needs a ship
Hunter Class
Mogami Class

Something else

Cheers S
 
spoz said:
Blame Kevin Rudd. Both Navy and Defence wanted four, we had a costed option for a fourth (about 1.7 billion in then (2008) dollars IIRC) and even a provisional name (Melbourne) but it was allowed, by Treasury and the Government, to expire. Possibly because the initial source selection was done by the Howard Government. Am I still bitter? - you bet I am.
Click to expand...
Kevin deferred it arguably money was hollowed out, but it wasn't dead as an option. Naughty Kevin particularly as he is so pro deterrence, pro capability.

It was Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith that wilfully cancelled it. This was in line with the new white paper where they thought China = friend, and several military projects were canned. Nearly 3 years after canning Kevin. They really had no interest in it, they may have cancelled it even if Kevin had approved it and found money for it. Idologically they opposed it.

The also cancelled or delayed F-35, SPG, OCV, Triton. etc.

While all of those cancelled projects basically came back. The 4th AWD didn't because its not a MOTS acquisition, it was an essential part of Australia's workforce, sovereign capability. All hollowed out.

Now I just worry that we aren't seeing that kind of capability join the fleet for another 10 years. Because neither the Hunter nor Mogami, are true AWD, And they are certainly different in design from the Hobarts with minimal commonality and operations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top