Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I think Australia should just concentrate on getting World Class at building Surface Combatants and Submarines and then down the road designing our own and not get distracted with 1 or 2 off builds of large Auxiliaries and Amphibs. Maybe one day but the Subs & Frigate programmes need to be in full swing with Hulls in the water first.

I agree with you. If there is a need for a soft power enabler then it should come from the DFAT budget, it should be something similar to ADV Ocean Shield and manned by contractors.
It may have the same utility as the ADVs if conflict occurs but aside from that the tasking should be entirely under DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade - similar to State Dept.) control.

 

[John Newman]

I think Australia should just concentrate on getting World Class at building Surface Combatants and Submarines and then down the road designing our own and not get distracted with 1 or 2 off builds of large Auxiliaries and Amphibs. Maybe one day but the Subs & Frigate programmes need to be in full swing with Hulls in the water first.

I don't disagree with you, certainly wouldn't want to see a 'one off' interfere with the FFG, Submarine and OPV projects.

But from the point of view of having the ability to at least increase the capacity of the Shiplift at Osborne, there is a 'window' of opportunity over the next few years (the last opportunity was just prior to the start of the AWD project).

With the future HMAS Sydney having been launched, and the first of the Hunter class won't be launched until somewhere around 2024-25, there are potentially four or five years available to do such a thing.

What about being able to launch the two OPVs I hear you say? There is a 'potential' work around for that too.

When the Techport Common User Facility was owned by the SA Government they produced an animated flythrough video of the site (which has now been superseded by the current expansion plans for the Hunter class and beyond), but one of the suggested expansion/upgrades was to 'link' the CUF and the ASC Submarine facility with an extension of the transfer system between the two parts of the site (see the attached video at the approx. 1.40 minute mark).

If such an extension to the transfer system was done (and that certainly doesn't look like a huge project), then I would imagine that it would be rather easy to launch the two 1700t OPVs using the submarine shiplift.

As to the increase in capability of the main shiplift (unfortunately there was an older version of the animated flythrough video that I can't find), it showed that the shiplift could have it's capacity increased to 20,000t+, this involved both the extension of the shiplift and associated dredging and creation of a swing bay on the opposite river bank for larger ships.

One other interesting point, the ASC Osborne PDF that I attached above shows the current capacity of the shiplift being 9,300t, but the attached flythrough video states that the shiplift has a capacity of 13,500t (go figure??).

Anyway, regardless of if the proposed new Pacific ship is built in Oz or not, it's probably still a good time for the Government (or future Government), to take the opportunity to have a look at the potentially available time to increase the shiplift.

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

I don't disagree with you, certainly wouldn't want to see a 'one off' interfere with the FFG, Submarine and OPV projects.

But from the point of view of having the ability to at least increase the capacity of the Shiplift at Osborne, there is a 'window' of opportunity over the next few years (the last opportunity was just prior to the start of the AWD project).

With the future HMAS Sydney having been launched, and the first of the Hunter class won't be launched until somewhere around 2024-25, there are potentially four or five years available to do such a thing.

What about being able to launch the two OPVs I hear you say? There is a 'potential' work around for that too.

When the Techport Common User Facility was owned by the SA Government they produced an animated flythrough video of the site (which has now been superseded by the current expansion plans for the Hunter class and beyond), but one of the suggested expansion/upgrades was to 'link' the CUF and the ASC Submarine facility with an extension of the transfer system between the two parts of the site (see the attached video at the approx. 1.40 minute mark).

If such an extension to the transfer system was done (and that certainly doesn't look like a huge project), then I would imagine that it would be rather easy to launch the two 1700t OPVs using the submarine shiplift.

As to the increase in capability of the main shiplift (unfortunately there was an older version of the animated flythrough video that I can't find), it showed that the shiplift could have it's capacity increased to 20,000t+, this involved both the extension of the shiplift and associated dredging and creation of a swing bay on the opposite river bank for larger ships.

One other interesting point, the ASC Osborne PDF that I attached above shows the current capacity of the shiplift being 9,300t, but the attached flythrough video states that the shiplift has a capacity of 13,500t (go figure??).

Anyway, regardless of if the proposed new Pacific ship is built in Oz or not, it's probably still a good time for the Government (or future Government), to take the opportunity to have a look at the potentially available time to increase the shiplift.

Cheers,

The problem with increasing the size/capacity of the lift is a lack of user frequency. If there were to be a steady flow of large ships over 9,000tonnes displacement it would not be a problem however synchrolifts are hideously expensive to maintain.
They need to be in Class survey and that entails regular changeout of winch wires (kilometres) regular changes to trolley and cradle wheels and bearings (immersion in salt water often) and inspections and repair of tracks and rails.
All this needs to be amortized over the frequency of use so if your only using half capacity the lift is still using all its capital.
In view of the above, a private company would be unlikely to modify the lift but with us, the taxpayer paying who knows what will happen.
PS my experience with these is limited to a 2,500 tonne version so small beer.

 

[Redlands18]

I don't disagree with you, certainly wouldn't want to see a 'one off' interfere with the FFG, Submarine and OPV projects.

If such an extension to the transfer system was done (and that certainly doesn't look like a huge project), then I would imagine that it would be rather easy to launch the two 1700t OPVs using the submarine shiplift.

As to the increase in capability of the main shiplift (unfortunately there was an older version of the animated flythrough video that I can't find), it showed that the shiplift could have it's capacity increased to 20,000t+, this involved both the extension of the shiplift and associated dredging and creation of a swing bay on the opposite river bank for larger ships.

One other interesting point, the ASC Osborne PDF that I attached above shows the current capacity of the shiplift being 9,300t, but the attached flythrough video states that the shiplift has a capacity of 13,500t (go figure??).

Anyway, regardless of if the proposed new Pacific ship is built in Oz or not, it's probably still a good time for the Government (or future Government), to take the opportunity to have a look at the potentially available time to increase the shiplift.

Cheers,

There is every chance that the next Gen AWD that is due to follow the Hunters could exceed that 9300t and could push the 160m mark and if the current plan of locally designing our follow on Ships eventuates then the designers don't need to be restricted by the yards inability to go bigger, so eventually they are going to need a bigger Ship lift and even the Hunters at around 150m and 7500t or so(empty) don't leave a lot of wriggle space. If its 13,500t and I believe the max length is 160m(please correct me if I'm wrong) that means you could increase the max length and not have to increase the max weight capability even the Choules would struggle to weigh 13500t completely and totally empty.

 

[hairyman]

Is Incat taken into consideration when we are talking about Australian shipyards?
Just a reminder Incat supplied the RAN with Jervis Bay when the Timor business was on, and was the first to supply ships for the USN, until Austal took over.

 

[Pusser01]

Does anyone know the respective maximum tonnage of ships that can be built in each of the Australian yards, including Williamstown? Maybe at least one yard should be extended to cope with bigger ships.

Over here at Henderson the BAE synchrolift has serviced the Searoad Tamar 134m & displacement around 10000T.
The floating dock at the CUF has had the ex-HMAS Sydney lifted 138m & 4100T. They both may be able to handle heavier vessels but probably not in length.
Cheers.

 

[John Newman]

The problem with increasing the size/capacity of the lift is a lack of user frequency. If there were to be a steady flow of large ships over 9,000tonnes displacement it would not be a problem however synchrolifts are hideously expensive to maintain.
They need to be in Class survey and that entails regular changeout of winch wires (kilometres) regular changes to trolley and cradle wheels and bearings (immersion in salt water often) and inspections and repair of tracks and rails.
All this needs to be amortized over the frequency of use so if your only using half capacity the lift is still using all its capital.
In view of the above, a private company would be unlikely to modify the lift but with us, the taxpayer paying who knows what will happen.
PS my experience with these is limited to a 2,500 tonne version so small beer.

I agree that you have to get value for money out of frequency of use, no doubt that at all. And it's pointless to invest in infrastructure if it's not going to be used.

As it stands at the moment, the 2 x LHDs, the 2 x AORs (under construction in Spain) and Choules don't need replacing for a very long time, Choules first somewhere around 2030.

The question is, is Australia ever going to embark on local construction for replacement of those large ships? If no, then yes it is a potential waste of money. If the answer is yes, then when is there an opportunity available to have the time to make those infrastructure upgrades? Once the Continuous build programme for future FFGs, the follow on replacement for DDGs, and so on, and the submarines commences, what windows of opportunity will be available after the 'gap' that is now available?

Putting aside the ability to launch large new ships, there is also a potential for an increase in facilities available to handle maintenance, repairs and upgrades of those large naval vessels, as it stands currently the only facility to dock those ships in Australia is the Captain Cook dock at FBE.

What would happen today if one of the large ships was in the Captain Cook dock (with large holes cut in its hull) and another of the large ships needed urgent repairs of some kind? Would it just have to wait until the dock was free and available or sent overseas to the nearest available large dock facility?

I think back to the time in both 1964 and 1969 when HMAS Melbourne collided with HMAS Voyager and USS Frank E. Evans, fortunately on both occasions Melbourne was taken to Cockatoo Island Dockyard for those major repairs.

Sadly, those facilities no longer exist.

So how do we justify the expenditure on increased lift capabilities at Osborne? Yes there is the potential for future builds, there is the potential for commercial work on large ships (as I understand it the CUF is also currently used for commercial shipping too), and of course as an alternative to the Captain Cook dock at FBE.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best?

Cheers,

 

[hairyman]

Both Canberra and Adelaide were finished off at Williamstown. Is Williamstown not capable of building large ships now?

 

[Flexson]

Over here at Henderson the BAE synchrolift has serviced the Searoad Tamar 134m & displacement around 10000T.
The floating dock at the CUF has had the ex-HMAS Sydney lifted 138m & 4100T. They both may be able to handle heavier vessels but probably not in length.
Cheers.

I know that Sydney had to dump some of its ballast water from the Decommissioned State Stability Plan for the floating dock at the CUF to be able to lift her and that was after RADAR, VLS, Mk13, CIWIS, Gas Turbines, Prop etc etc had already been stripped from her. So I would guess that it's lift capacity is significantly below 4100T

 

[John Newman]

Both Canberra and Adelaide were finished off at Williamstown. Is Williamstown not capable of building large ships now?

The simple answer is no, never was, never had that capability (the largest ships built from scratch were Destroyers and Frigates).

Both of the LHD hulls were built by Navantia in Spain (completed to the flight deck), the hulls transported here and BAE built the superstructure blocks, fitted them to the hulls to complete the build.

See below:

 

[spoz]

Both Canberra and Adelaide were finished off at Williamstown. Is Williamstown not capable of building large ships now?

No, and it never really was. The hulls were built in Spain and transported to Australia; Dogtown only built the superstructure. Effectively, when it was active the shipyard was physically limited to about 140 metres and 4000 tons; and whether it is still a viable shipyard is now a moot point.

 

[Pusser01]

I know that Sydney had to dump some of its ballast water from the Decommissioned State Stability Plan for the floating dock at the CUF to be able to lift her and that was after RADAR, VLS, Mk13, CIWIS, Gas Turbines, Prop etc etc had already been stripped from her. So I would guess that it's lift capacity is significantly below 4100T

The attached media statement for WA gov indicates the floating dock can lift up to 12000T but only transfer to land a load of 3500T. This may be why the Sydney had to be stripped down, Cheers
Media Statements - Western Australia's new floating dock a world-first

 

[ASSAIL]

I agree that you have to get value for money out of frequency of use, no doubt that at all. And it's pointless to invest in infrastructure if it's not going to be used.

As it stands at the moment, the 2 x LHDs, the 2 x AORs (under construction in Spain) and Choules don't need replacing for a very long time, Choules first somewhere around 2030.

The question is, is Australia ever going to embark on local construction for replacement of those large ships? If no, then yes it is a potential waste of money. If the answer is yes, then when is there an opportunity available to have the time to make those infrastructure upgrades? Once the Continuous build programme for future FFGs, the follow on replacement for DDGs, and so on, and the submarines commences, what windows of opportunity will be available after the 'gap' that is now available?

Putting aside the ability to launch large new ships, there is also a potential for an increase in facilities available to handle maintenance, repairs and upgrades of those large naval vessels, as it stands currently the only facility to dock those ships in Australia is the Captain Cook dock at FBE.

What would happen today if one of the large ships was in the Captain Cook dock (with large holes cut in its hull) and another of the large ships needed urgent repairs of some kind? Would it just have to wait until the dock was free and available or sent overseas to the nearest available large dock facility?

I think back to the time in both 1964 and 1969 when HMAS Melbourne collided with HMAS Voyager and USS Frank E. Evans, fortunately on both occasions Melbourne was taken to Cockatoo Island Dockyard for those major repairs.

Sadly, those facilities no longer exist.

So how do we justify the expenditure on increased lift capabilities at Osborne? Yes there is the potential for future builds, there is the potential for commercial work on large ships (as I understand it the CUF is also currently used for commercial shipping too), and of course as an alternative to the Captain Cook dock at FBE.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best?

Cheers,

Small coastal ships such as the KI ferries refit at Osborne because there is no economical alternative. The relocation and supervision costs are prohibitive).
Most large ships operating on the Australian coast such as the OSVs refit in SEAsia thanks to the cost impositions of the CFMMEU and subsequent closure of Australia’s large docks so increased commercial frequency for a large dock at Osborne is fantasy. (I’m a aware of where the Spirits of Tas. refit) but maybe my first point is relevent.
I do believe however that the ausgov should build a Facility (graving dock/large floating dock)as an alternative to GI and the obvious place would be in the West. Commercial imperative should be waived in favour of the strategic imperative.
This is a security issue and should be considered in the same vein as an increase in strategic fuel reserves.

 

[Flexson]

The attached media statement for WA gov indicates the floating dock can lift up to 12000T but only transfer to land a load of 3500T. This may be why the Sydney had to be stripped down, Cheers
Media Statements - Western Australia's new floating dock a world-first

Well that would explain it. I wonder if the '512-wheeled self propelled modular transporter' is the only limiting factor and if that was upgraded it would then allow heavier vessel to be transferred ashore?

Because I have also wondered how CIVMEC/FORGACS plan on getting DDG sized vessels into the new facility they are building, as is shown in their promotional videos. Surely they can't be planning on transferring them overland from the BAE Synchrolift? Happy to be corrected by anyone, but to me that seems a little impractical as it's a long way across the complex.

 

[hairyman]

Is the Hobart class the largest warships built in Australia to date? If so, the Hunter class will be then.

 

[Gjwai]

Small coastal ships such as the KI ferries refit at Osborne because there is no economical alternative. The relocation and supervision costs are prohibitive).
Most large ships operating on the Australian coast such as the OSVs refit in SEAsia thanks to the cost impositions of the CFMMEU and subsequent closure of Australia’s large docks so increased commercial frequency for a large dock at Osborne is fantasy. (I’m a aware of where the Spirits of Tas. refit) but maybe my first point is relevent.
I do believe however that the ausgov should build a Facility (graving dock/large floating dock)as an alternative to GI and the obvious place would be in the West. Commercial imperative should be waived in favour of the strategic imperative.
This is a security issue and should be considered in the same vein as an increase in strategic fuel reserves.

The videos from the WA Indo Pacific Defence Conference went up today.
WA Indo-Pacific Defence Conference - Videos In Minister Pyne's Speech, I'm fairly certain that the new hydrographic build was committed to WA, along with a major $200m co-fund with the State Government to develop the Henderson AMC, which will almost certainly include a major graving dock (The consultants I've spoken to universally agree with you Assail).

That $200m number lifted a lot of eyebrows in the room, because the amount was beyond the $100m I think was stipulated in the Naval Shipbuilding Plan (if I remember correctly). I could be completely wrong however - I was in the room, but very distracted helping prepare some of the local industry speakers presenting on the panels later in the day. I've included the source, but don't have audio at work to confirm exactly what was said. The videos are an incredible resource. I'll be watching them back. Pyne & McGowan understandably have the funding announcements in their clips and it's rare that Government events in WA have any kind of tangible 'meat' to them. This event was a very welcome exception, with incredibly strong representation on both sides of the aisle.

 

[hauritz]

Is the Hobart class the largest warships built in Australia to date? If so, the Hunter class will be then.

Depends on whether or not you consider the HMAS Success a warship. Certainly, the Hobart would be the biggest combat ship built in Australia.

 

[Pusser01]

Well that would explain it. I wonder if the '512-wheeled self propelled modular transporter' is the only limiting factor and if that was upgraded it would then allow heavier vessel to be transferred ashore?

Because I have also wondered how CIVMEC/FORGACS plan on getting DDG sized vessels into the new facility they are building, as is shown in their promotional videos. Surely they can't be planning on transferring them overland from the BAE Synchrolift? Happy to be corrected by anyone, but to me that seems a little impractical as it's a long way across the complex.

I have heard that the CUF's SPMT is currently limited to approx. 4000T, then again the current ramps from the dock onto the wharf might also be the limiting factor.

 

[ASSAIL]

The videos from the WA Indo Pacific Defence Conference went up today.
WA Indo-Pacific Defence Conference - Videos In Minister Pyne's Speech, I'm fairly certain that the new hydrographic build was committed to WA, along with a major $200m co-fund with the State Government to develop the Henderson AMC, which will almost certainly include a major graving dock (The consultants I've spoken to universally agree with you Assail).

That $200m number lifted a lot of eyebrows in the room, because the amount was beyond the $100m I think was stipulated in the Naval Shipbuilding Plan (if I remember correctly). I could be completely wrong however - I was in the room, but very distracted helping prepare some of the local industry speakers presenting on the panels later in the day. I've included the source, but don't have audio at work to confirm exactly what was said. The videos are an incredible resource. I'll be watching them back. Pyne & McGowan understandably have the funding announcements in their clips and it's rare that Government events in WA have any kind of tangible 'meat' to them. This event was a very welcome exception, with incredibly strong representation on both sides of the aisle.

Thank you for that invaluable link. Let me begin by saying the the WA Governor Kim Beasley made an inspiring and strategically savvy speech and I have to agree with many that he was the best PM that we never had and that coming from a natural conservative like my self.
The hydro ship was committed to by Pyne along with a $200m price tag but I found no mention of a graving dock at AMC and if I’ve missed something let me know.
The emphasis on developing the sustainment capability in WA is pleasing and I can only hope that a very large tank farm and a very large graving dock find their way into the strategic plan at some stage.

 

[t68]

Thank you for that invaluable link. Let me begin by saying the the WA Governor Kim Beasley made an inspiring and strategically savvy speech and I have to agree with many that he was the best PM that we never had and that coming from a natural conservative like my self.
The hydro ship was committed to by Pyne along with a $200m price tag but I found no mention of a graving dock at AMC and if I’ve missed something let me know.
The emphasis on developing the sustainment capability in WA is pleasing and I can only hope that a very large tank farm and a very large graving dock find their way into the strategic plan at some stage.

Agree on your assessment on the capability of Kim “Bomber” Beasley, I had no idea he became the governor of WA he always seemed a very pro defence sort of minister pity the matter of fiscal planing held him back when he was defence minister