Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Mark_Evans]

Wonder what the cost saving was going with steel? Don’t think it would have put much of a dent in the 4 billion price tag.

yes. It would have been interesting to see the cost difference but from the report it looked like they were forced to go composite on the first two ships to keep the weight down. Must be a significant saving as i would have thought commonality across the ships would be desired.
Probably less important now that there are only 3 instead of a fleet of 32 as originally planned.
Now if they can only sort out the rounds for the main guns or finally get that railgun developed and installed.

 

[ASSAIL]

Back to the RAN, the Defmin has called out Andrew Greene, ABC Defence reporter for releasing news saying the SEA 1000 project is billions over budget and well behind on schedule.
On Sky this am Minister Pyne denied those facts stating that he had not been contacted by the reporter for comment and that he hoped to have the agreement signed ‘soon’.
He had also discussed the project with President Macron during the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires last week and been assured that all was well despite the delay in signing.
Time spent in sorting issues such as transfer of IP, commercial risk mitigation and schedule risk is more important than maintaining an arbitrary timeline and the negotiators should be supported not condemned IMHO.

 

[alexsa]

Well at least this is longer than 30 seconds and has some pomp about it .... but it came from Navantia .... seriously our DoD PR is bloody poor

 

[PeterM]

Well at least this is longer than 30 seconds and has some pomp about it .... but it came from Navantia .... seriously our DoD PR is bloody poor

I find the lack of Defence PR quite unusual. Given the current political climate and where we are in the election cycle, I wonder if this may be at least partially due to not wanting to highlight that these ships are not being built in Australia. They have certainly been quick to advertise the opportunity for Australian industry and jobs around defence projects like the Submarines, Frigates, OPVs, Land400 etc.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well at least this is longer than 30 seconds and has some pomp about it .... but it came from Navantia .... seriously our DoD PR is bloody poor

I think Peter is right, its not a local build, and election is close. However, it is pleasing to see build projects seeing a lot of success, even overseas ones. It shouldn't be that way, we have more local work than we have yards operating at the moment, and these are the type of ship it is probably best to build overseas (certainly none of our yards are setup to build something like this). No one complains that we aren't building A330's or C17's here. We have a big plan for sustainable local builds, no ones job is at risk.

I sure there are some countries perhaps thinking maybe the should have gone with a Navantia build. I predict this should be a fairly painless acquisition for the RAN, particularly with all the experience they have from Cantabria being in Australia and operating with us for so long. Designed to work with the LHD and the AWD, and will be fine with the Hunters and other fleet units. I guess AORs aren't the sexiest piece of kit.

I quite like the updates on the Australian Icebreaker. I think we should adopt that kind of update on future ship builds.
Icebreaker construction updates

2019 will be a busy year for commissioning of big ships.

The issue with the submarines shows how hard these type of projects are, even when its not another political party doing the attacking and its just the media and we haven't even started building them yet.

 

[hauritz]

I think Peter is right, its not a local build, and election is close. However, it is pleasing to see build projects seeing a lot of success, even overseas ones. It shouldn't be that way, we have more local work than we have yards operating at the moment, and these are the type of ship it is probably best to build overseas (certainly none of our yards are setup to build something like this). No one complains that we aren't building A330's or C17's here. We have a big plan for sustainable local builds, no ones job is at risk.

I sure there are some countries perhaps thinking maybe the should have gone with a Navantia build. I predict this should be a fairly painless acquisition for the RAN, particularly with all the experience they have from Cantabria being in Australia and operating with us for so long. Designed to work with the LHD and the AWD, and will be fine with the Hunters and other fleet units. I guess AORs aren't the sexiest piece of kit.

I quite like the updates on the Australian Icebreaker. I think we should adopt that kind of update on future ship builds.
Icebreaker construction updates

2019 will be a busy year for commissioning of big ships.

The issue with the submarines shows how hard these type of projects are, even when its not another political party doing the attacking and its just the media and we haven't even started building them yet.

I wonder if it would be possible ... or I guess even desirable ... to work out some sort of ongoing shipbuilding program with larger hulled ships. Similar to the build programs being put in place for the OPVs, frigates and new subs. The RAN might require as many as 7 large ships (2 X LHD, 1 X LPD, 2 X AOR, I X HADR, 1 X logistics/tanker). You could also add a few medium sized ships operated by customs, the CSIRO and other government run agencies to that list as well. That would work out at around one new ship every 3 years ... that sounds like it could be doable.

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder if it would be possible ... or I guess even desirable ... to work out some sort of ongoing shipbuilding program with larger hulled ships. Similar to the build programs being put in place for the OPVs, frigates and new subs. The RAN might require as many as 7 large ships (2 X LHD, 1 X LPD, 2 X AOR, I X HADR, 1 X logistics/tanker). You could also add a few medium sized ships operated by customs, the CSIRO and other government run agencies to that list as well. That would work out at around one new ship every 3 years ... that sounds like it could be doable.

Would require a dry dock and / or ship lift capable of taking a ship of say 300 - 350 m length and 50 - 60 m beam with a displacement up to say 35,000 tonnes. Leaves room for some expansion. Big question though - is there the political will for such a project?

 

[t68]

Would require a dry dock and / or ship lift capable of taking a ship of say 300 - 350 m length and 50 - 60 m beam with a displacement up to say 35,000 tonnes. Leaves room for some expansion. Big question though - is there the political will for such a project?

of course not, we saw what they would do when they had the pot of gold for pink batts and school sheds

 

[Jack Wyatt]

of course not, we saw what they would do when they had the pot of gold for pink batts and school sheds

Something like this

Australian Government Management During the GFC – Rambo – Medium

 

[t68]

Something like this

Australian Government Management During the GFC – Rambo – Medium

Apologies for going into politics

I admit some of the spending was directed to good use like the increase for pensioners, but as a whole they spent to much and sent the government broke by spending all the surplus then borrowing money to pay for it, who can remember Julia Gillards and and imaginary John

Imagine a wage earner, John, employed in the same job throughout the last 20 years. For a period in 2003 to 2007 every year his employer gave him a sizeable bonus. He was grateful but in his bones knew it wouldn’t last. The bonuses did stop and John was told that his income would rise by around five per cent each year over the years to come. That’s the basis for his financial plans. Now, very late, John has been told he won’t get those promised increases for the next few years – but his income will get back up after that to where he was promised it would be. What is John’s rational reaction?

What is John’s rational reaction? To respond to this temporary loss of income by selling his home and car, dropping his private health insurance, replacing every second evening meal with two-minute noodles. Of course not. A rational response would be to make some responsible savings, to engage in some moderate borrowing, to get through to the time of higher income with his family and lifestyle intact and then to use the higher income to pay off the extra borrowing undertaken in the lean years.

 

[alexsa]

Would require a dry dock and / or ship lift capable of taking a ship of say 300 - 350 m length and 50 - 60 m beam with a displacement up to say 35,000 tonnes. Leaves room for some expansion. Big question though - is there the political will for such a project?

Why would it require a dry dock of 350m with a width of 50 to 60m. And if you are going for this then why only 35000 tonnes???. 350m gives you a very high gross tonnage (displacement is different but it will still be signifincant) an order of magnitude above 35000 tonnes. It is also more than 100m longer than the LHD.

What your are proposing is 4m longer than the Garden Island Captain Cook Dock ..... and 5 to 15m wider. It really is massive overkill and would be prohibitively expensive.

Nonting the Navy does have the Captain Cook dock for maintenance you do not necessarily need a dock to build ships and a building way cheaper and more flexible. Tongue in cheek I would suggest you reopen Cockatoo Dock but you don’t have a hope in hell of that happening. I am not sure there is the space for a building way at Osborne.

All our current infrastructure (baring CC Dock) relies on hard stand construction and this will continue for the Future Frigates and submarines. The synchro lift arrangement are generally topped out at 25000 tonnes but it is feasible from and engineering stand point to got to 60000 tonnes. Personally I would stay away from go above 25000 tonnes until some one else has given it a shot. However a 25000 tonne capacity would allow for a vessel of LHD size in ‘light load’ configuration (largely complete but fit out occurs alongside). It would need to be about 250m long.

Floating docks can also be used for transfer to hard stand so could also be used for launch..... but that would mean moving large hull construction to Henderson (and making significant changes to the hard stand capacity).

 

[spoz]

Plus the LHDs are supposed to have a life until the 2050s, and two of the tankers are brand new so should last to the late 2050s or even the early 2060s. That leaves an LSD replacement, the third “ logistic ship” and the HADR vessel, if the last is not just political posturing, in the next 25 years at least; then you need four at about the same time. Not much of a continuous build program!

 

[ngatimozart]

Why would it require a dry dock of 350m with a width of 50 to 60m. And if you are going for this then why only 35000 tonnes???. 350m gives you a very high gross tonnage (displacement is different but it will still be signifincant) an order of magnitude above 35000 tonnes. It is also more than 100m longer than the LHD.

What your are proposing is 4m longer than the Garden Island Captain Cook Dock ..... and 5 to 15m wider. It really is massive overkill and would be prohibitively expensive.

Mea culpa then. I was going off the top of my head at the time and trying to remember the longest ship length and allowing for future proofing because such a facility would have a long lifespan.

Nonting the Navy does have the Captain Cook dock for maintenance you do not necessarily need a dock to build ships and a building way cheaper and more flexible. Tongue in cheek I would suggest you reopen Cockatoo Dock but you don’t have a hope in hell of that happening. I am not sure there is the space for a building way at Osborne.

All our current infrastructure (baring CC Dock) relies on hard stand construction and this will continue for the Future Frigates and submarines. The synchro lift arrangement are generally topped out at 25000 tonnes but it is feasible from and engineering stand point to got to 60000 tonnes. Personally I would stay away from go above 25000 tonnes until some one else has given it a shot. However a 25000 tonne capacity would allow for a vessel of LHD size in ‘light load’ configuration (largely complete but fit out occurs alongside). It would need to be about 250m long.

Floating docks can also be used for transfer to hard stand so could also be used for launch..... but that would mean moving large hull construction to Henderson (and making significant changes to the hard stand capacity).

Thanks.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With the way the continuous ship building is setup now, trying to build big ships here, would possibly be at the cost of the number of smaller ships (like destroyers/Frigates/Submarines). It is possible that it wouldn't have to be that way, but I think it is likely to happen if you tried it. Specifically only building very large ships, I think is a fickle business unless you have commercial work coming through, and regular like clock work.

I do think Success built at CC dock will be the largest built Australian navy ship.

I see our overseas builds as kind of an aid to countries. Spain is in economic crisis, so rather than just giving them cash, we can order some ships from them. Its not one of the reasons why we are doing it, but it makes for me an easy justification. We may order from Korea, or Vietnam in order to help them out in the future. In Australia's case, I think we have a pretty good relationship with Spain, and I feel that the defence relationship has been useful and flexible over and beyond just box flogging.

I wouldn't expect cockatoo to reopen, even during wartime. Particularly as a new build site.

Mea culpa then. I was going off the top of my head at the time and trying to remember the longest ship length and allowing for future proofing because such a facility would have a long lifespan.

 

[DaveS124]

On the note of buildings RAN AORs, here's a pic by Navantia of the first bit of STALWART being dropped into place.

Not messing about!

 

[NOMAD]

Hi All

I am along time follower of this other defense forums not a poster just a learner.
I have a question for the forum. I have seen a number of renditions/pictures of the new Arafura class OPV's,
all have been of a vessel with a single funnel and flat landing pad/rear deck, some show a container on the deck.
A rendition on the ADM site shows a twin funnel vessel with a permanent hanger/enclosed work space with a least two large roller doors.
Is this the Australian Navy version of the Lurssen designed OPV?

Regards
Nomad

 

[Hazdog]

Good Evening,

In the near future as the new OPV's start to commission should the RAN look to purchase a small fleet of roughly 12 Eurocopter AS565 Panthers or MH-60S Knighthawks to operate in conjunction with the OPV's and as SAR on board the LHD's?
-This purchase would prove extremely useful in the case of a 3rd LHD purchase. (as per Juan Carlos/Canberra Class thread)

 

[ngatimozart]

Hi All

I am along time follower of this other defense forums not a poster just a learner.
I have a question for the forum. I have seen a number of renditions/pictures of the new Arafura class OPV's,
all have been of a vessel with a single funnel and flat landing pad/rear deck, some show a container on the deck.
A rendition on the ADM site shows a twin funnel vessel with a permanent hanger/enclosed work space with a least two large roller doors.
Is this the Australian Navy version of the Lurssen designed OPV?

Regards
Nomad

G'day @NOMAD Welcome to the forum. We look forward to your contributions to the discussions and please take the time to read the rules. I think that the images so far are stock standard Lursen images, however someone more familiar with the program will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[ngatimozart]

Good Evening,

In the near future as the new OPV's start to commission should the RAN look to purchase a small fleet of roughly 12 Eurocopter AS565 Panthers or MH-60S Knighthawks to operate in conjunction with the OPV's and as SAR on board the LHD's?
-This purchase would prove extremely useful in the case of a 3rd LHD purchase. (as per Juan Carlos/Canberra Class thread)

From my POV, if you went with helos for OPVs then the Sierras would make the most sense because of the commonality with the Romeos.

 

[hauritz]

Hi All

I am along time follower of this other defense forums not a poster just a learner.
I have a question for the forum. I have seen a number of renditions/pictures of the new Arafura class OPV's,
all have been of a vessel with a single funnel and flat landing pad/rear deck, some show a container on the deck.
A rendition on the ADM site shows a twin funnel vessel with a permanent hanger/enclosed work space with a least two large roller doors.
Is this the Australian Navy version of the Lurssen designed OPV?

Regards
Nomad

The hanger version you saw was probably one of the other contenders. Probably Fassmer's proposal.
80m OPV