Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

The speed the Chinese are building warships during peacetime is scary enough. What they would be capable of if war were to break out is almost unimaginable. Chinese warship construction is currently outpacing the US by a considerable margin.

China’s naval shipbuilding: delivering on its ambition in a big way

While we bungle along with our own shipbuilding programs the Chinese just keep building ships 7 days a week, 3 shifts a day with no public holidays and no unions to deal with.

High-speed production: Chinese navy built 83 ships in just eight years

It’s all very well to build ships at an astonishing rate but where do the competent crews come from?
It takes a generation to build competence and gain experience in high end war fighting. This is done through regular large scale exercises and operational deployments which build both skill and more importantly leadership and tactical knowhow.
I’m not saying that the PLA-N will not gain these qualities over time but This will take at least a decade or two to reach the required levels.

History has many examples of this progression. The rapid build up of forces during WW2 saw many very inexperienced crews put in extraordinary situations and despite many acts of bravery, huge mistakes were made.
The USN build up during the VietNam war saw experience spread very thinly across the destroyer force with many ships crewed almost exclusively with ROTC officers with little or no experience. One example of this was the USS Frank E Evans, the collision with HMAS Melbourne resulted from two inexperienced watch officers not knowing how to change station at night. They had less bridge time than I had at the time, a lowly Midshipman doing fleet time.

We need to accept the inevitable, the PLA-N will become a highly professional force across the entire naval warfare spectrum but digesting 83 ships in 8 years will take time

 

[hauritz]

Modern ships and submarines, fighters, tanks etc take longer to build than there WW2 counterparts. While smaller ships can tend to be ramped up, large major combatants were painfully slow even with a full war economy going. Fletcher class was a 2,000 t ww2 destroyer with a whole bunch of 5"s. Battleships for example still too 4-6 years to build and even with the pressure of full on high intensity war, that wasn't really increased. The ones that were rushed tended to have significant flaws either in design or construction. There is a reason why US still builds so many supercarriers, you can't just rush ships like that into production.

Australia's strength isn't in manufacturing capacity, which is really a function of economic power and size. We tend to build solid units that meet our unique requirements. But in comparison to the major powers. US or Chinese ship production is other dimensional. We don't compete in that space, no one does.

IMO with the 3 production lines, Australia is in a good position. Its more about sovereignty, independent policy, sustainment and local economic benefit. In a world where the major powers are frustrating to deal with, having our own production line, ships coming and out of service is important. When we talk to Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, we have capability. It doesn't matter what everyone else is doing. We aren't completely dependent on US congress line items and priorities, we aren't dependent on UK policy working in our favor for every day operation. We are independent enough to do our own thing if we need to, and lead it.

I can certainly see countries like Australia prioritising smaller vessels rather than larger ships. Perhaps the move towards unmanned systems would be likely as well. It would be much quicker and cheaper to mass-produce UUV and USV than destroyers, frigates and submarines.

 

[Redlands18]

It’s all very well to build ships at an astonishing rate but where do the competent crews come from?
It takes a generation to build competence and gain experience in high end war fighting. This is done through regular large scale exercises and operational deployments which build both skill and more importantly leadership and tactical knowhow.
I’m not saying that the PLA-N will not gain these qualities over time but This will take at least a decade or two to reach the required levels.

History has many examples of this progression. The rapid build up of forces during WW2 saw many very inexperienced crews put in extraordinary situations and despite many acts of bravery, huge mistakes were made.
The USN build up during the VietNam war saw experience spread very thinly across the destroyer force with many ships crewed almost exclusively with ROTC officers with little or no experience. One example of this was the USS Frank E Evans, the collision with HMAS Melbourne resulted from two inexperienced watch officers not knowing how to change station at night. They had less bridge time than I had at the time, a lowly Midshipman doing fleet time.

We need to accept the inevitable, the PLA-N will become a highly professional force across the entire naval warfare spectrum but digesting 83 ships in 8 years will take time

Type 22 missile boat - Wikipedia
The 83 are the 220t Missile Catamarans, so they still have to train the crews as well for the big Ships.
China still has a huge Mountain to climb, having the Vessels in service is only one part of it.

 

[peterAustralia]

Changing tack just a little, last week Hugh White released a new book, 'how to defend Australia'. He was on the radio spruking his ideas, including an entire hour on radio national. Some points he made, If things get bad we may not be able to count on the US, thus we should have a military that can work independently. OK, fair enough, that's his view, he is entitled to his point of view, so far Ok. Next going our own way could mean defence spending to 3.5% or GDP. At least he is being honest, going independent comes with a cost.... OK,,,, is his opinion, each to their own. Next Australia should consider nuclear weapons,,,, hmmmm, sounds OK, but then what will a dozen nations in our region do if we go down that path, south korea, indonesia with nukes,,,, hmmmm.

Next he says he need 24 submarines... Wow,,, thats a lot, going to be expensive, hard to man, was kinda thinking that 12 was a good number, better than six.

He said we have to be aware that there may be a gap between phasing out of Collins and introduction of Attack class. OK good point, you dont want to be vulnerable at the changeover time. Opponents may use that window to cause trouble.

Another point he made, the one I have big issue with, he says our new ships are too big, Said they need to be size of Anzac class. Ahhh, Anzac class are too small, navies all around the world are going to larger ships. The Anzac class (Meko360) does not have enough size for an area defence missile. An anti aircraft missile is a good defensive measure. Say you upgrade from a 4000t ship to a 8000t ship, each dimension only goes up 26 percent via the cube law, Thus just over a quarter more waterline length for a target (a modest amount). But heavier ships have a larger mass fraction for carry useful loads, Say you double the tonnage, frntal area only goes up 59 percent, thus to get same speed you only need 60 percent extra power, Thus the mass of the ship taken up via engines is proportionally less. Same goes for fuel. The larger ship can travel further, carry more stuff, handle rough seas better, provide more electrical power, carry a higher proportion of usefull items (weapons, sensors, drones etc), than the smaller ship.

Strikes me as odd that Hugh White does not understand this, Navies all around the world have worked this out and are progressing to larger surface combatants, My guess is that Hugh White sees the larger ship as aggressive, which does not sit into his worldview that Australia should have a defensive posture.

He was never taken to task on his proposition that Australia needs small surface warships. Australia is a big place, and it goes without saying that implies ships with a long range, something harder to do on a smaller warship

A small aside, both Germany and Japan have large stockpiles of Plutonium for their civilian nuclear program, Both countries could if they wanted to (from a technical point of view) build dozens of nuclear weapons very quickly (talking weeks), if it was deemed essential. Japan has 45 tonnes of plutonium, Now you only need 5kg or so of plutonium to make a bomb, that equates to enough Plutonium for 9000 bombs. I dont think they will do this, but if they wanted to, they could, for some reason this is not talked about? Germany has several tonnes of plutonium stockpiled. Although not ideal reactor grade plutonium can be used in weapons

 

[Takao]

I am assuming that when you speak of involving naval forces, you area actually referring to conflicts where there was direct engagement between opposing naval forces, since naval forces have been involved in a number of conflicts like GW I & II.

I was trying to be tricky - highlighting where naval forces had been targeted (so not GW II). I confess, I forgot about the Silkworm attempt in 1990..

Me being me, and not to be argumentative (or at least, not just for the sake of being argumentative) but I would also tend to agree with StingrayOz about the viability of warship construction during wartime. This has to do with the long lead times for some of the more complex and precision pieces of kit which seem to usually be sensors or electronics. By devoting greater resources it might be possible to accelerate the construction of new and/or replacement ships/hulls during a conflict, but if those ships or hulls are still stuck awaiting delivery of the radar arrays, computers, computer cabinets and other CMS components, the vessels cannot be delivered 'finished' and ready to commission or deploy. I am somewhat hazy in my recollection, but I seem to recall the time between ordering and delivery of the Hobart-class SPY-1D radar arrays and Aegis CMS computers taking something like three years between order placement and delivery in Australia.

Modern ships and submarines, fighters, tanks etc take longer to build than there WW2 counterparts. While smaller ships can tend to be ramped up, large major combatants were painfully slow even with a full war economy going. Fletcher class was a 2,000 t ww2 destroyer with a whole bunch of 5"s. Battleships for example still too 4-6 years to build and even with the pressure of full on high intensity war, that wasn't really increased. The ones that were rushed tended to have significant flaws either in design or construction. There is a reason why US still builds so many supercarriers, you can't just rush ships like that into production.

Modern ships do take a while to build, but there are no pressures. We can take years to build a Hobart or Daring - because it doesn't matter. But, even with that relaxed timeline, the Arleigh Burke's were being built in an average of 10 months. Now, that's still some time (USS Des Moines took 4 months to do this) but's it's also half of USS Indianapolis' build time of 20 months. Note HMS King George V took 25 months, so (just as you said), pre-existing infrastructure helps. As the war went on, the rate of building accelerated - and I doubt any Western shipyard is working maximum shifts.

I also note the concern about the high tech aspect of modern ships - but it's a comparative thing. A SPY radar isn't that complex compared to most modern tech; certainly the delta between a SPY radar and the average electronic device in my house is less than the delta between a Type 281 and the average electronic device in a 1940s household. Furthermore, a Mark 33 gun fire control radar or Admiralty Fire Control Table is some of the most technically advanced equipment of its era - and factories pumped them out by the hundreds. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I think a RN/USN DD, CL, CA or BB built from 1939 onwards is more technically advanced compared to society than a RN/USN DDG or FFG now.

I think that a ship remains a large, complex piece of machinery that puts almost anything else in the military to shame. But I also think they can be built much faster than now - and I don't think they are as advanced and different compared to other tech as they have been in the past. This means that the ability to spool up the sub-systems is much easier (ie, the number of companies in Australia that can build SPY-1 'bits' now is greater than the number of companies in Australia that could build Type 281 'bits' in 1940. Hypothetically, with freed up US restrictions, the pressure of war and redirected industry, I think that a Hobart could be in the water within 6 months - with an abbreviated fit-out and trials to have it in the front line within another 3.

From that, it would seem that unless a modern high intensity conflict was very prolonged lasting years, which IMO would be unlikely since I doubt most nations would be able to sustain a high intensity conflict for very long, the weaponry being too expensive for most nations to be willing maintain large peacetime warstocks and the weaponry able to inflict significant damage quickly, the only vessels which might get commissioned during a conflict would be those already on order at an active yard and even more likely already at least partially constructed. I do not see how a modern warship build programme would be able to deliver wartime production rates like were observed in WWII where some US shipyards were able to deliver commissioned Fletcher-class destroyers roughly nine months after the vessels were first laid down.

I've been tossing this idea back and forth at work about prolonged conflict, and remain convinced that the idea of a short war (especially between peers) is as flawed now as it was in 1914. The problem will be tying the non-expended 2010s tech with the expendable 1940s tech and the issues with ROE that go with that. I can see F-35s dropping dumb bombs because there are no more PGMs. Or ships using 5" and not Harpoon because there are no more missiles. But (and this ignores nuclear), warfare between peers will always drag.

In fact, for me, the biggest hitch isn't the ships - it's the weapons. I think you can put a DDG into service in 9 months, but filling those VLS is going to hurt.

 

[oldsig127]

Strikes me as odd that Hugh White does not understand this, Navies all around the world have worked this out and are progressing to larger surface combatants, My guess is that Hugh White sees the larger ship as aggressive, which does not sit into his worldview that Australia should have a defensive posture.

Sadly after what must be thirty years of listening to him, I'm more surprised when he seems to understand something that doesn't fit with his preconceptions.

He was never taken to task on his proposition that Australia needs small surface warships. Australia is a big place, and it goes without saying that implies ships with a long range, something harder to do on a smaller warship

That's hardly surprising either. He's been the ABC's go-to "expert" for many years because he says things they expect and that make governments of either colour uncomfortable, because they both have to deal with real life. You won't see anyone from the ABC question his pronouncements.

At least they've stopped trotting out Kopp and Goon.

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

Changing tack just a little, last week Hugh White released a new book, 'how to defend Australia'. He was on the radio spruking his ideas, including an entire hour on radio national. Some points he made, If things get bad we may not be able to count on the US, thus we should have a military that can work independently. ...

I'm going to answer this one specifically. I am firmly of the opinion that given current US politics, he has a valid point. The "America First" policies and the current POTUS's tendency to insult close allies and friends, unilaterally withdraw from treaties, and cozy up to enemies is driving a wedge between the US and its allies and friends. Now close allies and friends are undertaking military efforts specifically excluding the US, whilst also designing an international financial system that excludes the USD and US system, because of ever increasing and punitive US sanctions, and the fact that the US can no longer be relied upon nor trusted to keep its word. Pretty damning for a nation that three years ago was held in high regard, regardless of who was in the White House. The Bill for ‘America First’ Is Coming Due. Also cdxbow posted in the Russia and the West thread yesterday: "The rise of China has helped in this regard [Russian desire to change from US lead unipolar world to a multipolar world] as it is now conceivable the US could be toppled as top dog. Not only could the US be toppled, but it's also possible the US could disintegrate given the extreme polarisation in it's politics and community. I will remind people, no one predicted the way the demise of the Soviet Union happened." I think that he has a very pertinent and valid point there and something to remember in this discussion.

I would suggest that Australia needs to look closely at forming alliances with Singapore, South Korea and Japan, then probably Indian and Indonesia. I would forget about forming any alliance with the Poms because it would be a waste of time and money. They are going to go downhill after the end of October this year and if it's a hard Brexit, which it looks like, the UK could possibly break up. The Scots will go for independence to enter the EU and the Northern Irish may swallow the very large dead rat of unification with the Irish Republic to stay in the EU. That leaves the English and the Welsh on their lonesome and the Welsh may just start thinking of their glory days when they were a separate free and independent Welsh Kingdom. I'm not saying that it will happen, but the possibility does exist that it will, and the Scottish First Minister has already publicly stated that she is continuing the parliamentary process for a new Scottish independence referendum.

I agree with the rest of your post and given what I have posted above Australia, (and NZ) needs to undertake a thorough review of its defence and security outlook, sooner rather than later. NZ pollies will have to be lead kicking and screaming to this conclusion. Hmmm, maybe chuck them all in a thin tent on the Auckland Islands over the autumn, winter and spring seasons with no means of communication, some food , but I digress. I do not think Australian nukes would be a viable option because of public opinion and no pollie would be willing to spend political capital on that. It'd be too big a dead rat. However if they could persuade the public that nuclear powered subs AND nuclear power plants for domestic electricity was acceptable, then that would be one foot in the door. I think that the latter may happen as the climate continues to warm and the domestic power supply cannot handle the increased power demands of aircon use.

 

[Hazdog]

I'm going to answer this one specifically. I am firmly of the opinion that given current US politics, he has a valid point. The "America First" policies and the current POTUS's tendency to insult close allies and friends, unilaterally withdraw from treaties, and cozy up to enemies is driving a wedge between the US and its allies and friends. Now close allies and friends are undertaking military efforts specifically excluding the US, whilst also designing an international financial system that excludes the USD and US system, because of ever increasing and punitive US sanctions, and the fact that the US can no longer be relied upon nor trusted to keep its word.

I'd like to play the devil's advocate for a moment, but I'd like to pretense this post with regard to the forum its self; This issue does relate directly to the RAN as the RAN uses many weapons and systems that the US produces meaning that the RAN is dependent on a solid relationship with the US, so the relationships that revolve around the RAN's capability should be discussed and debated. But this post may be better suited to the aforementioned thread.

Firstly, insults flung towards NATO allies are similar to that of a doctor with no bed manner; meaning, insulting the GDP spending ratio of nations like Germany and other NATO nations, while crude is a reasonable point for allies to discuss, as the ability of NATO to defend against Russian aggression is crucial to the West's ability to defend Europe and its interests, and therefore must be pointed out before it is too late. [It is not solely the US that benefits from low Russian interference].

Secondly, the ability for the current administration to cozy up to Kim Jong-un stems from the hardline protection of South Korea and Japan [strong threats against NK from President Trump] who benefit greatly from the lowered threat of a nuclear strike or conventional attack. This ability to be seen negotiating with a foreign dictator, whilst continuing to build military capability against such a nation is paramount to the denuclearisation of North Korea and is a key point of current US strategy.

Finally, whilst President Trump may be very raw when compared to historical US presidents, he will only be in the White House for a maximum of eight years and will be spending every single minute of that time trying to ensure that the US stays 'on top' and that the US does not give in to any movements of Iran, Russia, and China, and so allowing Australia to partner with the US as it moves to hold China at bay.

I do understand the apprehension to the change of US policy but recent US foreign policy saw the annexation of Crimea, nuclearisation of NK, growth of IS and the development of Iranian nuclear capability ('80's to now) and much more that can be seen as unfavorable.

The new isolationist policy may be taken as something to fear but it may end up working for Australia as currently, the US does look favorably toward Australia and our regional goals, so I would encourage the RAN to make the most of the opportunities to purchase US weapon systems and bolster our capabilities side by side with the US.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think that a ship remains a large, complex piece of machinery that puts almost anything else in the military to shame. But I also think they can be built much faster than now - and I don't think they are as advanced and different compared to other tech as they have been in the past.

We can certainly build ships fast. We could probably build the 9 new combatants in <5 years if we wanted to. Two ship yards working flat out round the clock shifts. Then kill the industry and the workforce, and not build anything for the next 30 years. What we want is a nice sustainable tempo during peace time, that we can quicken when we need to. Ships coming into and going out of service in regular timely intervals, not block obsolescence. It is sometimes not advantageous to build quickly even in war time, where technology is advancing very quickly. Going into WW2 and building billions of Battleships ended up not being the solution. Carriers, destroyers, subs and cruisers ended up being key. Also before the war, people tended to match what ever anyone else was building, hence the treaties to try and limit the sillyness.

The US basically only builds enough ships/subs/carriers to keep their lines open and efficient. You can't keep going flat out for 100 years. Technology also moves forward.

Which also brings my concerns about Chinese ship building. Its not sustainable unless they are planning a 10,000 ship navy. Good luck funding/manning that with a population that is going to halve in the next 30 years and an per capita GPD that is likely to get trapped in the middle income trap. This is likely to be a pressure point for China. Which is one of the reasons people think there is a war mindset developing, the current status isn't sustainable. It is all heading towards a collapse. Perhaps an attempt at intimidation by excess production.

I would suggest that Australia needs to look closely at forming alliances with Singapore, South Korea and Japan, then probably Indian and Indonesia. I would forget about forming any alliance with the Poms because it would be a waste of time and money.

Australia is very tight with Singapore, Australian and Singapore very much vibe and building a new type of relationship with Japan, as seen with the recent participation in Talisman Sabre and some of the other interaction and deployments. These relationships a pretty easy and obvious. Watch the MoU's develop between them.

South Korea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam are all in different categories, some on different pages. Most aren't in the boat. Some common issues and concerns, and limited by our relations with other nations and how close we can get. However, Australia is very good at being the glue in the Asia Pacific and also why Australia has a very different sort of relationship with the US (and its forces) than any other country. Ultimately it is up to other countries if they want close relationships

There is also a lot of interest in how Australia manages its relationship with China.

 

[ngatimozart]

There is also a lot of interest in how Australia manages its relationship with China.

I think that there is a point coming where both Australia and NZ will have to make hard decisions about their relationships with China. My hope is that both countries make the same decision for similar reasons and even though both Treasuries, economists, high priests of trade, and the business community will have to swallow dead rats it comes down to what is more important: trade or sovereignty?

 

[Xthenaki]

I think that there is a point coming where both Australia and NZ will have to make hard decisions about their relationships with China. My hope is that both countries make the same decision for similar reasons and even though both Treasuries, economists, high priests of trade, and the business community will have to swallow dead rats it comes down to what is more important: trade or sovereignty?

Sovereignty is paramount to anything else - without it you are nothing. Losing a major trading partner is a hardship but may be compromised and eventually improved.

 

[John Fedup]

What’s more important, trade or sovereignty? Based on Western corporate actions in China during the last 25 years that saw a huge IP give aways and forced partnerships with Chinese firms in order to gain market access, I would guess trade. These corporate trade arrangements saw no objections from our elected officials. China got the second biggest economy in the world because the West gave them the means. Since the CCP (Xi) controls this economy they dictate how profits are spent. The Generals and Admirals in China are happy.

 

[Hazdog]

Sacred Cows Die As Marine Commandant Changes Course On Amphibs.

This article may spark the interests of the RAN as we move towards FOC of the LHDs.

 

[John Fedup]

Not surprising there is a rethink considering the advances in long range PGM and probably hypersonic PGM versions within a decade. The actual landing of troops on a contested beach defended with high tech weapons....no Western government could likely survive the body count blow back. It was tough in the latter stages of WW2, today impossible.

 

[seaspear]

In regard to sovereignty versus trade should we consider the advantagous pre ww2 iron exports to Japan and the later jibes if "Pig Iiron bob" directed at prime ministyer Menzies later

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think that there is a point coming where both Australia and NZ will have to make hard decisions about their relationships with China. My hope is that both countries make the same decision for similar reasons and even though both Treasuries, economists, high priests of trade, and the business community will have to swallow dead rats it comes down to what is more important: trade or sovereignty?

Its complicated. You want to engage and trade, but also not be usurped. Trade mean $'s and $'s can be spent on defense. China doesn't have to be feared or hated because its China, is the actions they do that will get them in trouble.

Australia seems to be proceeding that both outcomes are happening at the same time, we are both heading towards war, and heading towards peace. There are soft and hard power aspects at play you want to keep in the game.

China opening fire on a small ship from a tiny powerless non-aligned nation is one thing. China opening fire on significant regional/global power alliance, with tremendous military capability, and its biggest trading partners is quite another. Australia has been absolutely critical in disrupting China's muscle flexing and power games in the region.

I don't know about a quadrilateral, but we definitely have a tri-part understanding between the US, Australia and Japan. That is literally what Talisman Sabre was all about. All under Australian command (this time).

As for Australia, more than any other country on the planet, I think is quite clearly tooling up. The growth in capability, displacement, platforms, technology, partnership, alliance etc is unmatched. I can't think of any force that has seen the growth like the ADF has. Its pretty clear Australia takes sovereignty pretty clearly and is preparing to give any power that threatens that one hell of an uppercut. We aren't reliant on the unreliable's to be able to do that, but we also can't do it alone.

There are also opportunities at levels other than high intensity war against a peer. China is winning in the soft power war, not the hard power war.

The LHD's have already shaped the region. They are tangible examples of Australia's capability and commitment. Being able to front up in the region after disaster, instability, terrorism, threats that disturb peace and prosperity and fix it. That is power. That is the power other nations leaders crave. The security, prosperity and development of their nation.

They were never for invading mainland China/Imperial Japan/Nazi Germany/alien base in an Amphibious Assault. Doesn't mean amphibious landings will never happen, and won't be strategically important, and aren't a good exercise to conduct with them with partnering nations.

Civmecs new structure is progressing as well, quite a large undercover maintence facility they will have.
https://thewest.com.au/business/eng...pansion-shipshape-for-the-navy-ng-b881276131z

 

[Gjwai]

Civmecs new structure is progressing as well, quite a large undercover maintence facility they will have.
https://thewest.com.au/business/eng...pansion-shipshape-for-the-navy-ng-b881276131z

You've beaten me to it - I had the chance to see it in person (from a shortish distance) on Tuesday.
The OPV's are going to look like scale models in that hall, even after the support towers are in place.

Since my last post a few months ago, the small WA firm I work for has had some success on the project. If our new experience as a small firm in WA is representative of what is to come for SME's in other states, the builds may actually live up to the billing as a national enterprise.

The Tier1's to their absolute credit, are putting the CoA's money where their mouths are and giving the smaller multi-disciplinary firms like ours a shot to help them meet and exceed their AICP commitments. The resulting craftsmanship and quality of work I'm seeing is incredible - and way beyond the required spec.

Our people have a point to prove. For that matter, Civmec has a point to prove.
The ambition they're showing is immense.

 

[Milne Bay]

You've beaten me to it - I had the chance to see it in person (from a shortish distance) on Tuesday.
The OPV's are going to look like scale models in that hall, even after the support towers are in place.

Since my last post a few months ago, the small WA firm I work for has had some success on the project. If our new experience as a small firm in WA is representative of what is to come for SME's in other states, the builds may actually live up to the billing as a national enterprise.

The Tier1's to their absolute credit, are putting the CoA's money where their mouths are and giving the smaller multi-disciplinary firms like ours a shot to help them meet and exceed their AICP commitments. The resulting craftsmanship and quality of work I'm seeing is incredible - and way beyond the required spec.

Our people have a point to prove. For that matter, Civmec has a point to prove.
The ambition they're showing is immense.

I think that this will be a company to keep tabs on.
They have shown enterprise and a can-do attitude.
Of course Civmec is also after a slice of the submarine contract and has worked hard to prove its abilities and expertise in that area as well.
I wish it the best
MB

 

[Takao]

We can certainly build ships fast. We could probably build the 9 new combatants in <5 years if we wanted to. Two ship yards working flat out round the clock shifts. Then kill the industry and the workforce, and not build anything for the next 30 years. What we want is a nice sustainable tempo during peace time, that we can quicken when we need to. Ships coming into and going out of service in regular timely intervals, not block obsolescence. It is sometimes not advantageous to build quickly even in war time, where technology is advancing very quickly. Going into WW2 and building billions of Battleships ended up not being the solution. Carriers, destroyers, subs and cruisers ended up being key. Also before the war, people tended to match what ever anyone else was building, hence the treaties to try and limit the sillyness.

The US basically only builds enough ships/subs/carriers to keep their lines open and efficient. You can't keep going flat out for 100 years. Technology also moves forward.

Which also brings my concerns about Chinese ship building. Its not sustainable unless they are planning a 10,000 ship navy. Good luck funding/manning that with a population that is going to halve in the next 30 years and an per capita GPD that is likely to get trapped in the middle income trap. This is likely to be a pressure point for China. Which is one of the reasons people think there is a war mindset developing, the current status isn't sustainable. It is all heading towards a collapse. Perhaps an attempt at intimidation by excess production.

I agree 100%. In no way would I suggest we speed up the current building program, the justification isn't there, nor the money or people. Plus, as you point out, we can increase the on-board tech as it improves.

My timelines were with such an impetus, a'la in a significant conflict.

 

[spoz]

Minimum construction time is, to some extent at least, set by the lead time of major equipment. For example gear boxes, shafting and propellers for frigates, all of which come from overseas, have a lead time of around two years from date of order. While I don’t know the lead time for CEAFAR, as was stated above SPY is of the same order. A modern IPMS, with its thousands of sensors and complex integration requirements is even longer and its set to work and testing requires months.