Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

Are you referring to a domestic naval shipbuilding industry, or are you also including merchant/commercial and civilian shipping?

I believe that the current plans should provide for most of the RAN and AusGov shipbuilding needs, but apart from production of specialty ships, Australia is really not in a position to compete in the global large shipbuilding market. Significant resources (and likely subsidies) would need to be injected to really build such a capability, and given that the Australian shipbuilding industry would be competing a number of other nations' shipbuilding that either have significantly greater capacity AND lower costs/wages, or significantly greater capacity AND well established efficiencies/economies of scale, I just do not foresee Australia being able to accomplish that.

As it is, we have already seen some of the specialty Australian shipbuilding getting moved overseas. I am specifically referring to Austal moving their commercial aluminium cat/fast ferry production to the Philippines, although I suppose that should have been expected given how Austal had been bringing workers in from overseas on work visas to weld and fabricate the aluminium vessels in Austal yards in WA for some time as opposed to competing for or training Australians who could work aluminium.

You’re probably being a bit harsh on Austal re their foreign workers.
They have made a concerted effort individually and in concert with the WA government to train and recruit the staff required to fulfill their contracts but this has been difficult in an isolated state such as WA where there has been great competition from the mining and resource sector who pay very high wages.
Austal had to reboot the Australian workforce after a very quiet period for their commercial business here and their concentration of effort in Mobile, Vietnam and the Philippines.
Austal have played the the political influence game very well and have been seen to have been granted special status with defence procurement but I think that has faded particularly as Civmecs influence has grown.
As an aside I suspect that all engineering and mining enterprises have their fair share of foreign workers on skilled worker visas much to the annoyance of local unions but with rapid growth and the diminution of trade education by our modern educators, I find that inevitable.

 

[MickB]

Like the idea put forward by StingrayOz of the LST 120 or similar as a follow up to the pacific patrol boat program. Ticks all the boxes- useful capability, Australian jobs, pacific self-sufficiency.

Perhaps even keep a few for the RAN.

 

[ngatimozart]

No doubt it would be cheaper to build overseas but developing a healthy domestic shipbuilding industry might be worth the investment in the longer term. It could be possible to use the same hull design for the proposed HADR, Logistics and Choules replacement ships. If NZ could be enticed it might be suitable as a replacement for HMNZS Canterbury as well.

However, at what cost? It does get to a point where it is purely uneconomic even for political purposes. What is the point of spending huge sums in building a facility for one or two ships, then having it sitting idle for 20 - 30 years except for the odd refit? Let's be somewhat realistic about this eh. Building DDGs, FFGs, SSKs, PBs etc., is very doable and you already have, or are constructing, the infrastructure for that and are undertaking continuous build programs. That is sensible, practical and economic giving the CoA VfM (Value for Money) which keeps the pollies, Treasury, unions, and some States happy.

From the NZ perspective, it is highly unlikely that we would touch a bespoke Aussie built LPD / LSD for a Canterbury replacement because of the cost. It would most definitely wouldn't be VfM for NZ. Secondly, since the DCP2019 has an Enhanced Sealift Vessel, with a welldock and flightdeck, being acquired in 2028 it would be logical to assume that the Canterbury replacement, circa 2035, would be of the same class.

 

[ngatimozart]

Over time some posters on here have been commenting on the desirability of the acquisition of mexeflotes for the ship to shore connectors. The RCN are acquiring similar and having them built in Canada, maybe the ADF should tag a few on the Canuck order.

Canada buying ship-to-shore connectors for its Joint Support Ships

 

[oldsig127]

Over time some posters on here have been commenting on the desirability of the acquisition of mexeflotes for the ship to shore connectors. The RCN are acquiring similar and having them built in Canada, maybe the ADF should tag a few on the Canuck order.A

Canada buying ship-to-shore connectors for its Joint Support Ships

Above and beyond the two we have already?


I assume you mean as a supplement to the landing craft used by Canberra and Adelaide, rather than have Choules wallpapered along most of both sides.


oldsig

 

[John Newman]

Lots of discussion going on regarding shipbuilding capacity at the yards in SA and WA. Thought I'd throw my 2 bobs worth in.

It's now been about two and a half years since the Naval Shipbuilding Plan (NSP) was released (May 2017) which showed the schedules for both SA and WA. But it does appear that some things have changed, especially in regard to the 'minor naval vessel continuous build program' at Henderson WA, not so much with what's happening at Osborne SA.

But firstly a recap of what is currently happening, there are four builders in WA supporting Government/Navy, Austal (building Guardian class PB), Civmec (building Arafura class OPV, start 2020), ASC (ongoing Collins class support) and BAE (Anzac class AMCAP upgrades and maintenance).

Austal is likely to run out of Australian Government orders in late 2023, Civmec will be busy with the OPVs up until 2030, BAE will complete AMCAP 2023 but will no doubt continue to perform maintenance until the eventual withdrawn of the class, and ASC will continue to support Collins class until withdrawal too.

The main changes from the original NSP are:
* Two more Guardian class PBs (from 19 to 21)
* Bringing forward replacement of Minehunters (announced prior to last election, only two ships)
* Earlier replacement of the two hydrographic ships Melville and Leeuwin (with one ship)
* And of course the talked about (but no details as yet) Pacific HADR ship

The NSP originally had both SEA 1179 (Minehunters) and SEA 2400 (Hydrographic) projects scheduled to start approx. 2030, plus the Cape class replacements from around 2035, and also 'vaguely' said that 'follow-on Minor Vessels from close to 2040. Other projects mentioned in the NSP include LCM-8, LARC-V, LCM-1E, Riverine Patrol.

So how does Government keep the 'continuous building plan' fed? How does it spread the love around to keep all the players happy? And hopefully get best bang for buck with our taxpayer dollars too!

Firstly there are the three ships mentioned prior to the recent Federal election, now it's still not clear exactly what those ship designed will be based on, SEA 1179 (Minehunters), it could be 'assumed' that another two Arafura class OPVs could be tacked onto the current build or could Navy be looking at something else? something larger like the recently announced Belgium/Netherlands minehunters:

Belgian, Dutch minehunter contract officially awarded

These will be large ships, reportedly approx. 2800t (originally the RAN had six Huon class, then cut to four, now the Government is talking about two ships).

SEA 2400, the tender info:

AusTender: Closed ATM View - CASG/SHIP/EOI0071/17

Possible candidate (3400t-3600t):

Fincantieri | Hydrographic Survey Vessel

Will the three ships for SEA 1179 and SEA 2400, be an extra three Arafura OPVs? or two OPVs and a different design for SEA 2400? or the three larger different designs I've mentioned above? Hopefully we find out soonish.

So who gets to build these three ships? If they are three (or two) more Arafura OPVs, then Civmec is the obvious choice, but If they are different designs we could see Austal (who runs out of Government orders in 2023) end up with them, or a spit between Austal and Civmec (assuming that these are considered 'minor naval vessels' by Government, follow the NSP and are built in WA).

And of course there will need to be capacity to build the other minor vessels, the small minor vessels, LCM-8, LARC-V, LCM-1E, Riverine Patrol and possibly the LCH that Army has been talking up lately too.


The Pacific HADR ship, still very much a 'how long is a piece of string' question.

Probably good to look at the 'lift' capabilities in both SA and WA to at least work out where this ship could be built:

Floating dock Henderson WA:

https://www.australianmarinecomplex.com.au/common-user-facility

According to the Australian Marine Complex website, the floating dock in WA has a lift capacity of 12,000t, but the all important transport capacity is 4,500t.

Not a problem to lift a 12,000t ship, but without an upgrade to the transport system, it would appear that building the Pacific HADR ship in WA is a non starter (if the plan is for a ship greater than the capacity of the transport system).

Shiplift Osborne SA:

According to Defence SA, the shiplift has a 'nominal lift capacity' of 13,500t and the rail/transport system has a max capacity of 15,000t.

Looking at the two sites, SA and WA (and using the current facilities as a baseline), then SA would win hands down in building the Pacific HADR ship, if it is more than 4,500t, in fact you could easily build (with some margin to spare) a Damen LPD 7000 or 8000 or 9000 design.

https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/landing-platform-dock

And I can't see how this would interfere too much with construction of the Hunter class FFGs (the FFGs will be fabricated and assembled using the new facilities under construction) and the Pacific HADR ship could potentially use the facilities used to build the DDGs and the first two OPVs, and be assembled on the open air hardstand where the DDGs were assembled before launch.

Anyway, just my opinion of course (I gave the old crystal ball a big rub and polish, still a bit cloudy, but this is what I came up with!).

Cheers,

 

[Mark_Evans]

I agree that adding more work to Australian yards would be an excellent little boost to the economy.
And yet I struggle to see where such work would be able to be fitted in.
Those yards that can are all getting geared up for all the other projects coming up the pipe.
MB

Not cutting steel in Adelaide for the frigates until 2022. Time enough to build another support ship?

 

[vonnoobie]

Would it ever be economical for Australia to build larger ships such as LHD, LPD, AOR and Logistic ships domestically?

The navy is operating a number larger vessels and with the planned additional logistics/AOR and Pacific HADR ships plus several medium to large sized vessels operated by other government organisations, there might be enough there to justify an ongoing build program.

While we do have a decent number of large ships it really isn't enough to sustain a yard for them only and really it would have to be a new yard specifically built to build and sustain such ships of that size. The only way we could do it and make it worth while is if we also start building larger civilian ships along with maintenance, refit, upgrades and modifications of other military and civilian ships (Large ferries, Cruise ships and Specialized ships). There would be a number of shipping companies and cruise ship companies that would be interested in having such an asset in Australia as they have for years complained about the lack of it but it would depend on the location of it as well as cost factors. That being said if we had the asset I think the USN would also be interested in making use of it. Its not impossible to do as many advanced economies have been able to still make it work but it would require proper planning between the Navy, GoA, Industry and USN to make it into such that a future government wont just scrap it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Above and beyond the two we have already?


I assume you mean as a supplement to the landing craft used by Canberra and Adelaide, rather than have Choules wallpapered along most of both sides.


oldsig

Well in whatever capacity, but as a capability set for the Canberra class LHD, if it was deemed necessary and could be part of the CONOPs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not cutting steel in Adelaide for the frigates until 2022. Time enough to build another support ship?

Nope, unless you already have a design, and the Cabinet approves the project, funding it immediately. Even then, you would be pushing it because steel would have to be cut early in the new year at the latest, with no long lead items being ordered. The way I see it, lots of the brown smelly stuff being pushed uphill into a gale force head wind. That's my 2 cents worth.

 

[ngatimozart]

While we do have a decent number of large ships it really isn't enough to sustain a yard for them only and really it would have to be a new yard specifically built to build and sustain such ships of that size. The only way we could do it and make it worthwhile is if we also start building larger civilian ships along with maintenance, refit, upgrades and modifications of other military and civilian ships (Large ferries, Cruise ships and Specialized ships). There would be a number of shipping companies and cruise ship companies that would be interested in having such an asset in Australia as they have for years complained about the lack of it but it would depend on the location of it as well as cost factors. That being said if we had the asset I think the USN would also be interested in making use of it. It's not impossible to do as many advanced economies have been able to still make it work but it would require proper planning between the Navy, CoA, Industry and USN to make it into such that a future government won't just scrap it.

I think that building large civilian ships in Australia would be a commercial failure because the costs would be considerably higher compared to the competition within the region, to whit South Korea, China, Vietnam and Japan. Your wage costs and the unions alone would be the main cost. If a drydock facility of sufficient size was built to handle large ships, the size of cruises ships, LHDs, CGNs, CVNs etc., then that is a different story and where a future could be had both commercially and for the CoA thru the RAN and it's allies.

 

[spoz]

Nope, unless you already have a design, and the Cabinet approves the project, funding it immediately. Even then, you would be pushing it because steel would have to be cut early in the new year at the latest, with no long lead items being ordered. The way I see it, lots of the brown smelly stuff being pushed uphill into a gale force head wind. That's my 2 cents worth.

And in any case the DDG facilities are now being used to build the first two OPVs, so your window would be very tight. Plus the facilities will be shared by two different organisations, both branded as ASC but with different masters, Luerssen and BAE. Adding a third would seem likely to result in mayhem.

 

[Stampede]

Over time some posters on here have been commenting on the desirability of the acquisition of mexeflotes for the ship to shore connectors. The RCN are acquiring similar and having them built in Canada, maybe the ADF should tag a few on the Canuck order.

Canada buying ship-to-shore connectors for its Joint Support Ships

An interesting one.

The RAN's new Supply class based on the Spainish Navy's Cantabria AOR, are not with out some significant storage capacity for Ammunition,and general cargo, in addition to their primary role of carrying fuel of various types.
The RAN website says the role of the new Supply Class will be

• Fleet Oiler
• Ammunition supply
• Logistical support
• Humanitarian and disaster relief.

Given a combined fleet of only five ampib / supply ships, it may be prudent to explore introducing a integral connector for the Supply Class.
Given the ships existing design, a mexeflote type craft would be the only option.
Suggest looking at something that does not break down to containers sized units, but rather a one piece craft of a similar width to our in service LLC's.
Mexeflote systems are agricultural and have their limitations, but would at least give our new supply ships some capacity to respond and support, both HADR operations and provide logistical military support where appropriate.
The supply class have good medical facilities and a respectable aviation capacity, so I can envisage they will need to be looked at differently than our previous generations of supply ships.
They have a lot of potential and an integrated connector will add to their already impressive logistical capacity.

Should not break the bank and I would hope not be too challenging with the engineering.

Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

I think that building large civilian ships in Australia would be a commercial failure because the costs would be considerably higher compared to the competition within the region, to whit South Korea, China, Vietnam and Japan. Your wage costs and the unions alone would be the main cost. If a drydock facility of sufficient size was built to handle large ships, the size of cruises ships, LHDs, CGNs, CVNs etc., then that is a different story and where a future could be had both commercially and for the CoA thru the RAN and it's allies.

Oh don't get me wrong I think Australia building large ships is a non starter. Too late in the game at a time when every one around us is growing in capability and lower cost base. Theoretically it could be done and even made profitable if not break even but would take a lot of planning and work between a large number of different parties and in the real world that is a 1 in a million shot.

I think the best we can hope for is to build up a refit/repair capability for large ships rather then outright production. We wont be building our own ships but we will be better able to sustain them (Bloody difficult around Sydney with the cruise ships) and will give the USN a good site to use along with civilian industry. That we can make to work with a more limited outlay and less risk.

 

[spoz]

The normal way of carrying mexeflotes in ships without well decks is strapped to the side of the hull, as was seen with the RFA LSLs. Given the prime purpose of an AOR is RAS by the alongside method, there might be a conflict. Possibly could be carried on the container space, but that would probably be at the expense of CONEXs, again likely undesirable. Replacing one of the boats with an LCVP, as was done with Success, would seem a more practical solution, albeit one without as much capacity to land gear.

 

[alexsa]

Not cutting steel in Adelaide for the frigates until 2022. Time enough to build another support ship?

But they are starting prototyping blocks in 2020 inorder to get the line running. This may not mean that the line could not be used to cut plat for other projects I just do see the line doing block consilidation if this interferes with the Hunter class. The isuse is we do not know wiht certainty what the lines capability is.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But they are starting prototyping blocks in 2020 inorder to get the line running. This may not mean that the line could not be used to cut plat for other projects I just do see the line doing block consilidation if this interferes with the Hunter class. The isuse is we do not know wiht certainty what the lines capability is.

Block consolidation may not be a bad way to go to get Henderson up and running and have block consolidation and final fitout at Osborne. Given the current wrangling around submarine support its not clear how exactly this will all fit together. It may be worth planning to have Osborne capable of significant block consolidation and maintenance.

For those not reading the papers etc:
WA fury over submarine maintenance

Mr Papalia said expectations were high that WA's two defence ministers, Linda Reynolds and Melissa Price, would deliver for the state just as Christopher Pyne sent $98 billion of shipbuilding work to Adelaide when he was minister.

So $98 billion for WA now? Here we go.

Defence Connect

Rather than states, federal ministers and companies tear each other apart. I would rather see additional orders as a conciliatory measure. There are still things the ADF and the commonwealth needs. A lot of these cases its about ensuring sustainability of workforces and bridging peaks in workforce requirements, particularly now things are much more detailed in the planning stages and areas identified. In cases where its about bridging workforce peaks and toughs, actual labor costs are mitigated where not doing anything is more damaging than ordering something (how many times have we seen this locally and internationally). There are some magical mystical things like the Pacific ship where there is a need for something significant, but no reality of what that is. Rather than a single magical ship, it may be worthwhile to look at a fleet of smaller ships to perform those type of capabilities.

A small AOR/tender operating out of Lombrum might be a significant force multiplier on ships and subs doing long transits. Being able to resupply smaller allied/friendly ships (Corvettes/OPV's/small frigates/subs think Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia) in or around SEA might be a very handy capability to offer and doesn't interfere with our major AOR fleet. We have a capability hole where the heavy landing craft used to be, something smaller that can be forward deployed other than a LHD/LPD has been mentioned multiple times. After 10 years it might be possible to gift some of these around the region, where we can provide conops/training/logistics support etc. The small AOR for example could be gifted to PNG, and Australia and others simply pay operational usage. The Philippines could be offered a similar deal. Maybe work out a schedule with the US/AU/JP/SK/UK to regularly utilise this capability, which is less of a political statement than a port visit, and during conflicts would provide a significant amount of operational flexibility. On top of this these type of ships could perform OPV/presence type duties.

By increasing the drum beat, finding efficiencies, we lower the costs of the entire ship building industry. In the current environment the government is desperate for infrastructure and government spending programs as ways to boost GDP and keep unemployment steady (and is advised by the RBA to do this as interest rates no longer are effective controls). It would seem perhaps an optional plan to expand shipbuilding capabilities in a useful, low cost and practical way, while having additional programs "Ready to go" would seem to be a fairly smart move.

 

[MickB]

Article on RN forum about FLSS.
Sounds very much like the description of the proposed Pacific Ship. If perhaps larger in size and scope that most envisage the Pacific Ship to be.

Savings through economy of scale may make it worth the RAN joining this program.
At least the R & D side may help towards designing the Pacific Ship and its mission.
Certainly a program to watch.

 

[ASSAIL]

An interesting one.

The RAN's new Supply class based on the Spainish Navy's Cantabria AOR, are not with out some significant storage capacity for Ammunition,and general cargo, in addition to their primary role of carrying fuel of various types.
The RAN website says the role of the new Supply Class will be

• Fleet Oiler
• Ammunition supply
• Logistical support
• Humanitarian and disaster relief.

Given a combined fleet of only five ampib / supply ships, it may be prudent to explore introducing a integral connector for the Supply Class.
Given the ships existing design, a mexeflote type craft would be the only option.
Suggest looking at something that does not break down to containers sized units, but rather a one piece craft of a similar width to our in service LLC's.
Mexeflote systems are agricultural and have their limitations, but would at least give our new supply ships some capacity to respond and support, both HADR operations and provide logistical military support where appropriate.
The supply class have good medical facilities and a respectable aviation capacity, so I can envisage they will need to be looked at differently than our previous generations of supply ships.
They have a lot of potential and an integrated connector will add to their already impressive logistical capacity.

Should not break the bank and I would hope not be too challenging with the engineering.

Regards S

The new Supply ships are primarily fleet support units and i can’t see them being sent on any major HADR mission by themselves.
On minor HADR duties their primary shore connectors will be helicopters.
Equipping them with mexeflotes would unnecessarily complicate their role even if they were capable of deploying them without modification and I believe it’s an idea without merit, IMHO naturally.

 

[ASSAIL]

There used to be (1960s - 1980s) a tank farm/bulk fuel facility at Lombrum where destroyers and frigates would refuel during long transits such as Sydney to Subic.
Does anyone here know of its current status?