The Osborne facility is designed to be a plate to hull process which means all the blocks are planed to be built on site. The facility does have the ability to increase the drum beat.Can I ask what potential WA has to build the Hunter Class design?
- Please do not think I am suggesting that we change any plans; I'd just like to know, with full utilization of WA facilities, what could we get done?
i.e. the number of ships in construction in parallel, number of blocks... etc, compared to ASC.
I would caution about trying to determine what 'full utilization' would permit, as that would likely blow the national shipbuilding plan out of the water. If all the involved facilities for RAN vessel production run ahead of schedule, especially by a significant margin, then all RAN orders would be completed early and there would likely be another 'valley of death' in shipbuilding where there are no new orders to work on, keeping yards ticking and yard workers active. OTOH if facilities run too slowly, then the RAN runs the risk of either needing to invest in expensive MLU programmes to keep numbers up while fleet units are delayed getting into service, or have the fleet size shrink and vessels get decommissioned before their replacements are ready.Can I ask what potential WA has to build the Hunter Class design?
- Please do not think I am suggesting that we change any plans; I'd just like to know, with full utilization of WA facilities, what could we get done?
i.e. the number of ships in construction in parallel, number of blocks... etc, compared to ASC.
Definitely; my line of thought was not in the idea of just getting as many ships as quickly as possible, but being able to replace ships that may be combat ineffective after a conflict arises.I would caution about trying to determine what 'full utilization' would permit, as that would likely blow the national shipbuilding plan out of the water. If all the involved facilities for RAN vessel production run ahead of schedule, especially by a significant margin, then all RAN orders would be completed early and there would likely be another 'valley of death' in shipbuilding where there are no new orders to work on, keeping yards ticking and yard workers active. OTOH if facilities run too slowly, then the RAN runs the risk of either needing to invest in expensive MLU programmes to keep numbers up while fleet units are delayed getting into service, or have the fleet size shrink and vessels get decommissioned before their replacements are ready.
A better question might be, could we build Hunters fast enough for a wartime surge?Definitely; my line of thought was not in the idea of just getting as many ships as quickly as possible, but being able to replace ships that may be combat ineffective after a conflict arises.
Another way of putting the question is: Could WA build Hunters effectively in a wartime surge?
Given the complexity of modern warfighting kit, I doubt any facility could build modern, advanced warships in a wartime surge. Consider how far ahead some of the long lead time items need to be ordered, in order for the components to be ready for installation. Using the SPY-1D(V) arrays of the Hobart-class DDG's as an example, the Aegis/SPY arrangement was selected for the then AWD programme back in 2007. By mid-2009, Lock Mart had completed two of the four array panels for the first AWD. Reading back through this thread, it seems that the lead time for a SPY-1D(V) array was three years or more which is why when the possible fourth DDG was not ordered by 2013, it was no longer a realistic option.Definitely; my line of thought was not in the idea of just getting as many ships as quickly as possible, but being able to replace ships that may be combat ineffective after a conflict arises.
Another way of putting the question is: Could WA build Hunters effectively in a wartime surge?
It is not the size of vessel that matters so much, but the complexity of the vessel. Looking at the US construction of Liberty ships during WWII, the 14,000 ton cargo vessels took an average of 42 days to construct once production was ramped up, with the work force experienced and designs understood. These vessels were larger than many warships of the day, but the on board systems were also much simpler.During war time its very hard to increase production of large complex ships. Its probably more effective to try and early finish any you already are in the process in constructing, and focus on production of smaller ships which are quicker and easier to produce.
And the structure was also much simpler than a warship.It is not the size of vessel that matters so much, but the complexity of the vessel. Looking at the US construction of Liberty ships during WWII, the 14,000 ton cargo vessels took an average of 42 days to construct once production was ramped up, with the work force experienced and designs understood. These vessels were larger than many warships of the day, but the on board systems were also much simpler. ...
sorry link not useable, but found the following by Googling fastest Liberty build.And the structure was also much simpler than a warship.
I think most on DT would recognise the importance of Submarines to the RAN and the replacement program that is SEA 1000.Another hatchet job in APDR. They'd have a lot more credibility if they actually knew that the Hunter class isn't a submarine. And it's boilerplate regurgitating old news to fill column inches.
oldsig
But you have just compared “apples to oranges”I think most on DT would recognise the importance of Submarines to the RAN and the replacement program that is SEA 1000.
That said;it must also be recognised that as one of our biggest defence projects, SEA 1000 cannot be treated as some holy cow not to be questioned.
In a liberal democracy with freedom of speech this is understandable and in fact desirable.
The challenge is two fold.
One - how to keep the public on side for what will always be a rather secretive project when it comes into criticism from the media?
Two - how to keep the positive momentum for the project against this criticism,particularly when due to the recent pandemic and associated spending our accounts are not as flush compared to a few months back.
While not wanting to compare apples to oranges,the comparison of what the Netherlands are getting in replacement submarines, and for what price, does beg the question is SEA 1000 working for us ??????
Regards S
For a second there I thought you were referring to our Kiwi cousins.The ditch as far as I know still haven't made a decision on their future boat. At present its still a toss up between Saab, naval group and time. It's for 3-4 boats and a desired tonnage of circa 3000 tons. If naval group is chosen well as a bonus may be able to get some work for our industry down under.
Sorry for going OT admins
Also, even if the CONOPS for the RNLN subs was known, unless it was markedly similar to the RAN sub CONOPS and likely operating environments, it would still be an apples to oranges comparison.But you have just compared “apples to oranges”
The two boats are totally different, you don’t know the cost parameters of the Dutch boats or their projected CONOPS.
It’s therefore impossible to make a comparison.
Yes there is cause to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the acquisition process but that has to be done by those in possession of all the current information and that’s certainly not Robert Gottliebsen, Andrew Bolt or other talking heads
Damn auto correct. Dutch*. I imagine the future kiwi submarine will resemble the kiwi WW2 tank and be made out of coragated iron. LolFor a second there I thought you were referring to our Kiwi cousins.