ouch is it that bad, their I was thinking devision of labor was the future after the success in Europe both commercial and military for spreading the work and keeping builds economic.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
A political party that will tell the truth, jeeez you’re funny
I am starting to wonder if it in our best interest to build them overseas fit out in Australia, wonder how much cheaper it would have been if the baby Bourke was built in the US a fourth maybe.
Take out the Govt requirement for australian industry involvement and you'd see a few projects that could be done more effectively offshore.
building locally has a few national interest issues...
the real cost is not in building metal etc... it's in integration, so saving money at one end helps at the other end.
forget the 4th, that's not happening
It would be very interesting. Especially the period around the considerable delay in signing the alliance contract because none of the commercial parties liked what was in it. But that could all be claimed to be commercial in confidence and the C0A would never release their files under FOI.
Williamstown would be worth billions for commercial redevelopment. Docklands Phase 2 for Melbourne.
When I last visited they were busy making a mess of the Kiwi OPVs and the production manager was an ex civil engineer who had built Colonial Stadium but no prior experience on ships. Also on the issue of the AWD blocks it is standard shipbuilding practise for the architect to supply drawings in one of either two standards. Design drawings or the more detailed construction drawings that also show the shipwrights how to make the blocks. Many yards just take design drawings and draw up their own construction drawings but others need to have construction drawings provided. It would be interesting to know which standard the AWD is working to as this may explain Williamstown’s problems with the build compared to other yards.
Perhaps it's time I dug out all my notebooks from 2006-08 and had a look at what King, Gallacher, Cawley, et al were saying about the program build back then… Could make for interesting re-reading.
t68
Well-Known Member
How do you define the national interest with such a small Australian builds program, compared even to the UK shipbuilding program they even have trouble keep yards busy.
It may keep people in employment short term (built from scratch),but if the ship was built overseas and maintenance refit conducted in Australian yards only it will keep people employed longer term with job security and moral than knowing once you finish the job you will be out of work.
Last edited:
The base RAN force structure has 24 ships over 2,000 tonnes (12 frigates, 6 submarines, 2 amphibious ships, 2 replenishment ships, 2 survey ships) which with a typical life of 24 years is a replacement rate of one per annum. This is enough shipbuilding to sustain a single medium size yard (typical Australian size) at a reasonable tempo forever. The problem is since the 1980s effort to resuscitate Williamstown Dockyard (Australian Frigate Project) Australia hasn’t had a single shipbuilding yard. Williamstown was historically never planned as a major shipbuilding yard only WWII made it so and it was sustained into the early the 1970s because of the high demand for domestic shipbuilding (compared to capability) then killed off when the Whitlam Government ordered the FFGs from the USA. Combined with the commercial contracting of the Collins and Anzac projects we potentially would have had as many as four active naval shipbuilders (Vickers Cockatoo Island, AMECON Williamstown, AWS Newcastle and ASC Adelaide) in the 1990s. As it was contracting to ASC and AMECON killed off Cockatoo Island and split the shipbuilding demand. The mess things are in now is a natural by-product of the boom-bust in naval shipbuilding which is entirely the fault of the political leadership seeking sticker price savings via commercial contracting and high temp build contracts but they end paying more in the long run via project malaise. The Howard Government destroyed Williamstown’s capability to build ships by not ordering the Tenix OPC to replace the Fremantle boats.
Apart from the defence aspect of building national capability projects like this up skill a large segment of industry and the work force in one hit. It provides huge increases in qualifications, experience and skill for a generation of trades, engineers, project managers etc. who then go on to drive the rest of the economy for a decade or so after.
Would the Australian economy still be in such a good condition now if the Collins project hadn't dragged Australian industrial relations, quality assurance, project management, kicking and screaming into the twentieth century? I think not, others may disagree but as someone who saw the flow on effects into non defence manufacturing during the mid nineties I am sold on the theory.
Should defence be paying a premium for what is a benefit for the country as a whole, probably not. Maybe a little more transparency would be in order where the benefits of building locally are broken down in such a way that it could be illustrated that it is equivalent to "x" amount spent in other ways by other government departments.
A stack of the best defence industry people migrate to the mining industry and major infrastructure projects when times are good but return when things get hard. So defence industry becomes not just a training ground for new talent but a place where qualified people can keep their hand in and learn new skills.
The biggest issue is the boom or bust environment forced onto the industry by successive governments. It makes retaining a competent cadre in between projects impossible which in turn guarantees schedule delays and cost over runs while lessons are relearned and skill bases rebuilt. It would probably, on the basis that governments tend to flip flop between wanting local and imported gear, be more economical just to factor in the over head of properly maintaining industrial capability through continual provision of real work rather than stopping and starting all the time.
t68
Well-Known Member
So with hindsight ASC should never have started up, or become nationalised into Australia’s only defence shipbuilding faculty under government control, Built to sustain a strategic long term national defence shipbuilding program.
Sorry Abe, didn't see your reply while I was busy drafting mine otherwise I would have left mine shorter by not covering the same ground again.
Agree completely, added to whihc the dock and the building way in yard is too damn small anyway.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Question regarding CoA shipbuilding capacity.
At present, there are the following yards capable of constructing ocean-going vessels.
BAE Australia - Williamstown VIC
BAE Australia - Henderson WA (or is this still Tenix and/or just a repair yard/shiplift?)
ASC - Adelaide SA
Forgacs - Newcastle NSW
There also used to be
Cockatoo Island Dockyard - Sydney NSW which has been shut down
And there is also the
Thales Australia - Garden Island graving dock in Sydney Harbour NSW
Now, which of these yards, if any, would be large enough to construct a combination double-hulled tanker and stores replenishment vessel? As I understand it, HMAS Success was the largest vessel built in Australia for the RAN, and the ex-MV Delos and now HMAS Sirius is a good 30+ m longer, ~10 m wider, and displaces ~7,000 tonnes more than HMAS Success.
Basically what I am wondering is if any of the Australian yards are large enough to do new-build commercial shipbuilding? Or if all the shipbuilding is going to be for RAN programmes.
-Cheers
A few corrections for this list:
BAES (ex Tenix) at Henderson is just an Anzac class refit slipway, lift the ship out and clear it off. Next door to it is the AMC common user facility (CUF) which could be used to build ships upto AOR/CVS size with upgrade to current equipment. The Anzac Alliance, which includes BAES, used this CUF for the Perth ASMD refit but this did not involve removing the ship from the water. Much of the AMC CUF’s space is used supporting the NWS oil & gas activity.
Forgacs Newcastle is just a ship repair facility, upriver is Forgacs Tomago which used to be Carrington Slipway which built Tobruk and Aurora Australis. It is size limited to Tobruk size.
Garden Island is ship repair as well and has never built a ship.
Missing from your list is NQEA at Cairns (or whatever name they are using today) which can built ocean going ships including the Island class survey ships.
The only slipways big enough to build such a ship are at Cockatoo Island and Whyalla but they are closed down. However you can build it on the level. Level build could be done at the graving docks at Garden Island or Brisbane River (Forgacs next to the Sugar Warf, can’t remember its name). Or at the AMC CUF (Henderson) or the TechPort CUF (Port Adelaide) but both would need upgrading of their ship to water interface which are both designed for such upgrading. Of course TechPort is occupied for the next 10 years with the AWD and I don’t know if you could fit it into AMC. Bug might know about their schedule.
A lot of yards are flat out building oil & gas platforms. Not much competitive edge to build ocean going commercial yards against the high temp Korean and Japanese operations.
One doesn't need hindsight, it was obvious back in the early 1980s the government approach was not going to end well. In a way ASC might have been the way to go as a start up of a new operation to replace Cockatoo Island which was certainly the intent with awarding it the AWD and building TechPort around it. But armed with timetravel you would want to insure that effort was focused on the best equipped yard to meet demand. Which was Cockatoo Island that in the 1980s could build frigates, auxiliaries and submarines and was proven in all areas unlike the rest of them. Cockatoo was also the only legacy yard in the 1980s that could be easily adapted to on the level, modular block building.
Trackmaster
Member
With the problems BAE is having with the AWD blocks, is there increasing concern about the work they are doing on the LHDs?
Will they be able to manage that complex work, or are there a lot of people offering prayers to their chosen God each night?
Will they be able to manage that complex work, or are there a lot of people offering prayers to their chosen God each night?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I had left them off the list as I was under the impression that for all practical purposes, they had ceased to function as a concern capable of constructing large ocean-going vessels.
With 'level' builds, is that where different modules are constructed at different yards/locations, and then assembled at one location where the vessel is then launched into the water? Or does it mean something different?
Where I was going in my thinking, is that if a Australian yard can, build schedule permitting, construct both vessels for the RAN, as well as commercial shipping, then the various yard workers, engineers, trades, etc can be retained and kept occupied and skilled doing commercial work between RAN programmes. Essentially enabling the yard to get away from the whole boom/bust cycle which seems to have afflicted the various yards. Also, by being able to construct large commercial vessels, the yard would (should?) have sufficient space to build any type of vessel the RAN might need, ranging in size from a small vessel like an OPV or corvette, up to a multi-store tanker or additional amphib.
As I understand it, part of the reason why the South Korean yards are so inexpensive is that by maintaining a constant volume of work, the trades and yardworkers are constantly working and utilizing their skills. I am just trying to see if I can think of a way that an Australian yard could achieve a similar result.
-Cheers
Exactly, you need to give these yards continuity of work, so that they can retain key staff, train those there, and employ apprentices fo the long term.
Maybe they should look at a different business model, shipyards build vessels under a long lease agreement (which is already being done for smaller OPV's), whereby they don't just build the class but guarantee a fixed number of hulls are available at any one-time through the life cycle of the project (caveat being - damage caused on active service doesn't count).
This is already being done with aviation whereby manufacturers are obligated to ensure a fixed number of airframes are available at anyone time rather than simply provide spare parts/servicing under contract. The civilian/military relationship becomes better aligned with a common goal - keeping a fixed number of ships at sea. Both win, the military cuts costs by transferring much of maintenance burden to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer gains from a long term contract (10-20 years guaranteed revenue) allowing for longer term planning thus avoiding boom - bust cycles to ensure engineers / apprentices have a future with the same company.
With maritime fleets shrinking and projects becoming ever more expensive/complex I can't see an alternative solution unless you buy overseas and simply maintain at home.
The long lease model has been a disaster, in fact I think you'll see countries like the UK who were initial enthusiasts try and walk away - the problem will be penalty rates
long lease projects in australia will also end up hurting the taxpayer, more so than initially thought. GFC being an example of unpredictable influences that can damage at short notice
Keep it simple and do like Abe suggested, look at how many ships you need and their estimated life of type and space the procurement accordingly. The other thing you need to do is allow enough time to plan, do your design and development and sort your first of class issues before entering series production. Do these two things and voila you have a sustainable ship building industry.
....; and make sure you have dimension plans done and that your sub contractors understand them....
- Status