Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

This start-stop method of ship building has got to change. Rather than just build 3 AWD's then wait a bunch of years before building the ANZAC replacements, just keep building AWD's.

I felt the same as Volkodav - I was looking for a 'like' button.

A question for those with more expertise than me ... If the RAN was to order a 4th Hobart what would be the deadline to order the AEGIS system?

Unfortunately I expect a 4th AWD has already gone the same way as the never ordered 4th Adams class DDG...


Tas

 

[Volkodav]

I felt the same as Volkodav - I was looking for a 'like' button.

A question for those with more expertise than me ... If the RAN was to order a 4th Hobart what would be the deadline to order the AEGIS system?

Unfortunately I expect a 4th AWD has already gone the same way as the never ordered 4th Adams class DDG...


Tas

I don't know about AEGIS for sure but the initial concern was that production was winding down with the DDG 1000 coming along. Now its a different story with other nations looking at AEGIS (possible Greece and Turkey I have heard) and the US restarting DDG 51 production the system will be available for longer than we anticipated.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

IIRC HMAS Success was the largest RAN vessel ever built in Australia, but Cockatoo Island Dockyard is no longer in operation and AFAIK Williamstown and Henderson are both not up to building a vessel that large without significant expansion. Not sure, but I somehow doubt ASC would be up to the task of building such a large vessel either, unless there was expansion.

I imagine that Williamstown would require modernisation/upgrade to build a large AOR-sized vessel. The slipway isn't large enough as is.
Given Henderson has no previous shipbuilding capability of this magnitude it would need to be established, but do-able.

Techport (the South Australia site) has a plan in place to expand the facilities so that the shiplift can be upgraded to 210m long (it is currently 156m) and lifting 22000 tonnes (currently 9300 tonnes). The lift is 34m wide and max draught is 9.5m. So the building birth and the lift can be upgraded and ASC will have had recent shipbuilding experience (AWDs).

A not so ideal option that has been discussed is it could be assembled in a drydock such as Captain Cook or Cairncross in Brisbane. I don't know how available they are but a floating dock could be leased or purchased for the assembling period.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

I felt the same as Volkodav - I was looking for a 'like' button.

A question for those with more expertise than me ... If the RAN was to order a 4th Hobart what would be the deadline to order the AEGIS system?

Unfortunately I expect a 4th AWD has already gone the same way as the never ordered 4th Adams class DDG...

Tas

Wasn't there some discussion in this thread some weeks/months? ago regarding a 4th AWD and when it needs to be ordered and long-lead items contracted/purchased? Someone came in and said that the date had already passed. I think AegisFC may have contributed, but I don't quite remember the details. Hopefully someone here has a better memory than I do.

But one LCM is better than no LCM. Also the secondary support ships like the Windermere and its JP 3033 repalcement all have big cranes and decks to carry additional LCMs.

JP3033? Is it new and do you have a link? It isn't in the 2011 DCP nor the June and August supplements.

 

[Todjaeger]

Wasn't there some discussion in this thread some weeks/months? ago regarding a 4th AWD and when it needs to be ordered and long-lead items contracted/purchased? Someone came in and said that the date had already passed. I think AegisFC may have contributed, but I don't quite remember the details. Hopefully someone here has a better memory than I do.

Abe and I had discussed this a little starting on post# 7655 and running until 7660. The basic gist is that a 4th AWD might be possible, but it would need to be ordered essentially now in order to prevent a construction gap after the 3rd AWD.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

I imagine that Williamstown would require modernisation/upgrade to build a large AOR-sized vessel. The slipway isn't large enough as is.
Given Henderson has no previous shipbuilding capability of this magnitude it would need to be established, but do-able.

Techport (the South Australia site) has a plan in place to expand the facilities so that the shiplift can be upgraded to 210m long (it is currently 156m) and lifting 22000 tonnes (currently 9300 tonnes). The lift is 34m wide and max draught is 9.5m. So the building birth and the lift can be upgraded and ASC will have had recent shipbuilding experience (AWDs).

A not so ideal option that has been discussed is it could be assembled in a drydock such as Captain Cook or Cairncross in Brisbane. I don't know how available they are but a floating dock could be leased or purchased for the assembling period.

Why not follow the RFA example, & have it built wherever's cheapest, & finished in Oz? I'm sure BMT & Daewoo would be happy to oblige.

 

[Todjaeger]

Todjaeger: ASC has the space to build additional capacity and much of the brand new ship yard was based on BIWs new facilities, i.e. those being used to build DDG 51s and DDG 1000’s, they are capable of building much larger ships with limited expenditure to expand the current facilities. There are very large plots of vacant land adjacent to the new shipyard and CUF, it just needs the contracts to justify the development.

AND

Techport (the South Australia site) has a plan in place to expand the facilities so that the shiplift can be upgraded to 210m long (it is currently 156m) and lifting 22000 tonnes (currently 9300 tonnes). The lift is 34m wide and max draught is 9.5m. So the building birth and the lift can be upgraded and ASC will have had recent shipbuilding experience (AWDs).

It is good to hear that the Techport has room to expand if/when needed. The question and concern remains though. A shiplift able to handle a 156 m/9,300 tonne vessel is large enough to handle the AWD, the Anzac II and anything else the same size or smaller than the AWD. However, it would need to be upgraded to handle something like AO/AOR construction, the LSD or LPD replacement for Choules, and if the LHD's were brought in for refit.

Would there be sufficient demand to justify not only the cost to the expansion, but more importantly keep the skilled workers occupied?

Also (and this is more political in nature) can/would Gov't keep directing work to one particular yard even after which party is in power changes?

It almost seems like a Project is needed just to determine the what, where and how of Australian naval construction.

-Cheers

 

[hairyman]

My understanding is that the next project after the AWD's at ASC is the Collins replacement. I cant see ASC being in the running for the Anzac II's. Also I always imagined that Austal might be a starter for the OPC's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

JP3033 can't be discussed in total here because its currently in legal discussions

 

[Todjaeger]

My understanding is that the next project after the AWD's at ASC is the Collins replacement. I cant see ASC being in the running for the Anzac II's. Also I always imagined that Austal might be a starter for the OPC's.

What you suggest sort of illustrates the problem. If a yard other than ASC is the prime for the Anzac II, that would leave the Anzac II to be built by BAE at either Williamstown or Henderson, or Thales Australia might be able to setup a facility to launch frigates, or perhaps Forgacs. Unfortunately of these, only Williamstown has had recent work building naval vessels, but since the Anzac II programme is likely not being stood up until 2020-ish, then the yard would be an 'inexperienced' one, in that they will not have performed the lead functions in 15+ years.

All the experience which the ASC yard & workforce would have built up during production of the AWD's would not be working on the Anzac II. This would be IMO an even greater issue if the Anzac II hull is indeed based off the AWD, but with a different superstructure and fitout, as ASC would have even more experience with such a hullform.

As for the OPC going to Austal, do you mean the OCV? The OPC was to have been a 1990's programme where Tenix would construct OPV's to replace the FCPB's IIRC, which got delayed then cancelled with Austal being awarded a contract to build the ACPB's as the Fremantle replacement. Personally, I hope Austal does not get the OCV contract, as that would IMO be contrary to the best interests of the RAN and the Commonwealth. Austal specializes in and does very good work with aluminum multi-hull vessels. They can build mono-hulls (like the Bay-class and Armidale-class patrol boats...) but they still work with aluminum. Not only is aluminum more expensive to work with for marine construction, it lacks the fatigue life of mild steel. That is part of why the ACPB will need to be replaced after ~15-20 years.

If people were also to suggest an Austal design like the MRV 80 be put up as an OCV... Such a design as is, is IMO quite unsuitable for the RAN needs. This has come up a few times before, but such a shallow draught, aluminum multi-hull is built to HSC standards, which means that needs to remain within ~8 hours sailing time to a port. That would allow the class to patrol portions of the EEZ in and around mainland Australia, but would likely put Cocos (Keeling) Island and Christmas Island out of reach, nevermind Heard & McDonald Islands.

I suspect that even if the design were redone but in steel, it would still be unsuitable based off performance. Mult-hulls AFAIK are good at maximizing internal volume relative to draught and displacement, but that comes at the cost of max total displacement. Further, due to the dimensions above the waterline the vessel's seaworthiness in high sea states can be rather poor. Going with an Austal design again would likely restrict the OCV to operating along Australia's north shelf, and would likely not permit an OCV to accompany a RAN/allied task force to either provide littoral support, MCM or survey work.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What you suggest sort of illustrates the problem. If a yard other than ASC is the prime for the Anzac II, that would leave the Anzac II to be built by BAE at either Williamstown or Henderson, or Thales Australia might be able to setup a facility to launch frigates, or perhaps Forgacs.

ASC don’t own the AWD yard the South Australian government does. It is called TechPort and is a common user facility (CUF). It is right beside ASC’s existing yard but it is feasible that another major shipbuilder like BAES or Thales Australia could build ships and submarines there. There is expansion space behind the hardstand to easily fit in facilities larger than the ASC halls.

This is why the Govt. can say with a straight face that the SEA 1000 submarine will be built in Adelaide but not necessarily by ASC. The same could be said for the SEA 5000 frigate. Heck you could even build a Lewis and Clark AOR or a Canberra LHD there with the sealift expansion option.

 

[StingrayOZ]

. Heck you could even build a Lewis and Clark AOR or a Canberra LHD there with the sealift expansion option.

Give the relatively low volume of builds, I would have though having facilities big enough to build all the ship types (LHD, AWD, FF, AOR etc) at the one place would have been a requirement to sustainable ship building. With all the money the government had for improving infrastructure (back when it was flush with cash) it seems an oversight that the site wasn't expanded on. What there a particular reason for this?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Give the relatively low volume of builds, I would have though having facilities big enough to build all the ship types (LHD, AWD, FF, AOR etc) at the one place would have been a requirement to sustainable ship building. With all the money the government had for improving infrastructure (back when it was flush with cash) it seems an oversight that the site wasn't expanded on. What there a particular reason for this?

The site can build larger ships it just needs an extension to the new shiplift which it was designed for. As Volk pointed out Techport is basically a copy of BIW after their flat hardstand modernisation. Which is enough space to build up to two ships of ~20,000 tonnes light displacement pre fit out. There was no point in building the bigger shiplift from scratch because they didn’t have those contracts but if they come then it’s a pretty simple matter to upgrade the shiplift.

 

[StevoJH]

It is good to hear that the Techport has room to expand if/when needed. The question and concern remains though. A shiplift able to handle a 156 m/9,300 tonne vessel is large enough to handle the AWD, the Anzac II and anything else the same size or smaller than the AWD. However, it would need to be upgraded to handle something like AO/AOR construction, the LSD or LPD replacement for Choules, and if the LHD's were brought in for refit.

I would presume LHD refits would be at the Captain Cook dock in Sydney.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would presume LHD refits would be at the Captain Cook dock in Sydney.

Or Forgacs in Brisbane. Much easier just to dock a ship than to shiplift it. Also the hard stand at Techport is likely to be full of new construction and whacking a ship on it for refit will cause all sorts of problems.

The Techport shiplift from their webpage:

The shiplift is the largest in the southern hemisphere, capable of supporting a vessel up to 9,300 tonnes. At 156 metres long and 34 metres wide, it descends 18 metres into the water to launch ships.

The shiplift's design incorporates the potential to expand to 210 metres with a 22,000 tonne lifting capacity.

Bear in mind that a ship that is launched hasn't been fitted out and is usually bare of a lot of equipment and therefore weight. Also the length is that of the bottom of the ship and doesn't have to include forward (to a degree) and aft overhang.

 

[ASSAIL]

Bear in mind that a ship that is launched hasn't been fitted out and is usually bare of a lot of equipment and therefore weight. Also the length is that of the bottom of the ship and doesn't have to include forward (to a degree) and aft overhang.

[

The limiting factor on a shiplift is "centre of gravity". Provided it can be positioned near the linear centre of the shiplift platform then max weight can be achieved.
A fair bit of overhang can be tolerated on the seaward end of the platform provided CoG is not too far from centre and hogging forces are not too great but the hard stand end does not allow any overhang.
Cheers

 

[t68]

Sorry to go off topic,
Just out of curiosity when the RAN were doing the capability study for the LHD and ruled out the Wasp class and the US were doing there level best to secure a low manning levels, does anyone have a rough ball park figure on how low they could go?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry to go off topic,
Just out of curiosity when the RAN were doing the capability study for the LHD and ruled out the Wasp class and the US were doing there level best to secure a low manning levels, does anyone have a rough ball park figure on how low they could go?

AMPT10E might know as he was "work" familiar with the manning issues around the AWD's and comparative US offers...

 

[AMTP10E]

Sorry to go off topic,
Just out of curiosity when the RAN were doing the capability study for the LHD and ruled out the Wasp class and the US were doing there level best to secure a low manning levels, does anyone have a rough ball park figure on how low they could go?

Wasp was never looked at seriously for one simple reason.

It is WAY too big.

Crewing: using the US SoC, just one would require a quarter of Fleet Command. For two ships the RAN would have to grow another 3000 personnel. Even if we could reduce the crew to 2/3 of the US (extremely unadvisable if not actually impossible) we'd still have to grow navy to crew her.

Cost: To build and operate is (by RAN standards) eye wateringly expensive. The cost of the LHDs is making Navy wince as it is, Wasp costs would be the fiscal equivalent of a kick to the family jewels.

Capability: Two Wasp's could carry the entire 1st Brigade and lifting better than half our land combat power isn't on anyone's capability requirements. Plus we'd run out of helos before we'd run out of space for them.

Getting back to the question of how low could a Wasp go in manning; my team have been working on crew fatigue on the ANZAC's (which are the first real minimum manned surface ships in the RAN). We're yet to finalise the results and publish our findings/recommendations but looking at what other studies have reported it's pretty clear.

By moving away from the traditional schemes of complement to minimum manning you end up with increased personnel fatigue (sleep deprivation levels equal to blood alcohol readings that would see you behind bars in a car), increased accident rates, introduction of ship stopping individuals, increased separation rates, decreased ability to conduct simultaneous operations (especially in defence watches), increased burdens of officers and senior sailors, higher equipment defects (especially if the shore support 'tail' is cut back is subsequent cost cutting drives)...

For Wasp, while the mix of skill sets could be adjusted, the total number of crew needs to stay roughly the same if you want the full capability and avoid the snake eating its own tail.

 

[Tasman]

Getting back to the question of how low could a Wasp go in manning; my team have been working on crew fatigue on the ANZAC's (which are the first real minimum manned surface ships in the RAN). We're yet to finalise the results and publish our findings/recommendations but looking at what other studies have reported it's pretty clear.

By moving away from the traditional schemes of complement to minimum manning you end up with increased personnel fatigue (sleep deprivation levels equal to blood alcohol readings that would see you behind bars in a car), increased accident rates, introduction of ship stopping individuals, increased separation rates, decreased ability to conduct simultaneous operations (especially in defence watches), increased burdens of officers and senior sailors, higher equipment defects (especially if the shore support 'tail' is cut back is subsequent cost cutting drives)...

Thanks for such a clear explanation of some of the hazards of minimum crewing. It does make me worry about the long term effects on the Anzacs and indeed the whole operational fleet. Reducing staffing levels seems to be the catchcry of anyone running anything nowadays (industry, hospitals, schools, etc) and although it helps meet short term budget targets I think the long term results are likely to be disasterous. In the case of the RAN I fear it will result in an even lower retention rate and a greater likelyhood of ships ending their service lives earlier than planned. In a worse case scenario it could lead to loss of lives or a major maritime disaster.

If Government will not fund the RAN to man its ships at a reasonable level would it be better to accept a reduced number in full commission? That thought sends shivers down my spine because the number of surface combatants has already shrunk and I can't see how navy could meet its commitments with less. But does the RAN need to send a message that it cannot meet the government's own commitments (including disaster relief which seems to be a politically popular requirement of the Defence Force) unless manning levels are raised?

Tas