Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
WA Mafia on the front bench.......
private company - not listed
Are you entirely sure about that?
AUSTAL LIMITED (ASB) - ASX Listed Company Information Fact Sheet
I bloody hope so as I asked them a few years back when I was contracting and trying to negotiate a small fleet contract for a SEA Navy
Don't get me wrong the Capes are a leap over the Armidale's but they are still not suitable for what the RAN needs (as opposed to what the government chooses to buy).
The RAN needs a minimum of an OPV for this job and anything less is ultimately a waste of time and money.
Agree 100%. But the OPV needs to be able to operate in all our AOR (including southern ocean) for much of the time. The MRV is a compromise that would struggle in this area.
Best answer is to step away from the 2000 tonne limit and look at a long range rugged platform.
Shipbuilding companies lobby Government for a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer | News.com.au
"A fourth vessel has always been a possibility, but Navy Chief Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs has opposed the $2 billion ship due to potential manning problems and expensive technical challenges, including future combat systems upgrades.
Defence Minister David Johnston this week called for two fresh briefing papers on the project as he plots a way forward to avoid the so-called navy shipbuilding "valley of death'' when work runs out between 2015 and 2020."
I see the 4th AWD is at least being pushed by manufacturers. Not much movement on the political or RAN side of things. Not much time left.
"A fourth vessel has always been a possibility, but Navy Chief Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs has opposed the $2 billion ship due to potential manning problems and expensive technical challenges, including future combat systems upgrades.
Defence Minister David Johnston this week called for two fresh briefing papers on the project as he plots a way forward to avoid the so-called navy shipbuilding "valley of death'' when work runs out between 2015 and 2020."
I see the 4th AWD is at least being pushed by manufacturers. Not much movement on the political or RAN side of things. Not much time left.
The issue is that Defence is still constrained on spending despite what Govt says to the public. So if there is a 4th AWD then we will have the problems that VADM Griggs hilights
If they want to avoid the valley of death then they need to look at multi-role vessels rather than the high end asset which invites its own limitations such as diff skillsets amongst crew and more expensive fitouts etc.....
More and less sophisticated assets provides greater tasking and mission flexibility - and esp at the maritime patrol level
Manning? With nearly ten years to get ready for the arrival of any 4th AWD and one that could easily be covered by paying off an ANZAC Class frigate early if need be, not to mention a saving in expenditure if that single ANZAC wasn't given ASMD?
That appears to me one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen...
ADO has just gone through a period where we were told (prev govt) that ADO was embargoed from cuts. We had 3 rounds of personnel cuts that never hit the press
Just prior to the change of Govt we were told to expect some massive changes - and ADO triggered another round of cuts internally to avoid a larger public slash
There is still a view that we will be subject to further cuts despite the public being told otherwise
I'd suggest that VADM has that clearly front and centre in his internal focus
The 4th has been talked about since before the F-100 variant was selected. It will keep resurfacing, particularly given there is a lack of work right where a 4th awd could and would be built.
I can understand the Griggs pov. But in reality, the navy alone and in isolation does not determine what we get. Sustainability, viability, etc come into it. Given that last indication was that Sea5000 was going to be much smaller than we expected missing a few hulls than what we currently got, looking a gift horse of a 4th AWD in the mouth may be a regrettable decision. I agree with ADmk2 - crewing seems to be one of the weaker points to refuse a 4th AWD I can't see it being the primary reason.
It would be silly to build a AWD to keep people busy, as it a very expensive type and a much better argument not to build it, but I do think there would be purpose to 4 AWD's. It was included in the option in the original AWD deal, so I assume the Navy was aware of its possible chance of existence. Many other navies have 4 or more type of this vessel. Given the ADF and Australia's capability plans, it would seem to an outsider to be a reasonable number.
I can understand the Griggs pov. But in reality, the navy alone and in isolation does not determine what we get. Sustainability, viability, etc come into it. Given that last indication was that Sea5000 was going to be much smaller than we expected missing a few hulls than what we currently got, looking a gift horse of a 4th AWD in the mouth may be a regrettable decision. I agree with ADmk2 - crewing seems to be one of the weaker points to refuse a 4th AWD I can't see it being the primary reason.
It would be silly to build a AWD to keep people busy, as it a very expensive type and a much better argument not to build it, but I do think there would be purpose to 4 AWD's. It was included in the option in the original AWD deal, so I assume the Navy was aware of its possible chance of existence. Many other navies have 4 or more type of this vessel. Given the ADF and Australia's capability plans, it would seem to an outsider to be a reasonable number.
Well, industry hasn't done themselves any favours when they do the revolving door visits to Ministers (Fed and State) and then publicly run the emotional news drips about jobs etc... (even though some of it is defensible)
Govt has a role to develop the country, Defence has a view that its job is not to sustain industry, its job is to determine the best capability in the funds available and with force balance in consideration - ie all the services have to compete for the same bucket of money
Buying assets to just address industry concerns is just as stupid as mismanaging funds already allocated.
CMDR SubSquadron summed it up well a few years back when he said to industry - (paraphrase) "your job is to build subs - not to tell us how to use them or how many to buy"
1 x additional AWD won't save the death spiral - 12 x MPV's has a better chance of creating a deeper build and maint cycle
John Newman
The Bunker Group
When Griggs is reported as saying 'expensive technical challenges, including combat systems upgrades' is a concern, why exactly is that?
Is he suggesting that a 4th AWD would end up being fitted with different versions of those system compared to the original three?
Is it the case that the three original combat systems to be installed on the ships under construction have already been manufactured and are now superseded for example?
If so, would it be impossible or impractical to have a 4th set of systems manufactured to the same spec as the original? I'm sure there is an additional cost in producing a 'one off' if that is the case, but then again it means all four systems are in sync so that future upgrades are not an issue.
As to the potential manning issues, as ADMk2 said, there would appear be plenty of years ahead before commissioning to adjust for that, and considering too the Abbott Government has committed to increasing Defence spending to 2% of GDP within 10 years.
One would assume that the growth in spending to 2% would not only allow for more spending on hardware but also manpower too.
If a 4th AWD is to be ordered to fill the valley of death, when would it have to be ordered? Is this something that would have to be decided on and announced well before the new DWP due in 18mths?
Fair enough but as we are downsizing from 4 manned FFG's to 3 AWD's at the present time under current plans, yet considering increasing to 12 subs, it seems a rather arbitrary point on which to base an argument. Was that argument made to KRudd?
I strongly doubt it...
Skimmer manning is being freed up at the present time, whether that is cut or not remains to be seen but the fact remains we are moving to the smallest combat fleet we've maintained since prior to WW2 (if my sums are correct) with 11 major surface combatants and moving to a situation where we cannot guarantee the availability of the very vessel we are basing our long term air defence construct around...
I don 't see domestic shipbuilding as important as some do (let's face it we're only assembling knock- down kits for things like subs and destroyers anyway) but jobs are important and whether the AWD addresses the 'valley of death' or not shouldn't really be Navy's concern but whether or not the extra AWD is necessary for our defence and given it was originally optioned as well as included in a White Paper, clearly it was considered of signifcqnt importance at some point.
Personally I think it's extremely important given the move to increased amphibious capability, far moreso than the ludicruously large number of planned future subs.
ah, but the issue for ADO is that when they make recommendations, Govt exercises privilege and comes to its own conclusions.
I've seen quite a few ADO submissions get canned and the Govt in all its wisdom decide on something else.
Resubmitting white papers on a continual basis just because the DefMins office disagrees with the direction is not a good sign - you end up giving them what they want to read
John Newman
The Bunker Group
What concerns me even more than the drop from 12 to 11 by the end of this decade is how much smaller will the major surface combatant fleet be when the 8 Anzac's are replaced by the Future Frigates starting in the following decade.
In the 2009 DWP it specifically mentioned '8' Future Frigates, by the time the recent 2013 DWP was release the number '8' had disappeared, no mention of numbers whatsoever. (and we still haven't seen the 2013 public version of the DCP to confirm either way, 6 or 8).
And, in my opinion, that possible reduction was backed up by comments earlier this year when, then, Def Min Smith was holding a joint press conference with the UK Def Min where they were discussing the T26 and Smith said 'half a dozen, 6' as the numbers to be built.
Ok, yes there is now a new Government and we have to wait to see what they do, but if that is where the Destroyer/Frigate fleet is heading, it could mean a fleet size of as few as 9 ships.
If the Government does proceed with a 4th AWD, to satisfy industry, maybe Navy will look back if it only receives 6 Future Frigates, it might say, glad we got that!
(And talking of the size of the major surface combatant fleet in the past, it doesn't seem that long ago, back in the early '70's when the population was around 13 million (10 million less than today) there were the 3 DDG's, 3 Daring DD's, 1 Battle Class (Anzac) in the training role and the 6 River Frigates, that's 12 (+1) and not forgetting Melbourne and her air arm too!)
Don't forget the training squadron at that time also included HMAS Queenborough and HMAS Sydney.
- Status