Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Australia does buy enough ships, the issue is poor planning that requires a large number of ships to be built in a short period of time, rather than over a longer sustainable period, for the RAN to retain a required level of capability. The end result is that some of the ships that could have been built locally need to be ordered from OS and the inability to deliver all that is required (through cost and schedule) results in reduced numbers and in some cases reduced capability for the RAN.

My hypothesis is that the acquisition of a capable surplus capability from the USN would have permitted Australia to spread its planned ship building program over a longer sustainable period. It was a missed opportunity that could have been used to avoid the issues the RAN and industry are now facing.

Sadly the writing was on the wall in the mid 90s when just about every existing asset was either being planned to be retired without replacement or was being life extended out to 2010-2015. Basically the government plan was to do stuff all for 15 to 20 years and leave a future government the job of cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately (for them) the increased operational tempo, botched upgrade and maintenance programs saw capabilities fall over well before their planed out of service dates.

The issue, as always, is lack of coherent planning and penny pinching until things become urgent. This results in added costs for reduced capability over the longer term.

One of the reasons we got in this mess was a previous government thought there was no need to build new ships at all because the fat ships could be life extended or replaced with COTs option as required and the ANZACs could be ungraded with AEGIS, SPY-1F and SM-2. I thought they were morons at the time and they have proven me right.

 

[t68]

In today's hearldsun there is a small story about no money for ships on one hand it's saying no new vessels for the RAN but we have to do something for BAE, Forgacs& ASC to keep it workers.

They are going to have to do something I regards to support vessels sooner rather than later.

 

[Sea Toby]

Australia does buy enough ships, the issue is poor planning that requires a large number of ships to be built in a short period of time, rather than over a longer sustainable period, for the RAN to retain a required level of capability. The end result is that some of the ships that could have been built locally need to be ordered from OS and the inability to deliver all that is required (through cost and schedule) results in reduced numbers and in some cases reduced capability for the RAN.

My hypothesis is that the acquisition of a capable surplus capability from the USN would have permitted Australia to spread its planned ship building program over a longer sustainable period. It was a missed opportunity that could have been used to avoid the issues the RAN and industry are now facing.

Sadly the writing was on the wall in the mid 90s when just about every existing asset was either being planned to be retired without replacement or was being life extended out to 2010-2015. Basically the government plan was to do stuff all for 15 to 20 years and leave a future government the job of cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately (for them) the increased operational tempo, botched upgrade and maintenance programs saw capabilities fall over well before their planed out of service dates.

The issue, as always, is lack of coherent planning and penny pinching until things become urgent. This results in added costs for reduced capability over the longer term.

The shipyards and the government did plan, but the union workers threw a monkey wrench into the cogs. You will never be able to buy enough ships when the ships which are being built take twice as long to build and the price trebles due to the lack of productivity. Simply put, HMAS Success was a total failure in ship building. The ship was built at the price of Australia's shipbuilding industry.

 

[Volkodav]

The shipyards and the government did plan, but the union workers threw a monkey wrench into the cogs. You will never be able to buy enough ships when the ships which are being built take twice as long to build and the price trebles due to the lack of productivity. Simply put, HMAS Success was a total failure in ship building. The ship was built at the price of Australia's shipbuilding industry.

No disagree totally. Success is a very old project and cherry picking it as an example completely ignores the revolution in shipbuilding that occurred with the Australian Frigate Project and the Collins class program. Want a good example, BIW, with the support of the shipbuilding and detail design capability of the entire eastern seaboard of the USA still took over 6 years to deliver DDG51, now they churn them out in less than half that time. Do you get what I am saying? Heavy and high tech industrial capability can not be turned off and on like a light switch, it needs to be grown and then sustained sustained. Australia's issue is we grow the industry over and over again and let it die over and over again, suffering the same growing pains and making the same mistakes over and over again.Anyone who believes otherwise clearly has no technical background what so ever.

 

[a4skyhawk1]

Greg Combet was on the ABC news last night ,talking about how our future sub program could absorb some of the car manufactures industry workers.
His point was that,the government could fast track Sea 1000 creating a number of new manufacturing jobs.

It seems like this could become a political issue,jobs ..jobs..jobs.. oh and new subs !

Do you want people who did "monkey-see monkey-do" process work building our submarines? Really???

 

[the road runner]

Do you want people who did "monkey-see monkey-do" process work building our submarines? Really???

Where did i state i wanted a holden mechanic to build our future subs?

All i said was , Greg Combet was on the ABC and stated what he said.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Do you want people who did "monkey-see monkey-do" process work building our submarines? Really???

Maybe some of the engineers and managers. The automotive industry is fairly attractive to professionals. Big companies, with big ideas, cutting edge technology, global experience, regular challenging work and career progression. Automotives could pay about 30% less and still have a choice of great graduates and experienced professional staff (strictly engineers, designers and managers) because of the interest in the industry.

The good stuff will be mostly kept by the manufacturers, the alright will get jobs elsewhere, the rest are largely unskilled robots who want top dollar. Then you have the truck drivers, the mechanics for the trucks, people who worked in part suppliers doing various robot stuff some trades etc.

 

[Volkodav]

Do you want people who did "monkey-see monkey-do" process work building our submarines? Really???

Many of the engineering, trades, technical people are very good and probably would migrate to defence successfully. The line monkeys and their supervisors, I wouldn't trust them to mow my lawn.

Many working in defence in Adelaide had worked for Mitsubishi previously in technical role so there is the precedent. The only issue I see is the previous government slowed down the destroyer project and reduced recruitment to make a short term saving that will result in a long term blow out. There are not as many jobs as they make out there to be.

 

[a4skyhawk1]

The line monkeys and their supervisors, I wouldn't trust them to mow my lawn.

The "post" was meant very much tongue in cheek but you seem to have hit my target.

In general I don't think Australia can support the kind of Defence Industry that we'd like, just not enough volume and too high labour costs.

We do , however, appear to be quite adept around the peripheral areas. There's nothing wrong with what we're doing buying "off the shelf" with "local input" to suit our needs. It certainly works way better than the US system.

I base this ENTIRELY on what I "know and think" - same with all my posts unless I say otherwise or quote a specific source. I am not a scholar or an expert, just a bloke who's served and been around a bit and believe I have earned my beliefs and opinions.

I'm not too sure why I wrote the last paragraph - perhaps an effort to not be "spoken down to" - maybe I'm a little too touchy. Cheers Steve

 

[ASSAIL]

Looks like HMAS Canberra is going to put to sea scheduled for departure on Feb 28th. The flight deck is clear of all construction huts, the final Satcom antennas have been installed on the mid mast, and a flurry of stores and material trucks have been loading her up. Wonder if a flotilla of smaller vessels is going to follow her as she steams for the heads and out into Bass Strait.

Today is the day you reported. Has there been any further update?

 

[rand0m]

Today is the day you reported. Has there been any further update?

Still at Williamstown, no change...

 

[Samoa]

Today is the day you reported. Has there been any further update?

Monday is it. Delay to provide additional training for commercial crew. Fingers crossed. :lam

 

[StevoJH]

Monday is it. Delay to provide additional training for commercial crew. Fingers crossed. :lam

Why a commercial crew and not an RAN crew?

 

[Samoa]

Why a commercial crew and not an RAN crew?

She's not handed over yet, that will occur later in the year. While named, she's not commissioned, and can't fly the white ensign (that's my understanding anyway). RAN will be aboard as sea-riders only.

 

[StoresBasher]

She's not handed over yet, that will occur later in the year. While named, she's not commissioned, and can't fly the white ensign (that's my understanding anyway). RAN will be aboard as sea-riders only.

The ship still belongs to the contractors, is still referred to as NUship Canberra and cannot hoist the AWE until she is commissioned.

 

[alexsa]

The ship still belongs to the contractors, is still referred to as NUship Canberra and cannot hoist the AWE until she is commissioned.

It is more a case of who has beneficial control of the ship as oppose to the flag it flys. The Commonwealth will essentially own the ship as most of the payments have been made...... but as you not it is not handed over.

The insurance and management risk rests with the yard. The crew will be more than seariders but command will rest with a commercial master.

 

[John Fedup]

Well done Australia! In Canada, we can't seem to get past the requirement stage, let alone a design, budget, or build partner. I guess it's the geography issue that allows Cdn politicians to waffle on defence matters.

 

[StoresBasher]

It is more a case of who has beneficial control of the ship as oppose to the flag it flys. The Commonwealth will essentially own the ship as most of the payments have been made...... but as you not it is not handed over.

The insurance and management risk rests with the yard. The crew will be more than seariders but command will rest with a commercial master.

Yup that exactly what I meant to say

 

[alexsa]

Yup that exactly what I meant to say

Sorry I was not trying to be pedantic but a ship can be a warship or Naval ship (for the purpose of Australian legislation) even where it is not commissioned.

Sea trials of such ships are a bit of a hybrid, particularly as the ship does not generally comply with all convention standards applicable to a commercial vessel and the vessel cannot be certified in the same manner. Added to this is that the commercial regulator does not normally have visibility of the design and construction of the vessel (or any say in it). The risk really sits with the yard and Navy.

 

[Paddy54]

Well done Australia! In Canada, we can't seem to get past the requirement stage, let alone a design, budget, or build partner. I guess it's the geography issue that allows Cdn politicians to waffle on defence matters.

Oz pollies are our main problem. Utter fountains of codswallop but are extremely tight where money is concerned. Put it off till the other mob are in power & then yell at them for not constructing ships locally.

Have always thought that there should be a greater partnership between the Canadians & ourselves. Common designs & locally built.

But it will never happen. The current mob are too busy demonising our education & health systems whilst looking after their 'mates'.