Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Really dont care who builds the subs or where they are built, as long as we get good subs on time and on budget, or close.
Dont hear everyone getting upset about the LHD builds in Spain, JSF builds in the US etc etc, just because we can, is not a good enough reason. Im yet ro see an Australian project come in on time on budget with few issues after delivery. Even the F88 was a disaster at the start, took forever to deliver to all regular units, had quite a few issues to.
What concerned me from the get go was we went from an Australian designed and built option for $30b, to an overseas designed Australian built option for $40b and now, unless I have it completely ar$e about, we are hearing $50b for a Japanese MOTS build. It just made no sense, then in the last few weeks three bits of information came out:

1. The Japanese experts were very impressed with the Adelaide facility, its build strategy and technics, and its maintenance capabilities as they were in advance of what they have and do in Japan.
(hardly surprising as one of the reasons Kockums was selected is they were world leaders in these areas, also EB, USN and DSTO have all been very involved in refining and improving things at Adelaide)

2. To meet the number of submarines on the schedule required, Japan would have to build a new facility and expand their trained workforce as their current yards are already busy building for the JMSDF.

3. The entire concept of ceasing local capability in favor of buying submarines from Japan, including the often irrational, occasionally rabid and contradictory attacks on ASC, is actually the brain child of a group of current and former senior DFAT staff who came up with and have been pushing the concept as a way to strengthen ties with Japan, leading to a formal alliance and FTA. A selling point used to get the government on board was increased access to Japan for agricultural produce as well as DFATs overwhelming desire for alliance and trade.

If any of the above is true, let alone all of it, the public should be very concerned, as while alliances and trade are critical, should we be destroying sovereign, strategic capability and future economic prosperity in attempt to buy it? Should we be paying more for a good product from Japan than an as good or possibly better / more suitable local product?
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Really dont care who builds the subs or where they are built, as long as we get good subs on time and on budget, or close.
Dont hear everyone getting upset about the LHD builds in Spain, JSF builds in the US etc etc, just because we can, is not a good enough reason. Im yet ro see an Australian project come in on time on budget with few issues after delivery. Even the F88 was a disaster at the start, took forever to deliver to all regular units, had quite a few issues to.
I think the difference is the LHD's would have been a limited production product while at the time the impression was that Spain was interested in the IMV Bushmasters, Hence viewed as a give and take.

With the F-35's, Well Australian companies are involved in the part's line creating job's here in Australia so realistically pointless to complain about that. We could try and build most of 72 aircraft our selves at a premium or we could provide a fraction of the components for over 3,000 aircraft with no premium.

And true, The F88 was a disaster, Though these days aren't our variants more advanced then the actual companies?? (Steyr??)
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I think the difference is the LHD's would have been a limited production product while at the time the impression was that Spain was interested in the IMV Bushmasters, Hence viewed as a give and take.

With the F-35's, Well Australian companies are involved in the part's line creating job's here in Australia so realistically pointless to complain about that. We could try and build most of 72 aircraft our selves at a premium or we could provide a fraction of the components for over 3,000 aircraft with no premium.

And true, The F88 was a disaster, Though these days aren't our variants more advanced then the actual companies?? (Steyr??)

Agree with your points made. In relation to the LHD build unless we expanded tech port don't think we could have built them here. Does anyone know roughly how long it would take to increase the size of tech port and what would have been the dealt to receiving the LHD?
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Really dont care who builds the subs or where they are built, as long as we get good subs on time and on budget, or close.
Dont hear everyone getting upset about the LHD builds in Spain, JSF builds in the US etc etc, just because we can, is not a good enough reason. Im yet ro see an Australian project come in on time on budget with few issues after delivery. Even the F88 was a disaster at the start, took forever to deliver to all regular units, had quite a few issues to.
I think we can all agree that we would like good subs on time and on budget.

If I have a concern, it's having such a major strategic asset such as one's submarine arm linked to a country that is potentially in a regional flash point such as North Asia.
Japan is a wonderful country that has an amazing manufacturing capacity, however it is in a region that Australia has many important trading relationships. For China,South Korea,Taiwan and Japan we would hope for a peacful future together,however it must be acknowledged that this region is armed to the hilt and there are many reasons for such military posturing.
Buying Japanese not only ties us to a particular subamarine, however good it is, it more importantly ties us to a country / alliance / and limited political choices regarding this region.
The tender should have been from France ,Germany and Sweden.
To add to my concerns is that Japan has no tradition of building submarines for export and follow on support. Why would we choose to be the Guinea pig for such a relationship.
Bad business and bad politics.
It's just dumb!

Ps For what it's worth I own two well built Japanese cars.
 

Stock

Member
What concerned me from the get go was we went from an Australian designed and built option for $30b, to an overseas designed Australian built option for $40b and now, unless I have it completely ar$e about, we are hearing $50b for a Japanese MOTS build. It just made no sense, then in the last few weeks three bits of information came out:

1. The Japanese experts were very impressed with the Adelaide facility, its build strategy and technics, and its maintenance capabilities as they were in advance of what they have and do in Japan.
(hardly surprising as one of the reasons Kockums was selected is they were world leaders in these areas, also EB, USN and DSTO have all been very involved in refining and improving things at Adelaide)

2. To meet the number of submarines on the schedule required, Japan would have to build a new facility and expand their trained workforce as their current yards are already busy building for the JMSDF.

3. The entire concept of ceasing local capability in favor of buying submarines from Japan, including the often irrational, occasionally rabid and contradictory attacks on ASC, is actually the brain child of a group of current and former senior DFAT staff who came up with and have been pushing the concept as a way to strengthen ties with Japan, leading to a formal alliance and FTA. A selling point used to get the government on board was increased access to Japan for agricultural produce as well as DFATs overwhelming desire for alliance and trade.

If any of the above is true, let alone all of it, the public should be very concerned, as while alliances and trade are critical, should we be destroying sovereign, strategic capability and future economic prosperity in attempt to buy it? Should we be paying more for a good product from Japan than an as good or possibly better / more suitable local product?
Agree all. Very concerning.

I wonder if the German and French options required construction of new facilities in Germany or France would either even be involved in the CEP.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree all. Very concerning.

I wonder if the German and French options required construction of new facilities in Germany or France would either even be involved in the CEP.
Both France and Germany rely on export orders to keep their yards busy, Japan has set up their entire defence industry solely to sustainably supply their own needs. When Japan determined they needed to increase the size of their submarine fleet they chose to life extend their existing boats rather than increase the production rate of new boats. I had assumed this was for cost reasons but the recent suggestion that the Japanese would need to build a new facility to increase capacity suggests that capacity limitations may be the reason why they did it this way.
 

Stock

Member
Both France and Germany rely on export orders to keep their yards busy, Japan has set up their entire defence industry solely to sustainably supply their own needs. When Japan determined they needed to increase the size of their submarine fleet they chose to life extend their existing boats rather than increase the production rate of new boats. I had assumed this was for cost reasons but the recent suggestion that the Japanese would need to build a new facility to increase capacity suggests that capacity limitations may be the reason why they did it this way.
I wonder also how Australian taxpayers would feel about funding construction of a Japanese shipyard, which would surely be used for other build programs post Sea 1000.

Australian dollars going to Japanese construction firms and Japanese workers to build a Japanese shipyard. Wow. What a ridiculous concept. If DFAT's involvement and motivation in all this is accurate, what a disgrace. Utterly shameful.

Hopefully Labor will shine the light on this and see it quashed before it gets a toehold.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder also how Australian taxpayers would feel about funding construction of a Japanese shipyard, which would surely be used for other build programs post Sea 1000.

Australian dollars going to Japanese construction firms and Japanese workers to build a Japanese shipyard. Wow. What a ridiculous concept. If DFAT's involvement and motivation in all this is accurate, what a disgrace. Utterly shameful.

Hopefully Labor will shine the light on this and see it quashed before it gets a toehold.
I do not believe this is a political thing, rather twisted DFAT, intellectual clap trap, the ultimate, equally stupid, opposite of DOA (Defence of Australia). Instead of manufacturing absolutely everything we possibly could locally as part of a plan to self reliantly defend against a totally improbable invasion scenario, this DFAT gang swung to the opposite extreme where we out source everything, including defence, manufacture nothing and become a primarily agrarian country, relying on primary industry, resources, service industries and tourism, buying our defence through providing moral support and expeditionary elements to our powerful allies. Any industry that competes with that of our allies and major trading partners is sacrificed as part of the concept of buying security and supporting the more influential, better politically represented industries.

F me I am sounding like a conspiracy nut but as I mentioned earlier Dibb, White and co, managed to pull off a similarly extreme but opposite scheme with DOA in the 80s and 90s. This seems to be the backlash that has been brewing for years, not from politicians per say, but from public servants, political staffers, advisers and academics. The pendulum appears to have swung too far the other way, and with most of these intellectual types they have deliberately conducted a scorched earth policy to ensure as far as is possible, what they have done cannot easily be undone.
 

Stock

Member
I do not believe this is a political thing, rather twisted DFAT, intellectual clap trap, the ultimate, equally stupid, opposite of DOA (Defence of Australia). Instead of manufacturing absolutely everything we possibly could locally as part of a plan to self reliantly defend against a totally improbable invasion scenario, this DFAT gang swung to the opposite extreme where we out source everything, including defence, manufacture nothing and become a primarily agrarian country, relying on primary industry, resources, service industries and tourism, buying our defence through providing moral support and expeditionary elements to our powerful allies. Any industry that competes with that of our allies and major trading partners is sacrificed as part of the concept of buying security and supporting the more influential, better politically represented industries.

F me I am sounding like a conspiracy nut but as I mentioned earlier Dibb, White and co, managed to pull off a similarly extreme but opposite scheme with DOA in the 80s and 90s. This seems to be the backlash that has been brewing for years, not from politicians per say, but from public servants, political staffers, advisers and academics. The pendulum appears to have swung too far the other way, and with most of these intellectual types they have deliberately conducted a scorched earth policy to ensure as far as is possible, what they have done cannot easily be undone.
Not a conspiracy at all. What you say makes a great deal of sense - the evidence is al around. If this has been brewing for a generation, then we are in deep trouble on Sea 1000 as a minimum.
 

rockitten

Member
Really dont care who builds the subs or where they are built, as long as we get good subs on time and on budget, or close.
Dont hear everyone getting upset about the LHD builds in Spain, JSF builds in the US etc etc, just because we can, is not a good enough reason. Im yet ro see an Australian project come in on time on budget with few issues after delivery. Even the F88 was a disaster at the start, took forever to deliver to all regular units, had quite a few issues to.
And why NH-90+Tiger ARG was chosen rather than the preferred UH-60+AH-64D was because more "Australian industry involvement". And now we have the worse scenario: RAN has the SH-60R +NH-90, Army has the S-70+NH-90 and our 20+ ARH is such an orphan system that is guaranteed to be expensive to operate and upgrade.

Instead, we should have AH-64D + SH-60R + UN-60 (or SH-60S) and Burke IIA, all of them were to be built overseas.

No offense, but V, as an engineer myself, as long as Australian labor cost is so high, I can't see a labor intensive manufacturing industry such as ship building can have a future. The size of our navy is so small, that such niche market is unlikely to be able to sustain more than one yard.

On other "high end manufacturing", the "key players" are not the just the tradesmen, but the engineers, scientists and project managers. We Aussie are not too bad on the first two, but in military hardware procurement projects, our history in project management is just lame (such as the disastrous SH-2G(A) project, and to a lesser extent, the HMAS Sirius).

For our Sub, the US combat system is the key, so as long as our Yankee friends don't like someone (especially the French, and also the Germans) touching their wares, they will have no chance in our bid. And the major pusher(s) for an Aus-Japan alliance are not just Tokyo and Canberra, but also from Washington. So unless our country is ready to say goodbye to "colonial era" and adopted a really independent diplomatic/security position, we don't have much leeway in those stuff.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Putting aside the issue of 'if' Japanese shipyards have the fabrication and construction facilities (or space for additional facilities) to build submarines for Australia or not (and why everyone is stressing over this when NO decision has been made on what type or how they will be constructed is totally beyond me!!), but lets have a look at Techport and specifically the ASC facilities.

As I understand it, the facility/shed/building that was originally built on the Techport site for the construction of the Collins class, is now used for the sustainment of the Collins class and will no doubt be tied up with sustainment work on that fleet until at least the mid 2030's, is that a fair statement? Which will be well past the starting time for the first boat that will eventually replace Collins herself.

So why isn't it reasonable to believe that a 'new' fabrication and construction facility will have to be built on the Techport site for the Collins replacements?

Have a look at the Techport 'flythrough' video below:

Australia’s premier naval industry hub supporting The Australian Navy AWDs

At around the 2.00min mark you will see the 'future submarine assembly site' featured in the video (now is this just 'wishful' thinking on behalf of the SA Government and the Techport facility, or is it going to be necessary to build a 'new' and separate fabrication and construction facility?), I don't know.

But it seems reasonable that if the original shed is busy with sustainment work on the existing fleet, then having another shed for the fabrication and construction of the new fleet seems to be logical.

When you consider the many 10's of Billions of dollars that are going to be consumed by this project, the building of a new assembly shed or sheds (on the existing Techport site) is going to be rather small change in the big scheme of things.
 

Trackmaster

Member
I wonder also how Australian taxpayers would feel about funding construction of a Japanese shipyard, which would surely be used for other build programs post Sea 1000.

Australian dollars going to Japanese construction firms and Japanese workers to build a Japanese shipyard. Wow. What a ridiculous concept. If DFAT's involvement and motivation in all this is accurate, what a disgrace. Utterly shameful.

Hopefully Labor will shine the light on this and see it quashed before it gets a toehold.
From my reading of The Australian, the good Senator is pointing towards the establishment of facilities in Australia for the construction of a Japanese designed submarine. How good his information is, time will tell.
But if a "Japanese" shipyard is established in Adelaide, using Australian staff, what's the problem? There is also the option of a "German" shipyard, or a "French" shipyard.
If construction in Australia is a must have, they are the only options. Long gone are the days of designing our own Collins replacement.
 
The opening up of the economy via lower tariffs, floating the dollar and removing capital controls has been a huge success. Twenty nine years ago Paul Keating said that Australia was at risk of becoming a banana republic, since then the economy has grown and grown and become more integrated with the international economy. This success probably explains the mindset of officials in DFAT and treasury. The question now, is has it gone too far. I use the word success deliberately because now Australia instead of being a banana republic is one of the most prosperous nations on earth (fifteenth via gdp per person, higher than Germany, Canada and the UK ) . I was in Argentina a while back,,, now that country is totally totally stuffed.

With high wages, it is going to be difficult for shipyards to remain competitive with yards overseas where wages might be a tenth as high. The question as I see it, is how much of a premium Australia should pay to have its ships being built at home. Maybe it is 25 percent, maybe 20 percent. But if the cost is say an extra 60 percent then perhaps the cost is too high and it is better to import.

To get the premium low (to an acceptable level) needs efficiency, good work practices and continuity of work. Maybe the amount of work available is not enough four yards. Closing the least efficient yard for good may help the other three yards remain profitable long term. Continuity of work is not helped by not ordering a ship in over 7 years (very very valid point).

The car industry has been in structural decline for decades. For awhile there were five car assembly brands in Aust, first Nissan went, then Mitsubishi, and now the remaining three are closing. It would be nice if the three factories stayed put, but if they lose money even with a subsidy, what can be done. Maybe eventually there has to be a limit to the subsidies paid, if car makers cant make a profit with the subsidies paid, then market forces dictate what happens next.

For those that lament the lost of the Australian car industry, I would ask that you state the type of car you drive and whether it was built in Oz. My guess is those on this forum with Oz built cars would be a small minority. Mine is a 2001 Mazda 323. Who dreams of buying a Ford Falcon thesedays, even though the cars are very good, people would rather a BMW.

Money saved in ending subsidies to the car industry can be spent elsewhere, (defence, infrastructure, hospitals, roads, national broadband network, railways etc). It would be nice if the Aust car industry was viable, but as more and more nations become proficient at building cars, the task becomes ever more difficult. Now Thailand, Korea and China are building cars big time, its hard to compete with wages at a fifth of the cost of Australian wages.

So for shipyards to remain competitive the premium paid for Oz built ships needs to be modest (say 20 to 25 percent). If some ships like HMAS Success which cost much much more (very old news,,, not new news) then perhaps it would have been better off having been built in France and the money saved spent elsewhere on other valid projects like more tanks, self propelled artillery, level crossing removals.

Maybe with fewer shipbuilding yards and continuity of work the cost of building ships in Oz could be very competitive with overseas build,,, that would be a good thing
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Australian Navy LHD completes initial sea trials - UPI.com

NUSHIP Adelaide has completed initial sea trials, Being well ahead of what the Canberra was at the same time in her production.

Bloody awesome =)
Nice to see UPI is on the ball. They finished over a week ago, she's been in dry dock at FBE since 26 June getting her final paint coat ever since, and it's been reported on radio, TV and in the papers in the meantime.

I love the way the Internet gets us news, first.

Perhaps they'll report the landing at Gallipoli soon?

(not gigging you vonoobie, just laughing at the slow pace of internet "news")

oldsig127
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
And why NH-90+Tiger ARG was chosen rather than the preferred UH-60+AH-64D was because more "Australian industry involvement". And now we have the worse scenario: RAN has the SH-60R +NH-90, Army has the S-70+NH-90 and our 20+ ARH is such an orphan system that is guaranteed to be expensive to operate and upgrade.

Instead, we should have AH-64D + SH-60R + UN-60 (or SH-60S) and Burke IIA, all of them were to be built overseas.

No offense, but V, as an engineer myself, as long as Australian labor cost is so high, I can't see a labor intensive manufacturing industry such as ship building can have a future. The size of our navy is so small, that such niche market is unlikely to be able to sustain more than one yard.

On other "high end manufacturing", the "key players" are not the just the tradesmen, but the engineers, scientists and project managers. We Aussie are not too bad on the first two, but in military hardware procurement projects, our history in project management is just lame (such as the disastrous SH-2G(A) project, and to a lesser extent, the HMAS Sirius).

For our Sub, the US combat system is the key, so as long as our Yankee friends don't like someone (especially the French, and also the Germans) touching their wares, they will have no chance in our bid. And the major pusher(s) for an Aus-Japan alliance are not just Tokyo and Canberra, but also from Washington. So unless our country is ready to say goodbye to "colonial era" and adopted a really independent diplomatic/security position, we don't have much leeway in those stuff.
I think you find that US and Japanese labour, possibly Spanish as well is more expensive than Australian, the biggest difference actually being they are producing their product from hot lines in long established facilities, just look what happens when we order something that is not MOTS, or more to the point FMS, ask Canada what they think of Sikorsky's performance.

Another factor we tend to completely ignore is the post GFC global economy combined with the once in a generation mining construction boom saw an unusually and sustained increase in the value of the Australian dollar that made Australian products substantially more expensive in comparison with imported. The construction boom also caused a skill shortage driving up wages in some sectors and creating shortages in others, just ask the ADF about their retention issues until quite recently. Add this to the shipbuilding black hole that developed before the 2000 DWP plans began to deliver results and it is easy to see the extenuating circumstances. Actually even the experimental contracting model imposed on the AWD project has been highlighted as a major problem by every review into the project, the fact that so many parties have a say in what happens and how but only ASC cops the consequences when things don't go to plan, not a good situation when three major entities, each with something to gain if ASC is sidelined, able to directly affect project performance (Raytheon, BAE and Navantia).

As for local projects that have worked well ANZAC, ANZAC ASMD and Bushmaster come to mind immediately. HUG for the Classic fleet, the F/A-18 build its self I believe, and even the F-111 AUP were all successful local projects. The AFP (Australian Frigate Project) FFGs can be described as successful as even though it was delayed the schedule was re-baselined specifically to modernise and reorganise Williamstown in preparation for the ANZAC project and the ships were successfully completed to the new schedule and cost predictions; according to the RAN these two ships are better built and higher quality than their US built sisters. I will even include the Collins class as a success as it was actually quite trouble free, despite political interference, in comparison to any other new submarine project I can think of bar the US Virginia, with other successful projects being evolutions of existing designs from hot lines.

To be honest we are a pretty negative bunch and only tend to remember the bad, not the good, even when massive improvement, even up to and exceeding worlds best practice we tend to concentrate on the teething problems that every new project in every nation goes through. Speaking of which anyone familiar with the UKs Astute program? How about Spain's S-80 submarines, that was actually so close an evolution of proven Scorpion that DCNS sued over copying their technology, that, even though it was built in a long established, very experienced and capable yard, managed to screw up some incredibly basic characteristics such as buoyancy, causing a two year delay and massive cost increase as Electric Boat was brought in (as they were in the Astute program) to fix / redesign things. There was also a lesser known issue with the AIP that delivered only 75% of the required endurance, could you imagine the carry on if the Collins had been that bad?

Hey what about the Los Angeles SSNs, the early boats were built from the wrong steel, and some were so badly built they had to be scraped and restarted (all at US government expense), that was Electric Boat, now probably the worlds best, the company that sends experts to salvage other nations projects. Even the Virginia class has suffered issues, fraudulent weld inspections at New Port News as well as actually substandard piping welds delaying delivery of at least one boat. How about the issues with the early San Antonio class LPDs, they were not actually even fit for purpose? Serious quality issues with both LCS designs?

Do I really need to go on? Why are we so negative of our own capabilities and so unforgiving of mistakes on our projects but so accepting of the stuff ups of others. People criticise "crap" Australian cars but put up with major problems with imported models, I had more trouble with two Subaru's than with our Australian build Fords and Toyotas.

It really is odd, most peoples are proud of their nations achievements and even blow them out of all proportion, Australians in general appear to be the opposite, exaggerating the problems and ignoring the actual achievements and successes.

* Whoops I almost forgot, the Tiger and MRH90 are Australian assembled and overseas manufactured, the issues we are experiencing with them are the same as other operators, ironically the fact that we have a local facility with dedicated and capable people supporting the project, from industry, defence and DSTO, means we are actually able to fix many issues ourselves ahead of the other operators and have taken the lead on a number of certification areas. Still new Blackhawks bought under FMS would have been a better option although the Apaches, while great in hind sight were not recommended by the ADF as they are very much attack not reconnaissance helicopters and were believed to be significantly more expensive than the Tiger.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Does anyone realise how hard it is to fit anything to a submarine after the hull has been welded together? We are kidding ourselves if we believe we can affordably (or realistic to even try to) fit a US designed, Australian integrated combat system to a Japanese built submarine after it is transported to Australia.

According to the BIW, the people who build the best Burkes in terms of quality, Australia would have found building a Flight IIA much easier than the F-100 as Williamstown was experienced in building US designs (the FFG) and ASCs shipyard was almost a direct copy of the redeveloped Bath yard.

If we had been smart enough to have ordered three Burkes in the mid 90s instead of upgrading the FFGs we would have been fine and could maybe have even been ready to produce a suitable design to replace the FFGs instead of the AWD project we have now.
 

phreeky

Active Member
Really dont care who builds the subs or where they are built, as long as we get good subs on time and on budget, or close.
Dont hear everyone getting upset about the LHD builds in Spain, JSF builds in the US etc etc, just because we can, is not a good enough reason. Im yet ro see an Australian project come in on time on budget with few issues after delivery. Even the F88 was a disaster at the start, took forever to deliver to all regular units, had quite a few issues to.
Australian research, design, engineering, and construction in a number of fields is at an extremely high standard. We are capable, and in the private sector deliver exceptional results.

Defence does appear to make some comparatively large cock-ups, though from what I can tell these are generally at a management level and seem to have political interference.

I'm no defence procurement expert but haven't we had similarly screwed up projects using US/UK companies?
 

hairyman

Active Member
At the risk of appearing a dill, can someone explain to me why if we select the German submarine, we would have to have the American systems fitted? Surely the German systems would be good enough, even if we wanted the American weapons.
And just a reminder for Peter Australia, in the 60's I was driving a Beetle that had been assembled at V.W.' Clayton plant in Vic. So that makes 6 car plants closed/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top