SHOOOSH thats a secret!;-)but i was told Arunta and now Stuart were going into ER pre upgrade...they would never mothball ships in the RAN to save money...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Early Xmas shut down...
Just did an interesting exercise, plugged the laided down, launched and commissioned dates for all the warships Williamstown has built vs same for other Australian yards building the same classes into Excel. Low and behold Williamstown has consistently taken 30 to 50% longer to build any given design. The only exception I found being HMAS Swan which took several months less time to build than HMAS Torrens at Cockatoo Island however 4 years and 11 months was still worse than the 4 years and 10 months they took to build HMAS Derwent.
So basically they, with the exception of the period immediately following privatisation and the massive investment in the yard by the federal government leading up to the ANZAC contract, Williamstown have always been a below par ship builder. It appears that current issues are simply the yard returning to type.
That said there do seem to be quite a few under performing BAE projects around the world at the moment so it could be argued that their management style hasn't exactly helped Williamstown maintain the expertise they built up with the final two FFGs and ten ANZACs.
No never ever, just like there were never three Collins class subs in the sheds at ASC (with only one of them being worked on) a few years back. Strange I remember there was a lot of carry on about submarine availability about the same time, strange that being unable to field more than two or three boats when you only have two or three boats in service. :flamingbut i was told Arunta and now Stuart were going into ER pre upgrade...they would never mothball ships in the RAN to save money...
Never, look at Kanimbla and Manoora...but i was told Arunta and now Stuart were going into ER pre upgrade...they would never mothball ships in the RAN to save money...
Or the other half a dozen or so ships tied up at FBE, which I was quite surprised by, passing by on the Manly fast ferry earlier today...
Tobruk, Success, many FFG's and so on...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,706
Success is in a dire state from what the crew were telling me, tobruk is well...tobruk, the FFGs are all returned from overseas or extended sailing so deep maintance now, Bal is IMAV, Anzac snuck in fri i noticed so shes got a lot of work to be done( i can plan next week for me already:teary) Its normal at this time of year to get a full base, and with Choules expected Nov parking will be at a premium...may as well put the LPAs at man of war buoys and leave them be, cause theres sweet FA being done onboardNever, look at Kanimbla and Manoora...
Or the other half a dozen or so ships tied up at FBE, which I was quite surprised by, passing by on the Manly fast ferry earlier today...
Tobruk, Success, many FFG's and so on...
Its a strange footbal Williamstown. Was never meant to be a navy yard but due to WWII was built up as one but never enough to meet demand after the war then things went down hill big time in the 60s and 70s with low productivity. It cost a billion $$ back in the 1980s (when a billion was worth 2.7 times it is now) to bring it up to speed and produce two FFGs. For the same cost we could have brought six FFGs from the USA or an all new air wing for a HMAS Australia (24 x SHAR, 12x Sea King).
Yet what for? We had a much better yard at Cockatoo Island. Bigger, better facilities, capable of easy growth to on the level production (no earthworks or shutdown period needed), better worforce, better management, better products. Yet Cockatoo Island is closed down and Williamstown kept sucking in money. Cockatoo could have built the Collins class, Anzacs, AWDs, LHDs even more AORs (as long as no more design drawings written in French). Cockatoo was also right beside the main fleet base. With half the fleet needing seious maintenance would be nice to have 5,000 people working away with multiple dry docks only a few chains away up the harbour.
Just another Australian style management own goal...
Did some cross referencing, on the occassions combatant builds at Cockatoo run late it turns out they had another major project or two on at the same time, where Williamstown rarely if ever had any work on the go beyond the combatants.
I did come across an interesting reference that suggested that the other five Tribal class destroyers ordered for the RAN but not built were in actual fact laiddown and subsequently broken up once cancelled. Is this the case, I had always assumed no work was done on them at all?
t68
Well-Known Member
Sorry to go back to a topic that has already been discussed a week or so ago.
In regards to Hugh White and his assertion about the AWD and LHD his quote from the Age,
“In fact, the only credible strategy for Australia in any major conflict is to abandon any attempt to achieve the kind of sea control needed to send amphibious forces against an adversary, and instead do all we can to make sure that the adversary cannot send its amphibious forces against us. This approach - a sea denial strategy - is much simpler and cheaper than sea control, and is the only strategy we have any chance of being able to sustain independently.”
If Australia was to be in a major conflict in Asia it would be part of coalition and most likely would not be acting independently for when has Australia ever acted independently, we have always had some form of support for operations. The AWD/LHD would only represent a small fraction of forces that would be available to the overall force commander, Hugh White conveniently forgets that the Australian Frigate HMAS Anzac supported Royal Marines with NGFS from her 5in/54 MK Mod 2 gun which will be inferior to the more modern Mod 4 62 caliber gun which will be placed on the Hobart class AWD and possible on the NGF , I would also imagine that an Australian LHD would not be contemplating acting alone with out support from 3 or more frigate/AWD from the RAN/RNZN.
Australia is just not geared up for a Falklands type conflict far from home, but when the new Bay/Canberra class are on line we can do the low intensity with much better precision, we could act alone on something like the Solomon’s Island intervention (RAMSI), if the 12 next generation submarine’s ever come to fruition we will have the capacity to do both sea denial/sea control in a limited fashion, for a well balanced small navy. I came across this paper for the USMC called Operational Manoeuvre from the Sea, in regards to CONOPS it’s geared towards higher intensity operations in conjunction with large USN carriers, but it’s not to say that Australia cannot contribute to such an operation with the USMC/USN providing top cover with F35B/C aircraft and logistic support.
http://www.dtic.mil/jv2010/usmc/omfts.pdf
On the subject of NGFS I came across this old write up from DID, apparently the Germans toyed with the idea of putting a PZH-2000 turret onto their F125 Frigates but could not make it work,
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_Naval_MONARC_PzH-2000_on_F220_Hamburg_lg.jpg
In regards to Hugh White and his assertion about the AWD and LHD his quote from the Age,
“In fact, the only credible strategy for Australia in any major conflict is to abandon any attempt to achieve the kind of sea control needed to send amphibious forces against an adversary, and instead do all we can to make sure that the adversary cannot send its amphibious forces against us. This approach - a sea denial strategy - is much simpler and cheaper than sea control, and is the only strategy we have any chance of being able to sustain independently.”
If Australia was to be in a major conflict in Asia it would be part of coalition and most likely would not be acting independently for when has Australia ever acted independently, we have always had some form of support for operations. The AWD/LHD would only represent a small fraction of forces that would be available to the overall force commander, Hugh White conveniently forgets that the Australian Frigate HMAS Anzac supported Royal Marines with NGFS from her 5in/54 MK Mod 2 gun which will be inferior to the more modern Mod 4 62 caliber gun which will be placed on the Hobart class AWD and possible on the NGF , I would also imagine that an Australian LHD would not be contemplating acting alone with out support from 3 or more frigate/AWD from the RAN/RNZN.
Australia is just not geared up for a Falklands type conflict far from home, but when the new Bay/Canberra class are on line we can do the low intensity with much better precision, we could act alone on something like the Solomon’s Island intervention (RAMSI), if the 12 next generation submarine’s ever come to fruition we will have the capacity to do both sea denial/sea control in a limited fashion, for a well balanced small navy. I came across this paper for the USMC called Operational Manoeuvre from the Sea, in regards to CONOPS it’s geared towards higher intensity operations in conjunction with large USN carriers, but it’s not to say that Australia cannot contribute to such an operation with the USMC/USN providing top cover with F35B/C aircraft and logistic support.
http://www.dtic.mil/jv2010/usmc/omfts.pdf
On the subject of NGFS I came across this old write up from DID, apparently the Germans toyed with the idea of putting a PZH-2000 turret onto their F125 Frigates but could not make it work,
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_Naval_MONARC_PzH-2000_on_F220_Hamburg_lg.jpg
It was a useful trial to explore the effectiveness of 155mm fired from a ship. They do offer for any realised naval 155mm their AGM automatic turret in the place of the PzH2000. But the Germans like just about everyone else are actually fitting 127mm naval turrets to their ships. The difference in effectiveness between the two is minimal and the 127mm is a proven naval application. The only significant argument for a conventional 155mm turret (which is very different and not compatible with the 155mm AGS the US Navy is fielding) is that you can save costs in buying ammunition. It won’t make that much operational difference for a warship wether it has a 127mm or 155mm conventional turret.
What has happened to that shipyard you are talking about? is still operating? wasnt the HMAS Success built there?
And please forgive this question but, is there any drydock big enough for the LHDs in Australia? I supose there is at least one but where is it?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,712
Sold off, now used for NSW events such as concerts and Red bull sports...RAN still owns spectacle island which is next door, but mostly storage and little else.
At this stage ill say Garden Island could, as it manages cruise ships regularly and at one stage held 2 FFG and 1 FFH at the same time. ill have a ask around tommorrow to confirm as its something thats come up before that we were not 100% on. Williamstown in Vic is to hold the LHD for its Aus fitout, Henderson in WA has claimed it will, as does South Australia. unlikely Forgacs in newcastle. Brisbane has done work on Sirius with room to move, so could be done.
Guessing you are talking about Cockatoo Island ? Yes Success was the last ship built there, was launched IIRC in 84 ? It is now basically sitting there doing nothing, I was on the Jervis Bay which was put into re-fit there and became a soccer ball between the workers/unions and the Government, spent 9 months longer in re-fit because of strikes, definately was not complaining as we were staying in the Rushcutters Bay Travelodge for the entire time
, I am pretty sure we were the last RAN ship to have anything done at CockatooOff the top of my head, had they kept Cockatoo Island, yes they would have the capacity to do the LHD's, I am pretty sure they had the capacity, but not just Cockatoo Island, but pretty sure if needed Garden Island Graving Dock would be able to as well ? at over 1,100 feet (347m) in length, 147 feet (45m) wide and with a draught of 45 feet (13m) I am pretty sure still makes it one of the largest graving docks in the southern hemisphere ? and IIRC still able to dock a Nimitz Class Carrier ?
I am sure if I am wrong, others will correct me on this ?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Captain Cook Dock at Garden Island should be able to.
Dimension are: 345m x 45m x 14m
Captain Cook Graving Dock
Canberra Class are 231m x 32m x 7m (with rounding).
So should fit with plenty of room to spare.
Is it still the largest dock in the southern hemisphere?
Edit: Don't think the cockatoo island docks are big enough, forgnacs at newcastle definately isnt (width wise even an FFH looks like a tight fit).
@Icelord, Most of the work for the LHD's in Melbourne is on the superstructure and internal fittout isnt it? So they probably don't need it out of the water?
Edit2: Cockatoo island docks definately not big enough http://www.harbourtrust.gov.au/docs/visitorguide-ci.pdf
Dimension are: 345m x 45m x 14m
Captain Cook Graving Dock
Canberra Class are 231m x 32m x 7m (with rounding).
So should fit with plenty of room to spare.
Is it still the largest dock in the southern hemisphere?
Edit: Don't think the cockatoo island docks are big enough, forgnacs at newcastle definately isnt (width wise even an FFH looks like a tight fit).
@Icelord, Most of the work for the LHD's in Melbourne is on the superstructure and internal fittout isnt it? So they probably don't need it out of the water?
Edit2: Cockatoo island docks definately not big enough http://www.harbourtrust.gov.au/docs/visitorguide-ci.pdf
No. When was it?
Estaleiro Atlantico Sul has one which is 400 x 73 x 12 metres, & 15 degrees south.
There's also the old Ishibras dock near Rio de Janeiro - 350 x 65 x 10 metres (built tankers, ore carriers, etc. in the 1970s & 1980s - two 332 metre long ore carriers built there were still operating in 2009), but I'm not sure what its current .status is.
Ah. It seems it's being expanded to 350 x 133 x 17 metres for Petrobras.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
In 1945 when it was completed.
First vessel into the dock was an RN Submarine, followed by a British Pacific Fleet aircraft carrier.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I'm not 100% sure of the length of the Garden Island dock, different websites list different lengths....one other listing it at 347 long etc
And now i'm not even sure if it was ever the largest dock in the Southern Hemisphere...there is a dry dock in South Africa completed at about the same time that was ~350metres long.
Would be interesting to know if they used the same plans.
And now i'm not even sure if it was ever the largest dock in the Southern Hemisphere...there is a dry dock in South Africa completed at about the same time that was ~350metres long.
Would be interesting to know if they used the same plans.
Aha! Sturrock graving dock., Cape Town. Also at Coatec | Sturrock dry dock refurbishment of main de-watering pump New to me, but been there since 1944, so just pipped yours to the post. Damn! And there I was, thinking yours had been the biggest for 20-odd years.
Not much in it, though.
Beat the King George VI dock at Singapore (1938, 303 x 39.6 x 13.1) , but that's 1 degree north, so didn't count anyway. It's not even the biggest dock in that shipyard now.
Not much in it, though.
Beat the King George VI dock at Singapore (1938, 303 x 39.6 x 13.1) , but that's 1 degree north, so didn't count anyway. It's not even the biggest dock in that shipyard now.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,720
well considering its now Sembawang Naval base...cause the docks that big they turned it into a berth for ships...Aha! Sturrock graving dock., Cape Town. Also at Coatec | Sturrock dry dock refurbishment of main de-watering pump New to me, but been there since 1944, so just pipped yours to the post. Damn! And there I was, thinking yours had been the biggest for 20-odd years.
Not much in it, though.
Beat the King George VI dock at Singapore (1938, 303 x 39.6 x 13.1) , but that's 1 degree north, so didn't count anyway. It's not even the biggest dock in that shipyard now.
- Status