IT IS SUBMARINE FREE WEDNESDAY...Alexsa...please observe!
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
You ruin all my fun. By the way after market double hulling is always going to be difficult, not least of which is the effect of increase light weight of the ship (hence it maximum bending and shear force limits may go up or down) and if you weld a hell of a lot of steel into a ship it can........ err ........warp.
I watched a 3500 light weight onne ship have 920 tonnes of steel work. it was 40cm shorter in the shaft tunnel at the end of the process. Class picked thei up and shaft realighnment was carried out.
bit surprised shaft alighment was not checked in this case..... unless the ship changed while afloat due to built in stresses..
This would be interesting as I imagine it would have to have either Forgacs or BAE (WA) as prime as I am not sure that the ship lift at ASC is large enough for such a ship. Interestingly most of the engineering, procurement, project management, project engineering, systems engineering, systems integration, build assurance, planning, scheduling, activation, test, logistic engineering, TLS planning, training systems and support systems, not to forget the vital production trades and expertise, are all in Adelaide at ASC.
It is a struggle to keep these people with growing competition from mining projects (existing and ramping up), as well an a significant range of public works in SA. If the fill in project goes east or west then the core team bult mostly from scratch for the AWD will disipate in very short order, damaging not just JP2048Ph4C but also SEA 5000 and SEA 1000, increasing risk and cost as well as seeing all the lessons learnt on AWD, on how to actually build and manage the build of a ship being lost.
That's I was asking about, but also any potential RN ships for example that are part of downsizing (i.e. like Choules).
Is that a fact? Is Success a write off?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I agree completely that it is important to keep a viable shipbuilding industry going in the gap between the AWD's and the SEA5000 Future Frigates.
But what is the best way to do it for the benefit of the Navy, Government (taxpayer) and the ship building industry?
Does it matter what sort of ship is built? Any ship regardless? Or is better to build a ship that will continue "all" the pool of skills to move between the AWD's and the Future Frigates.
Does building a "one off" large Strategic Sea Lift Ship here maintain all the skills? I don't just mean building and welding module A to module B, or is it of more value to build a 4th AWD that is not only building and welding module A to B, but is also the intergation of the weapons and sensors that are more likely to be similar in the SEA5000 Ships?
Is there a difference in skills retained and maintained if one or the other of the above is built here? Or doesn't it matter?
I'm just a civilian who has a keen interest in defence, especially naval matters, I don't have the knowlege or inside knowledge of a lot of contributors here, so I wonder what is the best possible result.
Build Choules replacement (JP2048Ph4C) in an O'seas yard, as part of a larger programme and, if possible, build a 4th AWD here to carry over all the skills till the SEA5000 ships start production.
Well im taking my mate who is a Naval Hull Surveyor on his word.
The funny thing is the PR line on why this work was going to be done in Sinnags was because apparently they new how to do it! :smash
I've mentioned this previously on the RNZN thread, but as a Success & Sirius replacement - would the RAN consider a new-build Fort Victoria class (suitably double hulled of course). Say 2 hulls, constructed in Korea to reduce cost, fitted out in Australia. Co-op in NZ (who need an Endeavour replacement) and perhaps South Africa (I think they are still in the market for a Drakensberg replacement) for 1 ship each. Initially I hoped Canada & Australia might strike up a joint AOR project but the Canadians remain intractable on building in Canada. The RNZN AOR could act as "third banana" for the RAN fleet (which would give the RNZN a useful role).
I believe both the yards that built the Fort Victoria class in the 1990s are now closed (Harland & Wolff and Swan Hunter), so it may be possible to buy the plans from them (or the RN) with relative ease. Perhaps ask the RFA & RN to act as consultants.
I've picked the Fort Victoria over the more recent Berlin & Cantabria classes due to the larger dry stores capacity (useful if you're supporting a small land force, ala East Timor, and don't have a large merchant fleet to call upon). Apart from double-hulling the Tanker section, relatively little of the design would need to be changed.
Chis73
I believe both the yards that built the Fort Victoria class in the 1990s are now closed (Harland & Wolff and Swan Hunter), so it may be possible to buy the plans from them (or the RN) with relative ease. Perhaps ask the RFA & RN to act as consultants.
I've picked the Fort Victoria over the more recent Berlin & Cantabria classes due to the larger dry stores capacity (useful if you're supporting a small land force, ala East Timor, and don't have a large merchant fleet to call upon). Apart from double-hulling the Tanker section, relatively little of the design would need to be changed.
Chis73
Can we cut back on some of the crankiness thats emerging thanks folks.
agree to disagree.
ultimately we get judged on coherence and content.
- and all of us learn something new somewhere along the way.
agree to disagree.
ultimately we get judged on coherence and content.
- and all of us learn something new somewhere along the way.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Techport says that the shiplift in Adelaide 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 (this cannot be upgraded easily).
The Henderson MSF shiplift can lift vessels 140m x 23m and 8065 tonnes. The CUF floating dock is 99m long, and can lift 12000 tonnes, but I've seen an "artist's impression" of a future site with a floating dock holding an LHD at the same spot. If a shiplift was to be built instead, a limitation would be the distance from the water to Quill Way (or is it Road A?) which is about 210m.
Just some Wikipedia context to save you looking it up (LxWxD - assume depth and displacement is at full load):
Canberra LHD: 230 x 32 x 7.2 (27851 full).
Bay LSD: 176.6 x 26.4 x 5.8 (16160 full).
Sirius AO: 191.3 x 32 x 11 (25000).
Success AOR: 157 x 21 x 8.7 (18000 full)
Berlin AOR: 174 x 24 x 7.6 (20240).
Wave AOR: 196.5 x 28.25 x 9.97 (31500).
Cantabria AOR: 174 x 23 x 8 (19500).
Lewis & Clark AKE: 210 x 32.3 x 9.1 (40539).
Dokdo LPH: 199 x 31 x 7 (14300 emp/ 18800 full).
I'm thinking the Wave-class AOR might be the practical limit at both sites (although you might be able to squeak a L&C hull type depending on what its weight would be empty and before full fit out), although there is more room up at the MSF for 270m vessels if money is to be spent on the infrastructure.
With modular construction techniques, the site really just needs to be an assembly site with modules built elsewhere, reducing the amount of infrastructure that needs to be built from scratch for the vessel construction. There have even been suggestions of building in a drydock (was it GI's Captain Cook?), so how about a floating drydock?
The Henderson MSF shiplift can lift vessels 140m x 23m and 8065 tonnes. The CUF floating dock is 99m long, and can lift 12000 tonnes, but I've seen an "artist's impression" of a future site with a floating dock holding an LHD at the same spot. If a shiplift was to be built instead, a limitation would be the distance from the water to Quill Way (or is it Road A?) which is about 210m.
Just some Wikipedia context to save you looking it up (LxWxD - assume depth and displacement is at full load):
Canberra LHD: 230 x 32 x 7.2 (27851 full).
Bay LSD: 176.6 x 26.4 x 5.8 (16160 full).
Sirius AO: 191.3 x 32 x 11 (25000).
Success AOR: 157 x 21 x 8.7 (18000 full)
Berlin AOR: 174 x 24 x 7.6 (20240).
Wave AOR: 196.5 x 28.25 x 9.97 (31500).
Cantabria AOR: 174 x 23 x 8 (19500).
Lewis & Clark AKE: 210 x 32.3 x 9.1 (40539).
Dokdo LPH: 199 x 31 x 7 (14300 emp/ 18800 full).
I'm thinking the Wave-class AOR might be the practical limit at both sites (although you might be able to squeak a L&C hull type depending on what its weight would be empty and before full fit out), although there is more room up at the MSF for 270m vessels if money is to be spent on the infrastructure.
With modular construction techniques, the site really just needs to be an assembly site with modules built elsewhere, reducing the amount of infrastructure that needs to be built from scratch for the vessel construction. There have even been suggestions of building in a drydock (was it GI's Captain Cook?), so how about a floating drydock?
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Oh, come on! I don't think I can take another unfolding saga. Apart from "significant impairment", I'm starting to display all the diagnostic symptoms of PTSD.
I hope someone paid attention to the contract they signed on behalf of the Navy, because I would like to know if it is covered by ST Marine or this is a ticking package held by the Navy.
Would I be correct in thinking it isn't an easy (AKA quick and cheap) fix? I suppose an assessment is being/has been made regarding whether the Success is worth the cost of repairs. I would have thought that the capability is worth more than the scrap value, but...
Isn't ST Engineering one of those Singapore government majority-owned entities that are supposed to be held at arms length?
Idle thought. Spain is almost broke, the bills are starting to pile up, the Catabria is only a year old, and the Choules set a precedent...
Ohh...Genius moment
crazy). Juan Carlos I is pretty close to Canberra/Adelaide in most respects and is only a year old, and Méndez Núñez (F104) is only a few years old and the last of class Cristobal Colón (F105) is currently fitting out, and those BAMs are quite fancy...Make the right offer and the half the Armada could be yours!
On the joint needs on the RAN and RNZN, it may be so and Rolls-Royce (among others no doubt) is offering a design that will scale in size, I think the NZG has gone to the joint-acquisition well so many times only to refuse to drink that I'm not certain it will be seen as worth the trouble.
H&W are still open the Fort Victoria design is not however, they are instead working with Rolls Royce on their designs for replenishment ships for the MARS program which in terms of AOR ships come in two sizes 14k dwt and 25k dwt. Which are more to the size of the Fort I class than the Fort IIs which are about 30k dwt although those are only provisional numbers. Oilers in weight have been dropping regularly though due to reduced needs of fuel in modern warships, the Waves are a few ks shorter than the Ol- class for example. If Australia and New Zealand hoped onto this program it could be good for them; New Zealand could take a Wave class unit which is a tad bigger but has all of their armament requirements for the Endeavour replacement and Australia could have on of each to replace the existing two with the Sirius in back up if it still has a few more years in it at the time of replacement.
I still think the priority should be the 4th awd. So if its to keep the gates open and the workforce ready it would have to be built in S.A by ASC wouldn't it?
Its interesting that we are talking about large local builds again (since we have had so much easy going success with it).
I would have though GI would be a great place to build ships with portions coming from all the states (QLD, VIC, SA). GI is mentioned as being upgraded as part of it.. (4C) Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update
I don't see why would would essentially get a mini LHD when we would already be operating two full sized LHD's. Dokdo seems cheaper, but given how much of that is labour costs the actual additional steel and labour would seem minimal (1 or 2 additional blocks) ~10% . Then you would have to place all the systems we want, integrate them altogether as no doubt the space, cabling etc would be all different surely there is a 10% saving over the life time operating, training, building and maintaining one type instead of 2+1. JC1 would be more capable than a Dokdo and would over all (lifetime) be cheaper too.
JC1 as I recall could operate as an oiler RAS capability. I function I believe was removed from the Australian LHD's, which would have offered at least some breathing room.
Not that I think JC1 or Dokdo will be selected. All of tee-centres list is outside the size range specified. Infact the type of ships that fit into that range are things like a Bay class and Galacia class(!).
If I was the RAN I would put strong arguments for a 3rd JC1 LHD or a L & C ship. L&C is particularly useful because they could assist in resupply of USMC groups within the region quiet easily. Given how important US cooperation is, that's a strong argument to have.
Its interesting that we are talking about large local builds again (since we have had so much easy going success with it).
I would have though GI would be a great place to build ships with portions coming from all the states (QLD, VIC, SA). GI is mentioned as being upgraded as part of it.. (4C) Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update
I don't see why would would essentially get a mini LHD when we would already be operating two full sized LHD's. Dokdo seems cheaper, but given how much of that is labour costs the actual additional steel and labour would seem minimal (1 or 2 additional blocks) ~10% . Then you would have to place all the systems we want, integrate them altogether as no doubt the space, cabling etc would be all different surely there is a 10% saving over the life time operating, training, building and maintaining one type instead of 2+1. JC1 would be more capable than a Dokdo and would over all (lifetime) be cheaper too.
JC1 as I recall could operate as an oiler RAS capability. I function I believe was removed from the Australian LHD's, which would have offered at least some breathing room.
Not that I think JC1 or Dokdo will be selected. All of tee-centres list is outside the size range specified. Infact the type of ships that fit into that range are things like a Bay class and Galacia class(!).
If I was the RAN I would put strong arguments for a 3rd JC1 LHD or a L & C ship. L&C is particularly useful because they could assist in resupply of USMC groups within the region quiet easily. Given how important US cooperation is, that's a strong argument to have.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
But if Captain Cook is full of LHD/LSD/AOR modules where would the Navy have their bottoms scoured and twirly things fiddled with?
well, there's a uniform shop right near wolloomoolloo in between various pubs.
fiddling will have to happen at the rocks...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,636
It is as bad as mentioned, if not worse. The general feeling onboard Success is they wont last long, and work ups has been continually pushed back, with fleet saying it will conduct them, and the crew laughing and saying nope!Oh, come on! I don't think I can take another unfolding saga. Apart from "significant impairment", I'm starting to display all the diagnostic symptoms of PTSD.
I hope someone paid attention to the contract they signed on behalf of the Navy, because I would like to know if it is covered by ST Marine or this is a ticking package held by the Navy.
Would I be correct in thinking it isn't an easy (AKA quick and cheap) fix? I suppose an assessment is being/has been made regarding whether the Success is worth the cost of repairs. I would have thought that the capability is worth more than the scrap value, but...
Isn't ST Engineering one of those Singapore government majority-owned entities that are supposed to be held at arms length?
Idle thought. Spain is almost broke, the bills are starting to pile up, the Catabria is only a year old, and the Choules set a precedent...
Ohh...Genius moment
Make the right offer and the half the Armada could be yours!
On the joint needs on the RAN and RNZN, it may be so and Rolls-Royce (among others no doubt) is offering a design that will scale in size, I think the NZG has gone to the joint-acquisition well so many times only to refuse to drink that I'm not certain it will be seen as worth the trouble.
The big issue for the RNZN that no one has hinted on...they're broke. The entire NZDF is on extreme budget cuts, i didnt realise till i worked with them in Nov, but they are on a really tight budget. One of their Anzacs is tied up with Min manning, and the other is doing double the workload. They are letting personnel leave at any point as they have no fixed return of service anymore. A new ship is the last thing on their mind, they have to get their Seasprites in the air more, and focus on the ships they've got. I wouldnt be surprised if Endeavours replacement is delayed, as they've just spent the money on double hulling.
The other way we could focus is the USN. They do have a large fleet of refuellers mothballed or working, and are replacing them with the Amelia Eirhart class. Im well aware of old ships, poor maintancence etc, but with an urgent requirement, grab one of the Henry J Kaisers that are sitting in the US, and utlise it for 5 years while a replacement is built. Its proven capability, those things are designed for 30+ years of service and we know we could get our hands on it. its better then another building 304 which takes up berthing space and full crew which is better served at sea on a sea going vessel
The Cross is just up the hill.
:devil
We could spread that out to a number other yards around the country (for the 12 months period the modules are speedily being assembled). I would imagine basic naval ship maintenance is fairly similar to commercial maintenance, while military building would require pretty specific knowledge. Actually more money could be saved by not doing any maintained while the ship is being built. GI is mentioned as being upgraded so I would assume the big build is happening there.. Long term this would be good as the upgrades are proberly needed so GI can do the bum scrubbing and twirly fiddling (while the crew is up at the cross, not the rocks).
Cockatoo is now in the hands of the almighty trust. It might be turned into an "aerial adventure park" with the bow of HMAS success permanently installed (as a folly?).
Cockatoo is now in the hands of the almighty trust. It might be turned into an "aerial adventure park" with the bow of HMAS success permanently installed (as a folly?).
bugger climbing those stairs. PITA unless you're into physicals
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,640
Well THALES have finally f**Ked off GI, as most of their operations moved out leaving a few empty buildings, although ive got no idea whats going on with them. The base is planning a overhaul before the LHDs get in, with FSU getting shifted and new work shops put in elsewhere. but with this base review Shite they will put it on hold, decide to keep the base in sydney, then build 10years late, and at half the original cost...
- Status