Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

The Defence Materiel Organisation has recommended that the gap between the delivery of AWD ships one and two and ships two and three be extended by six months each because of a shortfall in capital funding and to ease the stress on local shipbuilders and allow the navy time to find enough sailors to man the new ships.

What a load of shit! this will increase the sailors leaving, as theres alot currently undergoing training in the systems we will be utilising, and now that its pushed back, they will finish the courses and be waiting for 2 years before utilising there knowledge.

There is already alot of planning going on, and the decommisioning of FFGs will have two options, delay for 12months and increase maintanence to keep them going, or continue on plan and be without 4 frigates over a period of time. HMAS Sydney is chugging along to its farewell, and this will now see more money spent on an old ship.The money spent in keeping the FFGs will outway the savings in delaying the AWDs
This delay doesnt even take into mind any issues found with the AWD, and impending gremlins in the first of class. just because its based on a ship already built, does not mean we will not have problems.
Im deeply amused by this, and look forward to further delays...just for fun, one of the reasons given for not choosing the 'Baby Burke' was that it would take 2 more years to construct...

 

[gf0012-aust]

What a load of shit!

Instead of DMO it should say, RAN, DMO, CDG and Central Agencies.
Direction on major projects doesn't come from one Agency - and if anything its Central Agencies that dictate what will happen as they singularly can give direction.

Which is why we have examples such as RAN buying a vessel for BPC and why we have Growlers killing off a whole pile of other projects because it was a Govt decision and not a Svces decision.

The $1.5bn for Growler was never factored in, and thats coming from other areas hide....

Budget surplus decision, not an ADO decision.

 

[hauritz]

One of the reasons given was that the slowdown will be used to ease in the production of the Anzac replacement.

Of course this is probably just spin doctoring. Slowing the production by one year won't make much difference. Particularly since there doesn't seem to be any real urgency to move forward with any future shipbuilding programs.

 

[Trackmaster]

According to The Australian today, Hobart will be delivered in March 2016. They were botching up the hull block for the ship in Melbourne in 2010.
I find it mind-boggling that it can take so long to build a ship in an Australian shipyard. I recall something recently where they completed a Spanish version of the ship in two years.
I know all about series production....but this isn't ship building....it is job-buying.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I know all about series production....but this isn't ship building....it is job-buying.

/cynical hat on

No, its about delayed payments - a vehicle of opportunity for the Govt to help achieve a budget surplus

/cynical hat off

 

[Goknub]

At least they've got to the actual construction stage, that in itself should be considered a small miracle. I'm sure there could have been a few more years of consultation and analysis done to delay things.

In an ideal world I believe it would be great to have one shipyard focusing on subs and another on surface ships. Between the Collins 2, OCV & ANZAC 2 there should be plenty of work to make that work.

GF, are you able to give a rough idea where the Growler dollars are coming from? Open forum and all.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, are you able to give a rough idea where the Growler dollars are coming from? Open forum and all.

It has to come out of existing progs as it was never factored in even though the govt made a song and dance about harnessing up in advance etc....

all projects are impacted. some will survive - a substantial number will be hurt if not killed off to pay for them.

and in 5 years time, we will pay again due to some USN decisions which will flow on down

 

[Milne Bay]

It has to come out of existing progs as it was never factored in even though the govt made a song and dance about harnessing up in advance etc....

all projects are impacted. some will survive - a substantial number will be hurt if not killed off to pay for them.

and in 5 years time, we will pay again due to some USN decisions which will flow on down

Are these decisions relating to the Growlers?
Or some other programme?

 

[Volkodav]

I know all about series production....but this isn't ship building....it is job-buying.

Well in actual fact it is far from the case "job-buying" as recruitment was meant to be ramping up with extra shifts and overtime being added as the project moves to erecting ship 1, outfitting the blocks of ship 2 and fabricating the blocks of ship 3. This increased tempo would logically have continued through to the delivery of the first ship, then have begun to ramp down through to delivery on the final ship.

i.e. Australia’s usual boom and bust defence cycle.

With the schedule “re-baseline” a smaller workforce can repeat the same tasks for each ship, improving their skills with experience hopefully without requiring too much overtime. This is opposed to the alternative of increasing the workforce by 30-50% (which would require a significant investment in training and additional supervision to prevent a repeat of the BAE issues) not to mention paying penalties for sifts and overtime.

Just a note on the construction time of ship one, DDG 51 took over six years to construct and deliver to the USN and it was built by BIW, a very capable yard with many years experience in building AEGIS cruisers just prior to the Burke. Six years to build what is a new variation of a ship, designed by a company that had never exported a warship design previously, in a new yard, with a new work force, using a new management and contracting structure, while building the actual ship in a different manner than the lead yard (hard stand and ship lift vs. slipway) is actually quite an achievement. If you factor other issues in to the equation, such as having to change subcontractors at the last minute, being let down by the replacement contactor in a big way and the errors made by some inexperienced (new to defence) senior personnel early on the achievement to date is nothing short of incredible.

Also the RAN needs more time to get used to ship 1 before they retire an extra FFG to provide a crew for ship 2. They need to get out and use it, see what works and what doesn’t to make sure they are ready for deployment before combatant numbers are reduced.

 

[ASSAIL]

So what happens to the already completed systems? Do they remain in their 2012 mod state because by the time they are in service there will be further updates/improvements.

If we're really lucky, Aegis/SPY 1 will still be in service with the USN by the time Sydney commissions.:mad

Or, logically, are we contracted in to the ongoing US upgrade schedule and the mods are made before fitting?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are these decisions relating to the Growlers?
Or some other programme?

Specifically Growlers

 

[hauritz]

The Growler decision always seemed strange to me. It just came out of the blue.

There was no requirement for this capability that was ever made public ... at least to my knowledge. In fact the decision seemed be made purely as a consequence of us purchasing the superhornet.

Equally strange is that at a time when they are cutting back on defence projects this particular one seems to have gotten priority treatment over a number of other programs.

It is like a program that was thrown together as an after thought is suddenly regarded as being more important than other projects that had gone through far more rigorous planning processes.

Add to that the fact that the platform being used was only supposed to be interim. It is now obviously going to stay in service for a lot longer than that. This throws up a whole raft of issues concerning the sustainment of at least two different aircraft types for the next 20 to 25 years.

Policy making on the run is always fraught with danger.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Growler decision always seemed strange to me. It just came out of the blue.

it wasn't entirely out of the blue - Boeing made approaches around Q1 2006. Ir was a legitimate Plan B

There was no requirement for this capability that was ever made public ... at least to my knowledge. In fact the decision seemed be made purely as a consequence of us purchasing the superhornet.

see above

Equally strange is that at a time when they are cutting back on defence projects this particular one seems to have gotten priority treatment over a number of other programs.

its a pity the broadsheet journos haven't worked this out yet

It is like a program that was thrown together as an after thought is suddenly regarded as being more important than other projects that had gone through far more rigorous planning processes.

thats because Govt knows more about Defence reqs than the uniforms do....
/sarcasm off

Add to that the fact that the platform being used was only supposed to be interim. It is now obviously going to stay in service for a lot longer than that. This throws up a whole raft of issues concerning the sustainment of at least two different aircraft types for the next 20 to 25 years.

its gone from a single platform force construct (to realise efficiences) to a split fleet thats likely to have to be supported for more than 10 years

Policy making on the run is always fraught with danger.

No, shinies in the central agencies know more about force planning and force development than the uniforms do. you get elected and you're an instant expert.
/sarcasm off

 

[weegee]

Defence budget

I didn't realise that we were spending so little on defence this year I kept hearing of all the reductions in spending etc but when I heard of the delay to the AWD I decided to have a look into it closer. Is getting a surplus so limportant???? to neglect our ADF so much in funding? I had a look at New Zealand who are a country doing it a little tough at the moment after earthquakes etc I see they are still maintaining defence spending at 1.9% of GDP and we have dropped down to 1.56% surely we can do better than that. I feel that our lovely media has a lot to answer for in regard to this! giving that opposition leader idiot so much air time now everyone seems to believe that a surplus is the be all and end all, this forces the government to react to please the masses. Yes a surplus is not a bad thing to have but not at the expense of things we really need! and after all our spending percentage of GDP wasn't really that high to start with. sorry rant off just needed to get that off my chest.

 

[wrs]

Where do we look for Funding

I didn't realise that we were spending so little on defence this year I kept hearing of all the reductions in spending etc but when I heard of the delay to the AWD I decided to have a look into it closer. Is getting a surplus so limportant???? to neglect our ADF so much in funding? I had a look at New Zealand who are a country doing it a little tough at the moment after earthquakes etc I see they are still maintaining defence spending at 1.9% of GDP and we have dropped down to 1.56% surely we can do better than that. I feel that our lovely media has a lot to answer for in regard to this! giving that opposition leader idiot so much air time now everyone seems to believe that a surplus is the be all and end all, this forces the government to react to please the masses. Yes a surplus is not a bad thing to have but not at the expense of things we really need! and after all our spending percentage of GDP wasn't really that high to start with. sorry rant off just needed to get that off my chest.

The current Federal Government has a lot to answer for, regarding cuts, dragging the Defence Force into an abyss.
However would it not also be prudent to get rid of the waste and incompetents that reside in the Public Service, Defence and particularly DMO.
The most recent Senate Report clearly spells out the major and systemic failures.
Look at the record over the last ten years, billions wasted. Imagine if that had been spent wisely?
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia

 

[gf0012-aust]

The current Federal Government has a lot to answer for, regarding cuts, dragging the Defence Force into an abyss.
However would it not also be prudent to get rid of the waste and incompetents that reside in the Public Service, Defence and particularly DMO.
The most recent Senate Report clearly spells out the major and systemic failures.
Look at the record over the last ten years, billions wasted. Imagine if that had been spent wisely?
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia

Although its convenient to blame the DMO for procurement problems - the reality is that DMO cannot make arbitrary decisions, and that they are bound by governance processes that were defined by the Govts of the day

its indolent and cute by half blaming any single organisation.

people need to understand the governance constraints before invoking simple mantras on how to resolve problems.

 

[Raven22]

Although its convenient to blame the DMO for procurement problems - the reality is that DMO cannot make arbitrary decisions, and that they are bound by governance processes that were defined by the Govts of the day

its indolent and cute by half blaming any single organisation.

people need to understand the governance constraints before invoking simple mantras on how to resolve problems.

It might not all be DMOs fault, but a lot of it is. I've nearly come to blows with a rep from DMO due to his incompetence. A lot of DMO personnel forget that their job is to support the warfighter. Apparently a project can deliver zero capability but still be highly successful, because the Powerpoint slide said do.

 

[Sea Toby]

Excuse my ignorance guys but what i understand about the SEA1800 or OPV program is something similar to what our cousins across the ditch have in their large Protector class? If so why could we not emulate a design like that considering it is an existing design that could be modified to allow for the modular systems we want (maybe?), just under 2000Kg has a hanger and spot for a chopper sounds like what everyone seems to be asking for.

Secondly why does it seem (in this case anyway and HMNZS Canterbury) that our cousins have had the for thought to get something like this before us? They have a tiny defence budget compared to Australia (no offence intended) yet they seem to get the type of equipment we want before us? Just curious.

You nailed it on the head, the OPV are less expensive than a patrol frigate, less armed too, and the Canterbury was less expensive than a LPD being based on a ferry design. While the OPVs aren't well armed warships, they are capable of policing their EEZ alike Ireland's OPVs, whereas the Canterbury does provide sealift for an enlarged company of troops. Both types are cheaper because they were designed to commercial specifications although with some military gear.

However, if the fat hits the fan, neither are adequate for naval war fighting. But they are useful for benign peacekeeping missions. New Zealand missed their formal hydropgraphic ship Manowai. Her cranes and cargo hold along with her troop accommodations were useful for resupply missions to their outer islands. Of course the Canterbury has much more capability overall, a crane with her roro vehicle deck and landing craft capability, plus her larger helicopter capacity are a huge improvement. Not only did they finally replace Monowai, they also got a cheap small LPD too.

 

[Twain]

Specifically Growlers

The ALQ-99 replacement?

 

[ADMk2]

The current Federal Government has a lot to answer for, regarding cuts, dragging the Defence Force into an abyss.
However would it not also be prudent to get rid of the waste and incompetents that reside in the Public Service, Defence and particularly DMO.
The most recent Senate Report clearly spells out the major and systemic failures.
Look at the record over the last ten years, billions wasted. Imagine if that had been spent wisely?
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia

Wasted? The Seasprites was a balls-up no doubt about it and anyone involved in that should never have a position to purchase anything for our forces ever again, but yeah imagine if we had invested in your oft-stated "platforms" of choice namely: Huey II, upgraded Caribou operations, KC-747 refuellers and whatever other off the top of your head acquisitions you dream would have "made a difference"...

We'd have a 70's era defence force that was decisively outmatched by every regional power within South East Asia and one that couldn't go anywhere or do anything beyond Operation Anode (Solomans) level ops.

That'd be a tremendous investment in our Countries DEFENCE wouldn't it?