Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

Why dont we just start building the new subs when the AWD work runs out in 2019. If we have built 2 or 3 before the Collins is de-commissioned, we have increased the size of our submarine fleet earlier. This cant be a bad thing can it?

I believe that there is speculation that another AWD will be ordered to stop work drying up prior to the new submarine build, but with the government not committed funding to late in the planned cycle it may be a moot point unless we double the order for AWD or build another sealift ship here in OZ .

 

[hairyman]

You beat me to it t68. As it is we dont complete the 3 AWD's until 2019. I am sure we can finalize a design for the new submarines in 7 years. If not, we can always build that 4th AWD that so many think we should have ordered anyway, and gain an extra couple of years.
I can see no reason why there should be a break between the AWD work and the submarine work.

 

[justsomeaussie]

From the Austal website page 6

http://www.austal.com/Libraries/New...e-News/Austal-Defence-News---October-2012.pdf

Thoughts on an 80m multi role vessel with ceafar/ceamount on the top and 9LV?

Edit:

I'm in two minds about this, in terms of border protection it's overkill but in terms of an actual OCV it would complement the ANZACs well especially if it was fitted for but not with ESSM.

Re the comment about the MRV not being useful for Southern Ocean, isn't that the point? You can't have it both ways, so lot of smaller vessels covering the north/north west approaches and a couple of ice going vessels like we currently do seems appropriate.

 

[hauritz]

Actually if they are looking at creating ongoing work what they could look at is Sea 5000.

The first of the Anzacs will need to be replaced in the mid 20's.

From the program description it seems like they just need a general purpose version of the Hobart class. If they wanted to fast track a project than that would be the one I would go for.

 

[hairyman]

I dont think that will hel[ the submarine situation, both the Collins and the Anzacs are due for replacement at the same time. Only the Collins are going to be built in bigger numbers, so it makes sense that the subs could well be started before HMAS Collins is due for retirement as the submarine fleet is going to be increased anyway.

 

[hauritz]

Re the comment about the MRV not being useful for Southern Ocean, isn't that the point? You can't have it both ways, so lot of smaller vessels covering the north/north west approaches and a couple of ice going vessels like we currently do seems appropriate.

The navy already has a vessel built to ice class 1b ... the Ocean Shield. It will be handed over to Customs next year.

 

[hauritz]

I dont think that will hel[ the submarine situation, both the Collins and the Anzacs are due for replacement at the same time. Only the Collins are going to be built in bigger numbers, so it makes sense that the subs could well be started before HMAS Collins is due for retirement as the submarine fleet is going to be increased anyway.

The thing is that building new destroyers based on an existing design is easier than rushing ahead with a program that is still in its developmental stages.

The minister and navy have both emphasised that they want to get the submarine program right so nothing is going to be done in haste. Also 12 submarines is the long term goal ... not short term. The idea is to have an ongoing construction program that will be spread out over the life of the fleet . It isn't intended to build up the size of the submarine fleet asap. The last of the new subs probably won't see service until the mid 50's.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From the Austal website page 6

http://www.austal.com/Libraries/New...e-News/Austal-Defence-News---October-2012.pdf

Thoughts on an 80m multi role vessel with ceafar/ceamount on the top and 9LV?

It’s very interesting showing just what can be done with all the deadweight available in a mission deck style ship and also all the deck surface area available via a multi hull. Such a ship with the full list of options (ASW, ESM, etc) would actually be in some ways more capable than an Anzac class. It has everything the Anzac has except the VSR (SPS-49) and 127mm gun. In return the MRV80 warship version as high speed (35 knots vs 27 knots), a rapid fire 76mm gun and a VSRAD (RAM) capability. Which would make it more useful in littoral waters. But with the valid criticisms levelled at these aluminium multi hulls. Not enough sea-keeping for ocean operations, not enough life of hull for heavy use over 10-15 years and one would expect not the same class of damage control.

I'm in two minds about this, in terms of border protection it's overkill but in terms of an actual OCV it would complement the ANZACs well especially if it was fitted for but not with ESSM.

And compared to the original more patrol orientated MRV80 configurations it sacrifices a lot of border protection capability. Like all the extra accommodation in the superstructure which is likely taken up by the combat system, VLS and 76mm gun magazine. Plus much of the mission deck would be filled with the towed array and helo stores. Also one could assume the HMS goes in the accommodation space (aka prision) in the lower hull. But it certainly fits into the ‘sea control’, ‘multi-mission’ mix of corvettes as a SEA 1180 + 5000 concept.

Re the comment about the MRV not being useful for Southern Ocean, isn't that the point? You can't have it both ways, so lot of smaller vessels covering the north/north west approaches and a couple of ice going vessels like we currently do seems appropriate.

I don’t think it’s really the Southern Ocean that is the problem and the draft OCD for SEA 1180 ruled out such south of the 40th parallel. But the concern is for multi-hull sea keeping in high sea states that can be found in tropical waters on a bad day.

 

[Volkodav]

Then thats something to build.

The only way that could happen is if we managed to un(expletive) the completely (expletive)d IP agreement our not so competent government of the day signed with Kockups whoops I mean Kockums. We paid for and owned the design and then for some reason I will never comrehend we paid for it again to remove Kockums from the project but failed to secure full rights, let alone ownership of the IP. Ironically as a direct result of our amaturish attempt to remove Kockums from the equation we are obligated to engage Kockums in any additional improved or evolved Collins class design and specifically precluded from using any knowledge or skill derived from the Collins project in developing a new design. It almost seems that some one was trying to waste as much money as possible in a deliberate act to discredit the project and make a follow on project as difficult as possible.:lul

 

[John Newman]

Interesting reading everybody’s 2 cents worth about what to do with the "gap" in future naval construction, for what it’s worth, here’s mine.

First thing I looked at was the current Defence Capability Plan and Guide, the projects are in order of IOC:

JP2048 Ph4 A/B - 2 x LHD – IOC 2014-16 (currently under construction)
SEA 4000 - 3 x AWD’s due in service between 2016-19 (currently under construction)
SEA 1180 - 20 x OCV’s - IOC 2018-21
SEA 1654 - 1 x AOR, Success replacement - IOC 2018-23
JP 2048 Ph 5 - 6 x Landing Craft Heavy – IOC 2022-24
JP 2048 Ph 4C - 1 x Strategic Sealift Ship – IOC 2022-2024
SEA 1000 - 12 x Submarines – IOC 2025-27
SEA 5000 - 8 x Future Frigates – IOC 2027-30

Excluding the 3 AWD’s and the 2 LHD’s under construction there are another 48 vessels currently planned.

The discussion at the moment revolves around the “gap” in construction between the last AWD and the first of the 12 Submarines.

Another question is, if all of the above are built in Australia do we have a potential problem in the future with a “bottle neck” happening when various projects overlap? It’s either a “feast or famine” for the ship building industry.

Also which yards are going to be the lead for assembly, which yards will build the blocks, etc. This is not just a question of industrial capacity but also a “political” question too, this and future governments will no doubt want to “spead the love” around the country from an employment point of view too.

My 2 cents worth is:

Adelaide - If the $’s can be found, build a 4th AWD to fill the gap before the 12 Submarines start construction, get the Submarine design right and don’t rush into construction till it is.

Melbourne - As soon as the LHD’s are complete, if the facilities are large enough and if Navy is happy with Cantabria too, start building a replacement there for Success and maybe follow up with a 2nd as a replacement for Sirius too.

Newcastle - With the last of the LCH going out of commission in the next couple of years, move the IOC forward and start construction of their replacements soon. Also at a later date build the Stategic Sealift Ship there too.

WA – Austal to construct the 20 OCV’s.


Where do we build the 8 Future Frigates?
Once Adelaide starts on the 12 Submarines, is it going to have the capacity to also construct the 8 Future Frigates? If the answer is no, maybe have them assembled in Melbourne or split across two yards.

Block construction for all the projects could also be spead around the various yards mentioned as their work load decreases on their primary project.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth!!!

 

[StevoJH]

I don't see the problem so much as being between the current builds, but what happens to the yards afterwards if everything is rushed through.

 

[ADMk2]

I don't see the problem so much as being between the current builds, but what happens to the yards afterwards if everything is rushed through.

AWD's won't last forever, by the 2040's we'll be looking to replace them I guess, then probably the OCV's and so on.

If we're smart and invest properly, there shouldn't be any real problem in developing a continuous industry. Who knows? If we actually invest properly and get good enough, we might even be able to sell some ships to others...

:unknown

 

[justsomeaussie]

That's the key, continuous building capability. So like the Armidales have been upgraded into the Cape and Cape should be into the OCV. This allows our shipbuilders to build a body of knowledge at each "Flight". This stop and start building has been shown to cost a lot more than if we had an even lower defence spend.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's the key, continuous building capability. So like the Armidales have been upgraded into the Cape and Cape should be into the OCV. This allows our shipbuilders to build a body of knowledge at each "Flight". This stop and start building has been shown to cost a lot more than if we had an even lower defence spend.

But then where's the need for costly defence decision making? No jobs in Canberra, no Ministerial rubber stamping, no marketting, no selling, no buying... Sir Antony Jay would be very upset with you.

 

[Volkodav]

That's the key, continuous building capability. So like the Armidales have been upgraded into the Cape and Cape should be into the OCV. This allows our shipbuilders to build a body of knowledge at each "Flight". This stop and start building has been shown to cost a lot more than if we had an even lower defence spend.

Well it could be argued that the mission has evolved to the point that an aluminium patrol boat is no longer a suitable platform to fill the role. An evolved ACPB or Cape class would suffer the same structural related issues as the ACPB. The steel Freos lasted 25 years while the ACPBs will be lucky to make their contracted 14 years.

 

[justsomeaussie]

We've had this argument before but I think you'll find that design isn't a primary problem for the state of the ACPBs. If you get a change have a look at Maitland, it's just been refurbished by Austal (instead of DMS) and I think the results will surprise you.

 

[Volkodav]

We've had this argument before but I think you'll find that design isn't a primary problem for the state of the ACPBs. If you get a change have a look at Maitland, it's just been refurbished by Austal (instead of DMS) and I think the results will surprise you.

I have no doubts Austal have done a better job than DMS and I can imagine Austal did a lot of structural rectification work that was beyond DMS scope or ability. The way I see it is the problem is not the design rather the mission it is filling is not the one it was designed for, if we had a class of half a dozen or more OPVs supported by the ACPB there would be no problem.

Take it back to the 80s when the ANZAC project was being defined, these were meant to be a class of eight approximately 2000ton tier 2 or patrol frigates supporting a similar number of tier 1 combatants / destroyers and frigates. If you have eight Destroyer and eight PFs then AL hulled PBs will do just fine, when you have a grand total of 12, soon to be 11 frigates then your PBs are going to be worked to death.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The way I see it is the problem is not the design rather the mission it is filling is not the one it was designed for, if we had a class of half a dozen or more OPVs supported by the ACPB there would be no problem.

It's about design relevance against the CONOPs.......

and then, it's about the changes to the CONOPs caused by Govt policy....

ie if your mission sets are primarily meant to be brown, green. - then making them do green, grey, blue will just end up with boats breaking unless they have a fair bit of design fat and hardness factored in already - trying to meet cost requirements means that's unlikely to exist.....

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't see the problem so much as being between the current builds, but what happens to the yards afterwards if everything is rushed through.

That is the Catch 22 problem, isn't it? One wants their shipbuilding to be competitive worldwide with costs, but also stretch out shipbuilding programs to keep the shipbuilders busy, i.e., employed. The more you stretch out a shipbuilding program, the more the ships cost leading to your shipbuilding being less competitive.

Frankly, Australia isn't China. Australia doesn't have their population or skilled workforce to stay busy with competitive prices. The United Kingdom and France face the same Catch 22 problem as well. Even the United States faces this problem too. While the larger United States may be able to keep their shipbuilders busy, they do so being uncompetitive with prices. The last time the United States sold new US built warships for export was back during the late 1970s to Australia. And that included four frigates out of a total US built class of 55 warships.

 

[t68]

That is the Catch 22 problem, isn't it? One wants their shipbuilding to be competitive worldwide with costs, but also stretch out shipbuilding programs to keep the shipbuilders busy, i.e., employed. The more you stretch out a shipbuilding program, the more the ships cost leading to your shipbuilding being less competitive.

Frankly, Australia isn't China. Australia doesn't have their population or skilled workforce to stay busy with competitive prices. The United Kingdom and France face the same Catch 22 problem as well. Even the United States faces this problem too. While the larger United States may be able to keep their shipbuilders busy, they do so being uncompetitive with prices. The last time the United States sold new US built warships for export was back during the late 1970s to Australia. And that included four frigates out of a total US built class of 55 warships.

AG said it some time ago. That a single ship building yard would have continuous work for the RAN alone, it may not be as competitive as multiple yards (price wise) but at least the workforce would be stable.

Look at BAE in the UK they are threating to closed down another yard in the UK once the carriers are built, the government has to decide if a single yard with continuous work at a higher rate would in the nation’s best interest or the problematic way we do things now with stops and starts and rebuilding workforce capability.