Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

I like the L&C but I still feel its not enough of an oiler for what the RAN wants...

But the L&C T-AKE actually carry more fuel than the Cantabria class

L&C - Fuel = 10,500 JP5 = 7,500

Cantabria - Fuel = 8,920 JP5 = 1,585

And a bucket load more supplies, ammo etc

Agree on a third LHD, it would enable 1 in service all the time, but I dont see it happening

 

[ASSAIL]

Some of the Sea 1180 could involve base upgrades for HMAS Coonawarra as there is talk of building a whole new wharf section as well as some dredging of the basin.

The 500 tonne Synchrolift is not going to hack it either. Not sure about the boat park but the bays may be too short also?
The options are to build an entirely new facility or revert back to slipping at Pearl Marine's 2,500 tonne lift.

Cheers

 

[icelord]

The 500 tonne Synchrolift is not going to hack it either. Not sure about the boat park but the bays may be too short also?
The options are to build an entirely new facility or revert back to slipping at Pearl Marine's 2,500 tonne lift.

Cheers

ive wonderded the same. Unless they keep it for Customs Cape class, i dont see any use for it after OPV. It will either sit there and the land used as storage, or will be re used for new buildings. A new lift would not be worth the money. The slats used for parking boats on are changeable, thats how we can get LCHs as well as ACPBs up there, so a bay with the right measurements could go up there

The idea is for a new wharf to go from the end of the lift point along to the boat ramp breakwall. Another being thrown about is to move the break wall out more and use fremantle wharf as a duel sided berthing area...but that seems stupid really so consider it a short odds favourite. Theres also mention of the area to the north past crew fac building(main one as you sail past)becoming a wharf for major units and the LHDs that stop in, reducing our reliance on Fort Hill Wharf.

While most of what i hear is speculative, coming from COs and NOs who know the basin, im guessing someone who was based in Sydney and canberra most of their career will work it out...its what we do

 

[alexsa]

Some good news at least:

Austal launches Customs vessel - The West Australian

Austal believes it can win overseas orders for the patrol boats it is making for the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.
The first of eight Cape Class vessels was launched at the WA shipbuilder's Henderson shipyard yesterday for sea trials ahead of a handover in March.

Chief executive Andrew Bellamy said there had been considerable interest in both the patrol boats and warships Austal is building in Alabama for the US Navy from potential customers from the Middle East and Asia.


"There's an increasing need for maritime security," Mr Bellamy said. "I don't see any sense that governments have lost focus on that. I'd be looking to see us having something contracted in the next 12 to 18 months."

The construction phase of the $330 million contract ends in 2015. The Henderson facility became defence-focused when commercial shipbuilding was no longer viable.

"The sooner we can line something up beyond this program then obviously the better," Mr Bellamy said. Named Cape St George, the 58m aluminium monohull makes a clean break from the steel grey of its forerunners with a royal blue livery and red racing stripe similar to those sported by US Coast Guard vessels.

Customs maritime acquisitions branch national manager Ian Laverock said while contract negotiations, amendments and design reviews had sometimes been bruising, a high degree of trust had been forged with Austal.

"This project is emerging as one of the great success stories of major capital procurement for the Commonwealth," Mr Laverock said.

"It still remains on budget, within schedule and is poised to deliver a greatly enhanced capability for Australia's maritime border security."

Mr Bellamy said more than two-thirds of Austal's 305 suppliers for Cape St George were WA-based. "It's a great manufacturing story in tough times," he said.

Colin Ayres, director of project supplier Ayres Composite Panels, said the patrol boat program had enabled his company to keep employees on and make new investments.

"The last few years have been pretty rough in the marine industry," Mr Ayres said. "But the Cape Class project for us has stopped the rot. It's bought stability back to our business."

350 million for eight boats. Not sure this is a good deal. Off the shelf Damien and RR designs would have cost less, had greater persistence but ....... Would be built overseas.

 

[Volkodav]

The 500 tonne Synchrolift is not going to hack it either. Not sure about the boat park but the bays may be too short also?
The options are to build an entirely new facility or revert back to slipping at Pearl Marine's 2,500 tonne lift.

Cheers

Build a totally new facility with a floating dock or sychrolift able to dock an AWD if required. I am not just thinking for the RAN but also for the USN, make Darwin a suitable emergency repair option for our friends and allies. With 12 subs, 8 new frigates and 20 OCVs it would be handy to have a desent facility in the north.

 

[Volkodav]

350 million for eight boats. Not sure this is a good deal. Off the shelf Damien and RR designs would have cost less, had greater persistence but ....... Would be built overseas.

If we build enough ships locally and keep our yards busy the prices will drop through efficiencies derived from continuous improvement. Add to this the percentage of money spent on the project returned to the economy, the critical mass gained by supporting industries making them more productive through economies of scale and the up skilling of our engineering, project management and trade skills nationally. It’s a concept that seems to beyond most of our politicians, public servants and unfortunately also most members of the public.

 

[ASSAIL]

350 million for eight boats. Not sure this is a good deal. Off the shelf Damien and RR designs would have cost less, had greater persistence but ....... Would be built overseas.

You have to be careful with the pricing. I suggest that Austal probably has a through life maintenance contract similar to their cooperation with DMS and the ACPB's.
That would make more sense with the numbers.

However, a subject dear to your heart, its cheap compared with the $120m they wasted on the Ocean Shield for the purchase only

 

[John Newman]

If we build enough ships locally and keep our yards busy the prices will drop through efficiencies derived from continuous improvement. Add to this the percentage of money spent on the project returned to the economy, the critical mass gained by supporting industries making them more productive through economies of scale and the up skilling of our engineering, project management and trade skills nationally. It’s a concept that seems to beyond most of our politicians, public servants and unfortunately also most members of the public.

I came across this yesterday about the Spanish shipbuilding industry when I was looking for info on Cantabria, see page 2:

http://www.spaintechnology.com/icex/cma/contentTypes/common/records/mostrarDocumento/?doc=4539530

As you can see in the overview, nearly 8,000 people are directly employed in shipbuilding and repair facilities, and on top of that, over 38,000 indirectly employed.

As the overview states, there are 5 people working for every 1 person employed directly in a shipyard.


Let's hope that most of the approx 50 new ships for the RAN, as currently identified in the DCP, end up being built here in Australia.

Lot of employment and a lot of money flowing back through the ecomomy too.

 

[Volkodav]

I came across this yesterday about the Spanish shipbuilding industry when I was looking for info on Cantabria, see page 2:

http://www.spaintechnology.com/icex/cma/contentTypes/common/records/mostrarDocumento/?doc=4539530

As you can see in the overview, nearly 8,000 people are directly employed in shipbuilding and repair facilities, and on top of that, over 38,000 indirectly employed.

As the overview states, there are 5 people working for every 1 person employed directly in a shipyard.


Let's hope that most of the approx 50 new ships for the RAN, as currently identified in the DCP, end up being built here in Australia.

Lot of employment and a lot of money flowing back through the ecomomy too.

A lot of the skills and facilities can also transition easily to support mining and other industries. Naval ship building is a very good way to people and facilities busy during tight times.

 

[ASSAIL]

I have just been through the Rizzo Report again with a view of seeing how the principles espoused/recommendations would work with the ACPB's.

Sadly, as I understand it, the principles cannot be applied as neither the Navy nor DMO has any control at all over the preparedness of these vessels. Their sustainment is completely in the hands of Austal DMS.

All the reports of failure, lack of timely repair, loss of organic engineering competence, innacurate reporting etc, the symptoms, sound uncanilly like the reported shortfalls of the LPA's but, as long as the contractor has complete control, there is little Navy can do to change the situation.

Is this a correct interpretation of the situation or am I being overly pessimistic?

 

[Anixtu]

But the L&C T-AKE actually carry more fuel than the Cantabria class

L&C - Fuel = 10,500 JP5 = 7,500

Cantabria - Fuel = 8,920 JP5 = 1,585

You quote the T-AKE figures in barrels and the Cantabria figures in cubic metres (both from Wikipedia?).

 

[old faithful]

anyone the approximate streangth of the navy clearance diver teams? Approximate, eg, Troop , Company?
Cheers dave.

 

[StevoJH]

I have just been through the Rizzo Report again with a view of seeing how the principles espoused/recommendations would work with the ACPB's.

Sadly, as I understand it, the principles cannot be applied as neither the Navy nor DMO has any control at all over the preparedness of these vessels. Their sustainment is completely in the hands of Austal DMS.

All the reports of failure, lack of timely repair, loss of organic engineering competence, innacurate reporting etc, the symptoms, sound uncanilly like the reported shortfalls of the LPA's but, as long as the contractor has complete control, there is little Navy can do to change the situation.

Is this a correct interpretation of the situation or am I being overly pessimistic?

If they don't meet the sustainment requirements as stated in the contract, surely there would be penalties that could be enforced? Or did they find a loophole?

 

[John Newman]

If they don't meet the sustainment requirements as stated in the contract, surely there would be penalties that could be enforced? Or did they find a loophole?

It's always interesting to see the result of projects like this, the outsourcing of ongoing sustainment by private consortiums, etc.

Who in NSW could forget the various "public / private" partnerships, brokered by the previous NSW State Goverment, that have given us the Lane Cove Tunnel, the Cross City Tunnel and the Airport Rail Link, now there's some projects that have contracts full of "loopholes"!!!

If they go broke or don't make their financial projections, the Government, or should I say "we" the taxpayers, keep paying through our pockets for the failures.

And the news in the last days or so about a budget blow out with the UK AirTanker consortium.

Obviously I don't know the details of the Austal or other deals, but I think it's clear that whilst, on the surface, these "private" supply/support deals look financially attractive at the time, the reality, in the longer term is not always as it appeared in the beginning.

Makes you wonder if things should go back to how they were, eg, the end user was responsible for managment and maintenance.

I wonder how many other future ADF projects are intended to be operated in the same manner?

 

[StevoJH]

Sounds like a brilliant Idea to me. And if they wanted, the Navy could even build their own ships if they wanted. There wouldn't be a need to make a profit, though there is no reason why they could not if they also tendered for commercial work. Catch being that the Government would still go "this capability isnt being used at the moment, reduce the capability to save some money".

 

[t68]

Sounds like a brilliant Idea to me. And if they wanted, the Navy could even build their own ships if they wanted. There wouldn't be a need to make a profit, though there is no reason why they could not if they also tendered for commercial work. Catch being that the Government would still go "this capability isnt being used at the moment, reduce the capability to save some money".

From memory Abraham brought up something like this sometime ago, I think the RAN has enough to keep a single yard going indefinitely

 

[John Newman]

Sounds like a brilliant Idea to me. And if they wanted, the Navy could even build their own ships if they wanted. There wouldn't be a need to make a profit, though there is no reason why they could not if they also tendered for commercial work. Catch being that the Government would still go "this capability isnt being used at the moment, reduce the capability to save some money".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ASC currently under 100% Government ownership?

Yes it has its partners in the AWD alliance, so doesn't that mean that whatever "share" of the profits it make out of the AWD project goes back to the Government? Eg, you, me and all the taxpayers of this Country.

And isn't also reasonable to assume, that if ASC stays in Government hands, that ALL of its profits from the replacement Submarine project, Future Frigates, etc, goes back to the Government? Again, eg, you and me!!

And that's apart from all the taxes the Government is going to make out of Company tax and Personal tax from all those projects too.

Sounds like a win win to me!!!

 

[aussienscale]

You quote the T-AKE figures in barrels and the Cantabria figures in cubic metres (both from Wikipedia?).

Yes, correct, my bad assumed it was cubes in the original reference I had looked at as it did not quote it as bbl. Looking at other references there are slight variations in the listed capacities of both ships.

Navantia's own documents state the Cantabria Class as:

DFM: 8,200 M3
JP5: 1,450 M3

http://www.navantia.es/files/AOR_28092011.pdf

While NASSCO (General Dynamics) quote the L&C as being 23,450 bbl, as opposed to the wiki quote (among others) of 18,000 bbl

General Dynamics/NASSCO: T-AKE Fact Sheet

So a bit confussing, but typical of publicly available info I think even so, with mods, the L&C would be a better fit for the RAN. I don't believe the Cantabria has enough capacity for dry goods and ammo to be able to support the future fleet, including the future requirements of the LHD's.

I see the Cantabria as still being more of an oiler, I think we need more than that. No knocking the Cantabria, they appear to be a good ship, just not what we need, so we will probably end up with a couple going on Mr Smith's form.

Edit: Rather than a new post will just ad this link to youtube of Cantabria departing for Australia
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o008HBsss0o"]B.A.C. CANTÃBRIA saliendo de Ferrol rumbo a Australia. - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[StevoJH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ASC currently under 100% Government ownership?

Yes it has its partners in the AWD alliance, so doesn't that mean that whatever "share" of the profits it make out of the AWD project goes back to the Government? Eg, you, me and all the taxpayers of this Country.

And isn't also reasonable to assume, that if ASC stays in Government hands, that ALL of its profits from the replacement Submarine project, Future Frigates, etc, goes back to the Government? Again, eg, you and me!!

And that's apart from all the taxes the Government is going to make out of Company tax and Personal tax from all those projects too.

Sounds like a win win to me!!!

As far as I know yes. But i wasnt talking about running it as a company. I was more thinking of it along the lines of the employees being civilian employees of the Navy rather than civilian employees of a commercial company that just so happens to be 100% Government owned.

 

[John Newman]

As far as I know yes. But i wasnt talking about running it as a company. I was more thinking of it along the lines of the employees being civilian employees of the Navy rather than civilian employees of a commercial company that just so happens to be 100% Government owned.

No problem, understand what you mean.

But I think what we would all like to see is a more direct line between the end user, eg Navy, and the people that support it.

Less BS, less service agreements that might be met according to the contract, but not actually achiving what is needed, cut the crap, cut the red tape, just deliver the proper support.

That I think we can all agree on.