Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ancientcivy

New Member
Ng, will try and have a good look at it over the weekend.

MCM functions certainly seem to be evolving at a fast pace, seems to be less reliance on purpose built ships and more about the variety of remote systems.

Thanks mate!
I don't have sufficient posts to provide a link but might I suggest you google navy anticipates smother waters for lcs mine counter measures. This Article makes interesting reading, however the main point is that mh-60s have been found unsuitable for towing the mine hunting sled and the USN have abandoned plans to proceed . Though they do have more powerful hellos which can.
My bad for not finding this article earlier.
Best regards Bob
 

drjn

New Member
Yes because if you end up in the minefield you go BOOM!!


Reminds me of the old joke about the Irish mine detection team (it's a visual joke, hope this works):

Picture them with their fingers in their ears, face scrunched up, with the right leg stretched out, foot extended, tapping the ground in front of them!!

PS, Apologise to the Irish! Actually some of my very first ancestors in Australia were Irish convicts in Tasmania in the 1850's!


Actually any ship can be a minesweeper..............once.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Is it a slightly different configuration from when they brought Canberra out?
The container-like structures on the deck and a fitted crane?
No, same as Canberra.
If you google Canberra "images" you will see her loaded on Blue Marlin looking pretty similar.
Chris
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yep, Adelaide, time lapse video from Navantia below. Williamstown will be looking pretty full soon :)

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBWFuRH4TPE"]NAVANTIA: Secuencia completa embarque 'Adelaide'. Ría de Vigo, 10-dic-2013 - YouTube[/nomedia]
 

rand0m

Member
The Hobart class destroyers are receiving some heat today;

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

AUSTRALIA'S biggest defence project is now in crisis, with the $8 billion construction of three Air Warfare Destroyers rocked by budget blowouts of almost $10 million a month amid fears it could eventually require a $1bn federal government bailout.

In a new blow to the nation's beleaguered manufacturing sector, an Australian National Audit Office report will today reveal that the AWD project was $106m over its $618m budget for 2012-13 - a wastage of more than $2m a week due to poor productivity in inefficient shipyards and excess costs for labour and materials.

It will show that $4.5bn - more than half - of the AWD project's $8bn budget has been spent even before the first of the three warships has been completed, and that budget overruns are eating deeply into the emergency reserve funds for the project.

There is growing alarm inside the Coalition that the former Labor government has bequeathed it a deeply flawed project that could eventually rival the troubled Collins Class submarine saga and force the government into a massive taxpayer-funded rescue package.

Industry sources believe the government may eventually be forced to inject up to $1bn to pay for the three ships.

The project, which aims to construct the most potent warships in the navy's history, is vital to the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia and any failure would raise serious doubts about Australia's capacity to build the planned 12 new submarines at a cost of up to $40bn. The AWD project has already been delayed by two years because of shipbuilding bungles, infighting between partners, Defence budget cuts and a cultural clash with the ship's Spanish designer, Navantia.

Today's ANAO report will go further, citing the urgent need for more efficient shipyard management by the ASC in Adelaide, a better understanding of the Spanish design drawings that have confounded local workers and a coherent plan to support the ships beyond the construction phase.

Unless the problems are quickly addressed, it is likely that the delivery schedule of the warships will once again be delayed beyond the current revised plan to deliver the first ship in March 2016 and the final ship in March 2019.

The critical nature of the ANAO report will intensify pressure on the government to conduct an independent review of the project. Defence is pushing for the review but the Department of Finance is blocking the move amid speculation that it is reluctant to approve a forensic examination of the failings within the government-owned shipbuilder ASC. The body responsible for the AWD project is the unwieldy and largely unaccountable AWD Alliance comprising ASC, the Defence Materiel Organisation and Ratheon Australia.

This alliance is fractured by internal disputes, with DMO privately blaming ASC for the AWD's problems, while ASC blames the Spanish designer Navantia and also has a poisonous relationship with its own AWD subcontractor and shipbuilding rival BAE Systems in Melbourne's Williamstown naval shipyard.

The secretive AWD Alliance has never publicly acknowledged the serious problems it faces and it still maintains it is on budget because its emergency contingency funds have not yet been exhausted.

The AWD project has been rescheduled twice since 2010, when The Australian revealed that faulty welding had botched the keel block for the first ship. In September last year the Gillard Labor government delayed the project by another year, on top of a previous 15-month delay, because of Labor's heavy cuts to the Defence budget and critical shortages of skills and manpower.

The construction of the AWDs involved 90 separate steel blocks being built at four shipyards: ASC in Adelaide, Forgacs in Newcastle, BAE in Melbourne and Navantia in Spain. But inexperience in naval shipbuilding in Australia after a decade between major projects has resulted in ASC performing poorly as shipbuilding manager, while Forgacs has struggled to cope with its workload.

ASC is critical of Navantia for providing Spanish design drawings for the destroyer that are not clear enough for Australian shipyard workers to follow.

The three ships will carry US-designed missile Defence systems and will give the navy the ability to escort troop convoys and destroy aircraft more than 150km away.
 

Trackmaster

Member
The Hobart class destroyers are receiving some heat today;

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I find the timing of this interesting.

It certainly focuses the attention on the program, at a time the SA Government, in GMH shock, is applying pressure for a fourth AWD.

With a leak/exclusive story, it is always useful to go through the exercise of asking who benefits/ suffers from this?

I don't believe it is all sweetness and light, with a good-hearted soul out there, concerned about the waste of taxpayer $$$.

There's an agenda.
 

rjtjrt

Member
I find the timing of this interesting.
.......................

With a leak/exclusive story, it is always useful to go through the exercise of asking who benefits/ suffers from this?

I don't believe it is all sweetness and light, with a good-hearted soul out there, concerned about the waste of taxpayer $$$.

There's an agenda.
It is interesting and reasonable to look behind the article, but the more important issue is whether the information and thrust of the article is accurate or not?
John
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It is interesting and reasonable to look behind the article, but the more important issue is whether the information and thrust of the article is accurate or not?
John
Interesting that Raytheon are only mentioned once yet they are key decision makers throughout the project and actually currently run the Alliance.
 

Samoa

Member
Its all been quiet on Canberra's sea trials start.
Has anyone got the latest info?
There are at least two sea trials scheduled. The first relates to the platform systems, and was targeted in late December, to match an availability for dry-docking in Sydney. When it was determined that this "slot" was going to be tight in terms of ship readiness, it was elected to move to the next available slot in early March. The second sea trial relates to the combat and communications systems.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If I were in a position to guide RAN procurement I would be looking not to a fourth AWD but a Batch or Flight II AWD of 3 ships and redeploy two ANZACs as training ships or offer them for sale.

A class of modular OPVs could be built to replace the ACPBs and then a locally designed corvette or frigate developed to replace the remaining ANZACS.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If I were in a position to guide RAN procurement I would be looking not to a fourth AWD but a Batch or Flight II AWD of 3 ships and redeploy two ANZACs as training ships or offer them for sale.

A class of modular OPVs could be built to replace the ACPBs and then a locally designed corvette or frigate developed to replace the remaining ANZACS.
I like the idea of blocks of 4 as this fits with our notional numbers. That would allow a 4th AWD followed by 4 block I ANZAC II. Supports ships.......... build them overseas as there is a massive cost advantage,
 

hairyman

Active Member
There may be a massive cost advantage in given foreign shipyards more work which could be done here, but there are also massive advantages in building in Australia, especially with the future closure of Ford and GMH. For my mind one of the most important issues is how many ships do we build for the RAN? Bearing in mind we recently had 3 CFAdams destroyers, 6 OHPerry Frigates and 8 Anzac class frigates on the way. Now we are down to just the Anzacs and a few of the OHP's. And there is the distinct possibility that the 8 Anzacs will be replaced by 6 ships, giving us a fleet of 9. About half of what we should have.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There may be a massive cost advantage in given foreign shipyards more work which could be done here, but there are also massive advantages in building in Australia, especially with the future closure of Ford and GMH. For my mind one of the most important issues is how many ships do we build for the RAN? Bearing in mind we recently had 3 CFAdams destroyers, 6 OHPerry Frigates and 8 Anzac class frigates on the way. Now we are down to just the Anzacs and a few of the OHP's. And there is the distinct possibility that the 8 Anzacs will be replaced by 6 ships, giving us a fleet of 9. About half of what we should have.
Many of the issues we are having now can be traced back to the failure to order timely replacements for the CFAs while opting to upgrade instead of replacing the OHPs and cancelling the corvettes (planned to replace the FCPBs). A sustainable affordable building program was replaced by a return to boom and bust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top