Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Cockatoo didn't help themselves when it took them twice as long and thrice as much to build HMAS Success, a Durance class replenishment ship than the French shipyards. The unions somehow found a way with enough industrial action to cancel the second ship. Fast forward thirty years and the unions are doing the same again with shoddy work. No wonder the government is looking abroad to build ships. Currently the unions can't even fit out two LHDs on time and within budget. Somehow the Spanish workers can, on time and within budget. Quality control is vital for manufacturing, the Australians have lost sight of QC.

Yes Cockatoo had issues but they also completed the SWUP on the Oberons and their regular deep maintenance refits quite well. It was a government yard and we paid the price.

However to extroplate to every project since undertaken is rubbish. You have no visibility of whether the defects on the LHD stem from the Navantia build or from BAE systems.

Yes ASC have struggled with ship 1 of the AWD but ship 2 is progressing much better and that is to be expected with a new project.

The ANZAC build was not without effort but in the end 10 ships were produced and capability increased, the problem is then when the project work dries up and all those skills need to be relearnt which is what is happening with the AWD.

If we were to rely on you view of performance then the US would have stopped building ships at Northrop Grumman after LPD-17 because, lets face it, that was a pretty difficult commissioning noting it took 5 years to be certain of reliability.

You appear to have a passionate desire to rubbish anything an Australian ship yard produces or does. While their record is not perfect (nor is Northrop Grumman's for that matter and I have seen some stuff ups out of Korea on commercial ships) it is certainly not as you describe.

Finally if our QC is such rubbish then we had better stop the ASMD project as we are obviously incapable. To be honest I find your posts ignorant, uninformed and insulting.

Don't bother responding I don't plan to respond to you

 

[Volkodav]

Cockatoo didn't help themselves when it took them twice as long and thrice as much to build HMAS Success, a Durance class replenishment ship than the French shipyards. The unions somehow found a way with enough industrial action to cancel the second ship. Fast forward thirty years and the unions are doing the same again with shoddy work. No wonder the government is looking abroad to build ships. Currently the unions can't even fit out two LHDs on time and within budget. Somehow the Spanish workers can, on time and within budget. Quality control is vital for manufacturing, the Australians have lost sight of QC.

What's all this crap about unions Toby? Its shipyards, both privately and government owned that are doing the work and governments deciding what is built where and when. Unions have very little say in what goes on almost nothing compared to shipyard management and project management. Industrial action was a major problem before the reforms of the late 80s but has hardly been a factor since.

The only Australian shipyard to have had issues with quality is BAE Wiliamstown and that was due to a new, poorly trained, low skilled, poorly supervised and managed workforce (due to extensive redundancies) being sold by their management as an experienced world class operation. They were also over committed as prime on the LHDs as well as subcontractor on the AWD. Nothing to do with unions there. If anything the fault can be passed to government as they were warned that there was insufficient capacity for two major projects, especially after the down sizing the industry suffered post ANZAC and COLLINS builds.

On the Durance build, are you aware that the technical data was supplied in French and metric to a yard that had only ever built RN and indigenous designs and that almost no designer support was contacted? I doubt NASCO, Daewoo, or Hyundai could have built a ship on time and cost in those circumstances.

Anyway Toby, enough of your neocon,union bashing bs and back in your box. I am no fan or friend of unions but it shits me no end when unions are blamed for stuff ups that are clearly made by government and management. Letting the guilty off the hook simply lets them go on and do it again and again always blaming others for their own failings.

 

[Bonza]

Cockatoo didn't help themselves when it took them twice as long and thrice as much to build HMAS Success, a Durance class replenishment ship than the French shipyards. The unions somehow found a way with enough industrial action to cancel the second ship. Fast forward thirty years and the unions are doing the same again with shoddy work. No wonder the government is looking abroad to build ships. Currently the unions can't even fit out two LHDs on time and within budget. Somehow the Spanish workers can, on time and within budget. Quality control is vital for manufacturing, the Australians have lost sight of QC.

Honestly mate I have to tell you, maybe it's better that you kick back and read some more on the topic before posting - I'm losing count of the number of negative responses you receive from people in the business whose experience has been well and truly verified. I'm not saying don't post but please consider the content of the responses you're getting and have a think about why that is. Believe me, it isn't because people enjoy writing negative responses.

 

[StoresBasher]

Gents
I have read recently that HMAS Darwin will be paid off and decommissioned in December this year.
I am a bit concerned that with the delays in the AWD build that it may be a bit premature to pay Darwin off especially with the demands placed on our ships at the moment.
Would it be possible to keep her in service until Nu Ship Hobart is commissioned or is Darwin past her operational life.
I am eagerly anticipating the release of the Defence White Paper regarding the RAN building OPVs that could do a lot of the work which is being presently being done by major fleet units like Darwin in Operation Resolute etc which obviously reduces the life of ships like her.

What do you think

No, Sydney will be the next FFG to be paid off, she was due later this year, but has had her life extended due to the delays with the new DDG's being built.

 

[Joe Black]

Would the Patrol Frigate series (variant of the National Security Cutter) make a feasible replacement for the Anzac-class frigates. They are cheap to build, and have been advertised with the CEAFAR radar.

Do not scorn me if I'm a bit wrong here, ships aren't my speciality.

I don't think the Patrol Frigate is cheap by any means. The National Security Cutter is already costing quite a bit $684m(average), $735m(FY13 ship). The sea frame itself is a lot more expensive than the LCS for example (don't get me wrong, not suggesting LCS suits too).

 

[Joe Black]

The only way Australia could support multiple shipyards is to guarantee that every single RAN ship is built in Australia and to also replace the Patrol Boats with something larger, be it an OPV, a corvette, or a light frigate design. With out sufficient work to go around multiple yards will not work here.

I wonder then an OPV built by Austal should be considered then. Would it be possible to say, obtain the Damen 2400 design and license build it in Austal Henderson shipyard?

And the 8x Future frigate based on F100 sea frame with CEAFAR be built by ASC, BAE Systems and Thales on a bid per ship basis?

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder then an OPV built by Austal should be considered then. Would it be possible to say, obtain the Damen 2400 design and license build it in Austal Henderson shipyard?

And the 8x Future frigate based on F100 sea frame with CEAFAR be built by ASC, BAE Systems and Thales on a bid per ship basis?

Austal are aluminium fabricators, they lack the capability to build steel ships, the Daman 2400 is a steel design. Far better to use the existing ASC, BAE and Forgacs yards to build the OPVs to maintain skill levels prior to the ANZAC replacement program.

Austal also employ large numbers of 457 visa holders in preference to training Australians where the large naval yards train and employ predominantly Australians, many of whom subsequently move into mining and infrastructure construction projects growing the economy in general. Many trades, technical, engineering and supply chain professionals cut their teeth in the defence and automotive industries, automotive is dead, if defence goes too where will Australians be able to go to get training and experience?

 

[Joe Black]

Austal are aluminium fabricators, they lack the capability to build steel ships, the Daman 2400 is a steel design. Far better to use the existing ASC, BAE and Forgacs yards to build the OPVs to maintain skill levels prior to the ANZAC replacement program.

Austal also employ large numbers of 457 visa holders in preference to training Australians where the large naval yards train and employ predominantly Australians, many of whom subsequently move into mining and infrastructure construction projects growing the economy in general. Many trades, technical, engineering and supply chain professionals cut their teeth in the defence and automotive industries, automotive is dead, if defence goes too where will Australians be able to go to get training and experience?

Interestingly, I just stumbled over an article written by Andrew Davis about the very topic we are discussing here:
The British are coming | The Strategist

 

[Volkodav]

Interestingly, I just stumbled over an article written by Andrew Davis about the very topic we are discussing here:
The British are coming | The Strategist

An interesting read that I pretty much agree with. There were problems early on due to an underestimation of the complexities involved by the government and some of those working on contracts. Technical people weren't as blinkered but often weren't listened to, i.e. I was a meeting just after steel was cut where a senior manager commented that the schedule would inevitably slip as the first ship always does as lessons are learned. The issue was the schedule was too tight and no leeway had been given for potential / likely problems.

Now after the inevitable has happened and even though ship two is progressing much better, the early delays and issues are being used to push a political desire to privatise ASC and the people who overcame the problems are being blamed and punished for things they didn't cause but did fix.

 

[Joe Black]

An interesting read that I pretty much agree with. There were problems early on due to an underestimation of the complexities involved by the government and some of those working on contracts. Technical people weren't as blinkered but often weren't listened to, i.e. I was a meeting just after steel was cut where a senior manager commented that the schedule would inevitably slip as the first ship always does as lessons are learned. The issue was the schedule was too tight and no leeway had been given for potential / likely problems.

Now after the inevitable has happened and even though ship two is progressing much better, the early delays and issues are being used to push a political desire to privatise ASC and the people who overcame the problems are being blamed and punished for things they didn't cause but did fix.

Sounds like a typical Management 101. Find the scapegoat to blame for some hidden gains.

In any case, I think lessons learnt from the current AWD and the passed mistakes on Collins shouldn't be quickly forgotten, but rather used to create a better and more sustainable ship building industry in Australia. Australia is big enough to have a decent shipbuilding industry. Heck, even Singapore can have one. Just look at how they have done it with ST Marine. They are building their own license copy Lafayette derived Formidable class frigates, LPDs and in the near future design and build their own LCS (they call it Littoral Mission Vessel or LMV) and a new LPH (they are calling it JMMS or Joint Multi-Mission Ship). If Singapore can do it, so can we in Australia.

 

[Volkodav]

Sounds like a typical Management 101. Find the scapegoat to blame for some hidden gains.

In any case, I think lessons learnt from the current AWD and the passed mistakes on Collins shouldn't be quickly forgotten, but rather used to create a better and more sustainable ship building industry in Australia. Australia is big enough to have a decent shipbuilding industry. Heck, even Singapore can have one. Just look at how they have done it with ST Marine. They are building their own license copy Lafayette derived Formidable class frigates, LPDs and in the near future design and build their own LCS (they call it Littoral Mission Vessel or LMV) and a new LPH (they are calling it JMMS or Joint Multi-Mission Ship). If Singapore can do it, so can we in Australia.

The big difference is Singapore invests consistently in local industry where our investment is very inconsistent and what money there is is often wasted reinventing the wheel setting up new facilities while the existing ones wither. Singapore also doesn't have state governments looking to steal projects off each other.

 

[peterAustralia]

Reading the Australian online, I saw the idea being mooted of building more of the AWD hulls, but with the new CEA radar installed.

Thus I assume a new batch would utilise all the skills and knowledge building the AWD's, carry on building hulls like that, but add a newer radar set. The downside is that the newer hulls would in theory be larger than the ideal, however a larger hull can squeeze more stuff in, go further, and has a longer design life. The upside is cost savings by using an existing production line (would the costs cancel each-other out?)

So, just possibly the cost of building more AWD hulls (but with different radars etc) would be about the same as building a brand new class of ships which is smaller. Then in the longer term the navy might have say nine large ships, with all the same hulls, engines, piping etc. This would give good economies of scale, only having to buy one spare thingy, instead of one spare thingy for this class, and one spare thingy for that class.

assuming that a larger ship can be built for roughly the cost of a smaller ship, because the production line is all set up, then why not?

Looking at the building of HMAS Success, we only built one here, and it was very expensive, if they came of a production line, the unit cost would be less. Logic suggests that short production runs dont really work very well

is this idea being mooted in 'The Australian' a good idea? and I guess the other question is, will it actually happen? The newer batch of ships based on the AWD hulls would start to roll of the production line in say about 8 years from now, pretty close to when the ANZAC class frigates reach the end of their tether.

 

[oldsig127]

Reading the Australian online, I saw the idea being mooted of building more of the AWD hulls, but with the new CEA radar installed.

(snipped for brevity)

is this idea being mooted in 'The Australian' a good idea? and I guess the other question is, will it actually happen? The newer batch of ships based on the AWD hulls would start to roll of the production line in say about 8 years from now, pretty close to when the ANZAC class frigates reach the end of their tether.

There's a lengthy discussion of this suggestion in this thread one week ago. Search for "AWD hull" and it'll take you right there!

oldsig

 

[Joe Black]

Reading the Australian online, I saw the idea being mooted of building more of the AWD hulls, but with the new CEA radar installed.

Thus I assume a new batch would utilise all the skills and knowledge building the AWD's, carry on building hulls like that, but add a newer radar set. The downside is that the newer hulls would in theory be larger than the ideal, however a larger hull can squeeze more stuff in, go further, and has a longer design life. The upside is cost savings by using an existing production line (would the costs cancel each-other out?)

So, just possibly the cost of building more AWD hulls (but with different radars etc) would be about the same as building a brand new class of ships which is smaller. Then in the longer term the navy might have say nine large ships, with all the same hulls, engines, piping etc. This would give good economies of scale, only having to buy one spare thingy, instead of one spare thingy for this class, and one spare thingy for that class.

assuming that a larger ship can be built for roughly the cost of a smaller ship, because the production line is all set up, then why not?

Looking at the building of HMAS Success, we only built one here, and it was very expensive, if they came of a production line, the unit cost would be less. Logic suggests that short production runs dont really work very well

is this idea being mooted in 'The Australian' a good idea? and I guess the other question is, will it actually happen? The newer batch of ships based on the AWD hulls would start to roll of the production line in say about 8 years from now, pretty close to when the ANZAC class frigates reach the end of their tether.

It makes superb economic sense to have the 8 new frigates design based on the existing AWD. As for the hull size, it is actually not that big. It is only in Australia the F100 designed is classified as an AWD. The Spaniards designated theirs as frigates. The physical hull size is only a little bit bigger than the existing FFG, ok, perhaps a fair bit bigger than ANZAC class FFH. I think using the same sea frame with less expensive electronics and combat systems, and perhaps a fewer number of SM2s but add additional ASW kit and an extra helo makes the F100 hull a perfect platform.

Another interesting thing to note is that with the new Nulka ExLS launcher, one can now quad pack them into the Mk41 VLS. The ExLS launcher would also be able to shoot RAM Block II and NLOS missiles too. That will provide the new frigates a wide range of options to deal with both blue water as well as Littoral ops.

 

[Volkodav]

There are problems with using the AWD platform at this point.

The propulsion diesels are no longer MARPOL compliant

The specific model of GT is no longer in production

Much equipment used in the platform is either no longer in production or compliant

Much of the desired commonality will not exist by the time the new frigates could possibly constructed.

As workers are already being laid off much of the lessons learned benefit will also be lost.

The F-100 was already an old design when selected for the AWD build, it is even older now with even more modern and capable designs being available.

 

[alexsa]

The big difference is Singapore invests consistently in local industry where our investment is very inconsistent and what money there is is often wasted reinventing the wheel setting up new facilities while the existing ones wither. Singapore also doesn't have state governments looking to steal projects off each other.

On the commercial side their costs are much lower as many in the ship yards with a large imported 'vistor' workforce (these are bought in just to work in the yards).

Also there has been steady move to Batam over the last two decades with the areas that housed some yards being reclaimed. In Batam costs are even lower. Both Labroy and Pan United had yards over there (both bought by Drydock world which did not go as well as expected).

The foreign work force work well for tham but they are temporary and are not treated the same as Singaporeans. However, gthe arrangment appears to work well with mutual benefit to both.

 

[alexsa]

There are problems with using the AWD platform at this point.

The propulsion diesels are no longer MARPOL compliant

The specific model of GT is no longer in production

Much equipment used in the platform is either no longer in production or compliant

Much of the desired commonality will not exist by the time the new frigates could possibly constructed.

As workers are already being laid off much of the lessons learned benefit will also be lost.

The F-100 was already an old design when selected for the AWD build, it is even older now with even more modern and capable designs being available.

Just as a clarification .... Warships are not bound to MARPOL but for good order they try to comply. With the engines this is an Annex VI issue and there are plants on the same foot print that can be fitted here.

From a structure perspective using the same hull and arrangement make sense as it allow the maturity that is being developed to be leveraged. This is common practice in commercial builds where hull lay outs remain pretty standard with with equipment changes made to suit evolving requirements. (mind you there are some pretty significant changes in the bow form for 'heavy' ships also coming through)

 

[CB90]

Another interesting thing to note is that with the new Nulka ExLS launcher, one can now quad pack them into the Mk41 VLS. The ExLS launcher would also be able to shoot RAM Block II and NLOS missiles too. That will provide the new frigates a wide range of options to deal with both blue water as well as Littoral ops.

Huh. Interesting stuff. Increased Nulka loadout from the current launcher setups on most ships is definitely a worthwhile improvement.

I'd be curious if the RAM's performance as a short range ASMD system is at all compromised by going to vertical launch though.

 

[Volkodav]

Just as a clarification .... Warships are not bound to MARPOL but for good order they try to comply. With the engines this is an Annex VI issue and there are plants on the same foot print that can be fitted here.

From a structure perspective using the same hull and arrangement make sense as it allow the maturity that is being developed to be leveraged. This is common practice in commercial builds where hull lay outs remain pretty standard with with equipment changes made to suit evolving requirements. (mind you there are some pretty significant changes in the bow form for 'heavy' ships also coming through)

Yes true on MARPOL, the CoA can provide a waiver as it is a naval vessel however they are extremely reluctant to do so and direct that as many treaty requirements as possible are to be met. For example there was serious discussion in double hulling the AWD prior to commonsense winning out and there were serious issues certifying the propulsion diesels on ship three as a result of MARPOL updates and the construction start date for ship three. The diesels already had to be derated to meet the now superseded requirements.

On the hull itself there are features an even construction strategies received from Navantia that raised questions with the experienced shipbuilders, including BIW, ex BAE, ABS etc. personnel that definitely would not be repeated or would at least be modified in a new design.

My examples were intended to demonstrate that the level of commonality, especially in line replaceable items, will not be as high as many assume.

I would also note that Tenix was able to make a very successful transition from the FFG7 project to the very different ANZAC MEKO 200 design so even the common hull argument is not as strong as is being made out.

That said, political expediency will likely see the modified Hobart proceed even though there are other options that will potentially deliver greater capability, better value for money, lower cost of ownership and lower whole of life costs.

 

[Magoo]

I would suggest if the future frigate were to comprise just two or three vessels, there would be benefits in using a design with AWD commonality.

But for a 7-8+ ship class, the desired economies of scale will be realised through that class's own build run.

I think we're much better off looking at a Type 26 or enhanced LCS type of capability which is designed from the keel up to accommodate a CEAFAR style sensor suite and for the mission sets the future frigate will be tasked with.