The current AWD hull has blocks built in Williamstown and other locations and you expect this would continue. There is also the ACPB replacement and the Pacific PB replacement .......... so there is potentially some work about and not a lot of yards
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Another interesting concept from Euronavale, this time from DCNS - a 4600t conventional Barracuda with 18,000nm range!
Not just a concept: SMX Ocean from DCNS | Ares
Not just a concept: SMX Ocean from DCNS | Ares
John Newman
The Bunker Group
With the current debate about the Future Frigates and the Collins replacement, the question that keeps coming up in my mind is:
As things stand as of today, and with the time frame that appears to be confronting the Government, does Australia actually have the manpower and industrial capacity to concurrently build the Future Frigates, continue the sustainment and maintenance of the existing Collins fleet and also build a new class of Submarines? Can all of this be achieved concurrently?
Shipbuilding
Currently we have a workforce at Techport building blocks and assembling the AWD's, we also have block work being performed in Melbourne and Newcastle.
If a modification of the AWD hull can be successfully produced as the Future Frigate then I can see that the existing shipbuilding workforce will transit onto the Future Frigate work at the completion of the AWD work and be busy till probably the early 2030's.
Submarine Sustainment and Maintenance
ASC currently has its main workforce at Techport and also another facility in WA, the workforce sustaining the Collins will no doubt be occupied with maintaining the Collins fleet till the early 2030's.
Obviously the workload on the Collins class sustainment will start to decline from the mid 2020's when the first is retired and wind up in the early 2030's, but from the mid 2020's onwards the sustainment work on the Collins replacement should fill that gap until eventually ASC is sustaining the new fleet up until sometime in the 2050's.
New Submarine Construction
Currently there is no existing workforce for the construction of the new class of Submarines, there are no construction facilities (ASC's are now used for the Collins class sustainment), obviously new building sheds, etc, can be constructed.
But do we have a large enough pool of highly skilled people in this country (that is not occupied by Future Frigate construction and Collins sustainment) to put together and produce a new class of submarines in the timeframe that would be necessary to have a boat in the water when the first of the Collins retires? The answer to that is probably not.
So what does the Government do?
How does it satisfy all the competing priorities and interest groups? It needs to ensure that the Navy gets its ships and submarines on time and on budget, it needs to spend the taxpayers dollars wisely and ensure that a single program doesn't absorb so much money that other programs have to suffer, deferred or deleted, it also needs to ensure that the 'Valley of Death' is dealt with as best can be done when the AWD's complete construction and ensure that the replacement Submarines can be successfully sustained, upgraded and maintained in Australia.
Firstly Shipbuilding, if the AWD hull can be the basis for the Future Frigate, it would appear that this will solve the 'Valley of Death' issue, and lets not forget that there are (or were) other shipbuilding projects in previous DWP's, so we will no doubt have to wait until the new DWP arrives mid next year, but it could reasonably include, a new fleet of Patrol Boats (plus the Pacific Patrol boats), eventual replacements for the LCH fleet, maybe the OPV's might be back on the table, there is the Hydrographic fleet, Mine warfare vessels, possibly an eventual replacement for Choules too.
Next is Submarine sustainment, I would think that the workforce sustaining the current fleet will no doubt also have the opportunity to sustain the replacement fleet till at least the middle of this century.
And finally the construction of a new fleet of Submarines, this is the question that I struggle to find a clear answer for, what are the options?
Is the time available to build the workforce needed for such a task.
Extend the life of the Collins class through a further docking cycle (that has been mentioned as possibly doable), but that could absorb many Billions of dollars and would it be worth it in the long run? It wouldn't do anything for Submarine construction as such but would provide continuing work for ASC's sustainment workforce, but that would happen with a new class that was build Overseas anyway.
Build the entire fleet Overseas, assuming that the Japanese boat (if chosen for example) can be successfully configured to meet Australia's particular needs.
Or maybe the other option is to build part of the new Submarine fleet entirely overseas and when work winds down on the Future Frigates in the 2030's then start to transition the workforce over to local submarine construction for the balance of the fleet.
Anyway, lots of interesting questions, and just my opinion of course!
Cheers,
As things stand as of today, and with the time frame that appears to be confronting the Government, does Australia actually have the manpower and industrial capacity to concurrently build the Future Frigates, continue the sustainment and maintenance of the existing Collins fleet and also build a new class of Submarines? Can all of this be achieved concurrently?
Shipbuilding
Currently we have a workforce at Techport building blocks and assembling the AWD's, we also have block work being performed in Melbourne and Newcastle.
If a modification of the AWD hull can be successfully produced as the Future Frigate then I can see that the existing shipbuilding workforce will transit onto the Future Frigate work at the completion of the AWD work and be busy till probably the early 2030's.
Submarine Sustainment and Maintenance
ASC currently has its main workforce at Techport and also another facility in WA, the workforce sustaining the Collins will no doubt be occupied with maintaining the Collins fleet till the early 2030's.
Obviously the workload on the Collins class sustainment will start to decline from the mid 2020's when the first is retired and wind up in the early 2030's, but from the mid 2020's onwards the sustainment work on the Collins replacement should fill that gap until eventually ASC is sustaining the new fleet up until sometime in the 2050's.
New Submarine Construction
Currently there is no existing workforce for the construction of the new class of Submarines, there are no construction facilities (ASC's are now used for the Collins class sustainment), obviously new building sheds, etc, can be constructed.
But do we have a large enough pool of highly skilled people in this country (that is not occupied by Future Frigate construction and Collins sustainment) to put together and produce a new class of submarines in the timeframe that would be necessary to have a boat in the water when the first of the Collins retires? The answer to that is probably not.
So what does the Government do?
How does it satisfy all the competing priorities and interest groups? It needs to ensure that the Navy gets its ships and submarines on time and on budget, it needs to spend the taxpayers dollars wisely and ensure that a single program doesn't absorb so much money that other programs have to suffer, deferred or deleted, it also needs to ensure that the 'Valley of Death' is dealt with as best can be done when the AWD's complete construction and ensure that the replacement Submarines can be successfully sustained, upgraded and maintained in Australia.
Firstly Shipbuilding, if the AWD hull can be the basis for the Future Frigate, it would appear that this will solve the 'Valley of Death' issue, and lets not forget that there are (or were) other shipbuilding projects in previous DWP's, so we will no doubt have to wait until the new DWP arrives mid next year, but it could reasonably include, a new fleet of Patrol Boats (plus the Pacific Patrol boats), eventual replacements for the LCH fleet, maybe the OPV's might be back on the table, there is the Hydrographic fleet, Mine warfare vessels, possibly an eventual replacement for Choules too.
Next is Submarine sustainment, I would think that the workforce sustaining the current fleet will no doubt also have the opportunity to sustain the replacement fleet till at least the middle of this century.
And finally the construction of a new fleet of Submarines, this is the question that I struggle to find a clear answer for, what are the options?
Is the time available to build the workforce needed for such a task.
Extend the life of the Collins class through a further docking cycle (that has been mentioned as possibly doable), but that could absorb many Billions of dollars and would it be worth it in the long run? It wouldn't do anything for Submarine construction as such but would provide continuing work for ASC's sustainment workforce, but that would happen with a new class that was build Overseas anyway.
Build the entire fleet Overseas, assuming that the Japanese boat (if chosen for example) can be successfully configured to meet Australia's particular needs.
Or maybe the other option is to build part of the new Submarine fleet entirely overseas and when work winds down on the Future Frigates in the 2030's then start to transition the workforce over to local submarine construction for the balance of the fleet.
Anyway, lots of interesting questions, and just my opinion of course!
Cheers,
I was having a chat to some people at work today about the germans offering up 12 subs at $20bn
at that price and commitment I suggested that we should take up their offer and make it a fixed price contract.
after we all got off the floor laughing we went into depression again about all the experts in the press waxing on and waxing off about how to fix procurement and having NFI except what they base their information on from their fav pet rocks...
at that price and commitment I suggested that we should take up their offer and make it a fixed price contract.
after we all got off the floor laughing we went into depression again about all the experts in the press waxing on and waxing off about how to fix procurement and having NFI except what they base their information on from their fav pet rocks...
Joe Black
Active Member
One of the DWP submission on arguing for F35B for the LHD....
Operating F-35Bs from the Canberra-class LHDs
http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf
Operating F-35Bs from the Canberra-class LHDs
http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf
Joe Black
Active Member
Any firms wanting to win the Collins sub will probably have to agreed IP transfer to Australia. Don't know if DCNS is willing to do that. The Germans will most likely be willing to do that, Japanese, maybe, the French, a total unknown.
Pretty compelling read put together by some smart people!
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I read that one the other day, it's a pretty good submission.
Some other submissions, well......
http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/002-Barnett.pdf
Concrete Submarines anybody?
Below is a link to other DWP submissions:
Home : Whitepaper : Department of Defence
He's a smart guy (not bad for a Knuck) I served with him on the old Melbourne when he was with 805 Squadron (A4G's).
His submission will be read with interest for sure.
Those of us who have run AAW tactical scenarios at sea can certainly understand the importance of organic air, its a game changer and the reason why the RAN put so much effort into acquiring the A4 CAP capability in the past.
They seemed pretty serious about it, I wonder if they consider it. If we went with another option, it may seriously dent sales for them in this region and globally. I do wonder what options they might come up with. The 20 billion might have a few catches.. Part Korean build?
It reads pretty well, its not quiet perfect but its core arguments seem pretty valid. I personally think it may be a very interesting argument what we should order for the 4th batch. I think the B argument will become more compelling when many nations are operating it, demonstrating its capabilities. It may be cheaper than enhancing aerial refueling capability.
Concrete submarines have been suggested elsewhere a few times (there was a story in popular mechanics a few years back?). The idea was more like smart drones or mines.
Its not achievable if they intend to build with the sensor and combat systems we are likely to want.
$20m would be for an all german tech sub with no intregration of any other "foreign" systems
good luck with that
Well I think they just wanted to capture some of the media attention with a low ball. however I haven't heard any particular interest from anyone in gov.
And I would be guessing that if the build was proposed to include said sensor and combat system fitout that we want/need instead of the German tech, there would be certain people who would not want the German's to have access to that and we would not be allowed to use it ?
Deal breaker right there as I see it
Cheers
After what Atlas did last time (and not without merit), a german combat suite has got two chances......
Mr Buckley and that convent girl ............
MB
Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to a German sub - but some of the commentary by the broader media re options just makes you want to remove your eyes with a backhoe and then seek sedation by clamping an autoclave over your neck in an oxygen depleted room
if I see one more comment about submarine range and the Soryus as a defining delimitation for selection then I'm likely to go postal
talk about oversimplification ........
its laughable that some of the very things that journos are swooning over re german, french, spanish, swedish alternatives are the very things that caused ructions with Collins starting off successfully
they either have short memories or don't know the difference between a submarine and an emperor penguin.....
if I see one more comment about submarine range and the Soryus as a defining delimitation for selection then I'm likely to go postal
talk about oversimplification ........
its laughable that some of the very things that journos are swooning over re german, french, spanish, swedish alternatives are the very things that caused ructions with Collins starting off successfully
they either have short memories or don't know the difference between a submarine and an emperor penguin.....
With quite a few un-addressed issues... The impact on amphibious operations capability foremost among them, the under-stated capability of RAAF fighters operating over a Timor Leste type environment, particularly with KC-30A support and operations from Darwin possible.
Cost of ship modification, cost of training streams, the list goes on. I don't disagree with the concept, but there is much more to it thqn proposed here...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think the French would be agreeable, e.g. Rafale and India. Also, perhaps Brazil has some kind of deal on IP transfer with regards to the Barracuda.
An ARG is not the answer for every time the ships go to sea and it is not the answer to every strategic situation that the government wants to be involved with. In fact the power projection scenario with two shiploads of grunts will probably be the least common use for the ships. There are a myriad of in-between scenarios that could be dealt with by mixtures of troops and aircraft, thus a tailored air group.
Take the old Melbourne situation where her aircraft mix changed over time and changed within the mix of the post 1968 air group (A4's, S2's and Seakings ). That flexibility existed then so why not repeat that with and over the lives of the LHD's.
We shouldn't confine our thinking by assuming that the ships will only ever be tasked for one strategy, that's for the dinosaurs.
- Status