Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Many don't realise that the Japanese, or whoever we decide to buy subs from, will gain a lot from the arrangement as well. There is a lot of know how in Australia relating to the design, maintenance and operation of long range ocean going conventional subs. Particularly if Japan is aiming to begin submarine operations outside of their home waters they will have a lot to learn from the RAN, DSME and ASC.

not only do we have the strongest collective knowledge of what are fundamentally long range large fleet subs - we also have the most knowledge of that class of vessel operating in the PACRIM and Indian Ocean

 

[Volkodav]

not only do we have the strongest collective knowledge of what are fundamentally long range large fleet subs - we also have the most knowledge of that class of vessel operating in the PACRIM and Indian Ocean

And everyone seems to know this except for or political classes.

 

[Todjaeger]

And everyone seems to know this except for or political classes.

You forgot two other important groups as well, namely Australian mass/general media and the Australian public.

Not that I am throwing stones, given the average level of ignorance I deal with on a daily basis up my way...

On a somewhat related note, would there be any efficiencies gained (without introducing security concerns) in the RAN operating a regional sub school, to skill RAN, RSN and RMN personnel in basic sub ops? Then the individual navies could take the skilled personnel and train them in the specific conops and kit for their respective navies' subs.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

You forgot two other important groups as well, namely Australian mass/general media and the Australian public.

Not that I am throwing stones, given the average level of ignorance I deal with on a daily basis up my way...

I absolutely despair over the quality of defence reporting in this country (you certainly can't call it journalism)

There are a couple of loud reporters here who seem to think that they are experts - I wince every time I read their articles on subs, JSF, phatships, LAND 400 etc.....

On a somewhat related note, would there be any efficiencies gained (without introducing security concerns) in the RAN operating a regional sub school, to skill RAN, RSN and RMN personnel in basic sub ops? Then the individual navies could take the skilled personnel and train them in the specific conops and kit for their respective navies' subs.

-Cheers

RAN is part of the existing Perisher accreditation process so it does kind of exist if countries want to put their people through.

IIRC the Dutch are the lead and took over that role when the RN went completely nuclear

Perisher isn't basic though

 

[StingrayOZ]

Talking to someone yesterday an they said that Natavia didn't build the F-100's the same way we are trying to in Australia. That they built the hull as a single piece and not in blocks.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Talking to someone yesterday an they said that Natavia didn't build the F-100's the same way we are trying to in Australia. That they built the hull as a single piece and not in blocks.

there's nothing wrong with building in blocks

the most successful naval build project in the world is a block build from opposite sides of the country - and those pieces mated up first time every time - and they were subs - far more complex than the F100's

 

[Volkodav]

Talking to someone yesterday an they said that Natavia didn't build the F-100's the same way we are trying to in Australia. That they built the hull as a single piece and not in blocks.

They also built them on traditional slips verses Australia's use of the more advanced hardstand and shiplift setup. This has caused some issues at the Navantia end of the contract as they are not up to speed with the processes used in Australia. Basically for Australia to build ships the way Navantia does we would have had to go back to the inefficiencies of the 1970s.

The biggest single issue with the project has been the delay in setting it up in the first place as both Tenix and ASC were coming out of extended builds in the early 2000s meaning the delay in ordering new ships created a shipbuilding black hole where many experienced workers were made redundant and the yards became idle. The delay meant instead of being a new design from an established team we instead had to start from scratch and many concerned had to learn from mistakes that an established team would not have made.

The F-100 design was available, as was the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke, and F124, the RAN had the requirement, the country had the money, the only delay was on the executive side, i.e. government. The issue is, until Timor and then 9/11 the government had little interest in or concern for defence and we are now paying the price for the delay in starting the project.

 

[StingrayOZ]

They also built them on traditional slips verses Australia's use of the more advanced hardstand and shiplift setup. This has caused some issues at the Navantia end of the contract as they are not up to speed with the processes used in Australia. Basically for Australia to build ships the way Navantia does we would have had to go back to the inefficiencies of the 1970s.

It seemed odd, I guess is a sign of how old the F-100 design is? Would they build new ships of that size (of a new class) the same way? With the LHD being built in blocks, I just assumed the F-100 had been as well.

We had a ex welder from the Collins class and a weapons engineer who will be on the AWD. They raised some interesting points I hadn't considered. Consensus about political interference.

 

[Volkodav]

It seemed odd, I guess is a sign of how old the F-100 design is? Would they build new ships of that size (of a new class) the same way? With the LHD being built in blocks, I just assumed the F-100 had been as well.

We had a ex welder from the Collins class and a weapons engineer who will be on the AWD. They raised some interesting points I hadn't considered. Consensus about political interference.

Its how they have always done it and if its not broke......

In Australia however we had two quite successful block builds, the Australian Frigate Project for the final pair of FFGs and the ANZACs, using modern techniques at Williamstown (when owned by Transfield / Tenix) so again, if its not broke,,,, the difference being government indecision and pork barrelling created a shipbuilding blackhole, then gave the new project to a shipyard that had yet to be built. It would have been far smarter to have ordered the AWD in time to replace the retiring DDGs and first four FFGs, not bothering with the FFG upgrade at all, then build the LHDs locally, followed by new tankers, Patrol boats / OPVs and then ten new frigates to replace the newest FFGs and then the ANZACs.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

The F100´s were all built in blocks, modular building and design. So were the f300´s and almost anything else Navantia does.
There use to be a very popular site called "fotosdebarcos" full of pictures of it. Many of those pictures were posted in this Forum.
Some of the blocks are built by Navantia and some are built by other yards and it has been like that since , at least the nineties.

 

[Volkodav]

The F100´s were all built in blocks, modular building and design. So were the f300´s and almost anything else Navantia does.
There use to be a very popular site called "fotosdebarcos" full of pictures of it. Many of those pictures were posted in this Forum.
Some of the blocks are built by Navantia and some are built by other yards and it has been like that since , at least the nineties.

Yes but Navantia still assembles ships on slipways rather than hard stands which is what I thought we were discussing?

 

[rjtjrt]

Talking to someone yesterday an they said that Natavia didn't build the F-100's the same way we are trying to in Australia. That they built the hull as a single piece and not in blocks.

Yes but Navantia still assembles ships on slipways rather than hard stands which is what I thought we were discussing?

I think Blas de Lezo was replying to Stingray's original point, that seemed to start this interesting discussion.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes but Navantia still assembles ships on slipways rather than hard stands which is what I thought we were discussing?

Well it was originally both aspects I had a question on.

I had seen some of the fotosdebarcos LHD construction photos, but I wasn't really following the F-100 construction in Spain closely.

Is there any advantages these days to still build on Slipways other than that what Navantia currently has?

 

[Volkodav]

I think Blas de Lezo was replying to Stingray's original point, that seemed to start this interesting discussion.

Ok thanks for that

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Well it was originally both aspects I had a question on.

I had seen some of the fotosdebarcos LHD construction photos, but I wasn't really following the F-100 construction in Spain closely.

Is there any advantages these days to still build on Slipways other than that what Navantia currently has?

Navantia Ferrol (one of three yards) has three mayor Slipways, one big dry dock and sensible dockside. It makes little difference to the construction. Launching from a slipway has been the preferred method by Navantia for many years ( I think they still hold the world record at 400.000 T). It allows them to do three different builds at the same time. All construction is modular so it is just an assembly point.
It also frees the usage of the dry-dock for props fitting and maintenance of other units.

Building and launching from a slipway makes the best use of the structures they have at Ferrol.


Regards.

 

[Volkodav]

Navantia Ferrol (one of three yards) has three mayor Slipways, one big dry dock and sensible dockside. It makes little difference to the construction. Launching from a slipway has been the preferred method by Navantia for many years ( I think they still hold the world record at 400.000 T). It allows them to do three different builds at the same time. All construction is modular so it is just an assembly point.
It also frees the usage of the dry-dock for props fitting and maintenance of other units.

Building and launching from a slipway makes the best use of the structures they have at Ferrol.


Regards.

If its not broke why fix it. Really its not a case of right or wrong ways of building a ship, rather different equally effective ways of doing it. Basically the ASC shipyard was set up to outfit blocks in halls and consolidate on a hard stand before the F-100 was selected. This difference introduced complexities to the build over and above the difficulties inherent in selecting a design from a company that had never exported and supported a design for foreign build before. It was just another problem that a project full of underestimated risks didn't need.

 

[buglerbilly]

I'm curious as to what Risk Analysis, if any, was done for the AWD?

Or even a Cost/Benefit analysis.............

Slightly rhetorical questions........

 

[Blas de Lezo]

If its not broke why fix it. Really its not a case of right or wrong ways of building a ship, rather different equally effective ways of doing it. Basically the ASC shipyard was set up to outfit blocks in halls and consolidate on a hard stand before the F-100 was selected. This difference introduced complexities to the build over and above the difficulties inherent in selecting a design from a company that had never exported and supported a design for foreign build before. It was just another problem that a project full of underestimated risks didn't need.

Do not want to be awkward because I think we are splitting hairs but I would like just to point out that Navantia also and only outfit blocks in halls and only when blocks are done and fully fitted are then moved to the slipway for "consolidation".The only difference as I see it is is the slight angle difference between the hard and horizontal stand and the slipway, and maybe also a greater availability of heavier cranes and lifting structures to handle bigger blocks on the side of Navantia. I would imagine the last point I made is completely trivial since I am pretty sure ASC has all the lifting equipment required for the project .

About the support given by Navantia to the project.... I would imagine it has been all that was required and contracted to them, too much or to little ???? I do not know but I remember reading a few weeks back in these same pages, a report about the issues on the part of the AWD Alliance, and that very little involvement was required-wanted from Navantia on managing, following up or over all responsibility on the final outcome of the project other than building a few blocks and delivering the design ( 2D!!!!!).
I do imagine that has to do with chunks of the overall project budget and pricing of responsibilities , liabilities within the project. The role of Navantia within the project is little more than that of a subcontractor.
It was made public in Spain a few months back that on the request of the Australian Goverment 17 (I think but could provide links to the news) of Navantia's top project managers involved on the F100 project were moving to Australia to take a hands on role within the build.
Regards.

 

[Volkodav]

Do not want to be awkward because I think we are splitting hairs but I would like just to point out that Navantia also and only outfit blocks in halls and only when blocks are done and fully fitted are then moved to the slipway for "consolidation".The only difference as I see it is is the slight angle difference between the hard and horizontal stand and the slipway, and maybe also a greater availability of heavier cranes and lifting structures to handle bigger blocks on the side of Navantia. I would imagine the last point I made is completely trivial since I am pretty sure ASC has all the lifting equipment required for the project .

About the support given by Navantia to the project.... I would imagine it has been all that was required and contracted to them, too much or to little ???? I do not know but I remember reading a few weeks back in these same pages, a report about the issues on the part of the AWD Alliance, and that very little involvement was required-wanted from Navantia on managing, following up or over all responsibility on the final outcome of the project other than building a few blocks and delivering the design ( 2D!!!!!).
I do imagine that has to do with chunks of the overall project budget and pricing of responsibilities , liabilities within the project. The role of Navantia within the project is little more than that of a subcontractor.
It was made public in Spain a few months back that on the request of the Australian Goverment 17 (I think but could provide links to the news) of Navantia's top project managers involved on the F100 project were moving to Australia to take a hands on role within the build.
Regards.

The reason Navantia has been contracted to send additional personnel to Australia is because the recently sacked defence minister was incompetent and in the pocket of multinationals who were determined to sideline ASC and secure a bigger chunk of the contract for themselves. While I have no issue with any of the Navantia people I worked with I was very disappointed with them at the corporate level specifically relating to the quality and timeliness of design changes and not telling us about issues encountered on F-105, leaving us to find them for ourselves, further mucking up the schedule.

That said Navantias part in the mess is nothing compared to that of Rod Equid (Raytheon employee and head of the Alliance) and BAE Australia the mangler of blocks, to quote my old boss, handing management of the build over to BAE, Raytheon and Navantia is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

On risk management, the Australian government was very poor at it from the late 90s onward, just look at FFGUP, ANZAC WIP, ACPB, LCM2000, Super Sea Sprite, MRH90, ARH, MU90, Wedgetail, Vigilaire, and M-113 upgrade off the top of my head. Can't blame the workers or unions for any of those and they were all different contractors too (although some of the contractors are not blameless), the common factor was Cabinet and more to the point dept of PM&C, can't even blame the DMO as they were set up after many of the troubled projects had started so they were not a common factor either. The real shame is Australia's predominantly privately owned defence industry, i.e. before ASC was nationalised, had been doing quite well for quite a while before this, delivering world class products and securing exports at ever improving schedule and cost.

 

[OzPete]

Soryu Mark 2

Which also shows that the Australian submarine people, who supposedly don't know what they are doing, have been saying what the Japanese, after heading down a dead end, are now doing. While the Japanese were planning AIP, DSME, ASC and PMB, were all saying AIP is a dead end and an improved, bigger battery is the way to go.

The battery has been one of the success stories on the Collins but the only time you hear anything about it is when the media think there's a problem or a politician thinks there are some points to be scored. ASC aren't the only losers PMB has developed products suitable for a new generation of subs but a Japanese deal will see them, the world leader in the field miss out.

Is anythink known about the efficiency, or otherwise, of Japan's Li-ion battery for submarine technology?

Put another way is Australia taking a risk in considering acquiring the new, untested version of the Soryu (Soryu 2) which includes new technologies?