Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

This one is a good read too, it need subscription access though.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Regarding to a "sustainable shipbuilding strategy", as our small navy is unlikely to have enough contracts for all 3 shipyards, shouldn't we seriously consider closing one or 2 shipyards and concentrate jobs on the remaining one (probably just keep the Newcastle as its close proximity to FBE).

By the way, what's the reason to create ASC in the 80s rather than upgrading Williamstown or Newcastle to build the Collins? It just sounds too much like another Labor's shambles similar to NBN co.

Canada has the same issue with shipyards. Our navy is even smaller than Australia's and we are down to two yards now which is one too many. Politics will likely keep the BC yard open even though Irving's Halifax is sufficient.

 

[rockitten]

Newcastle is actually the least capable of the yards and (according to a former colleague of mine) literally has dirt floors in their building hall. Adelaide's Techport is the most modern and capable with the most room for expansion, Tenixs final bid for the AWDbuild included moving to Adelaide and building a facility at Techport.

While I believe, in hindsight, Tenix should have won the AWD build (and the FFG UP for that matter) and that Cockatoo, rather than Williamstown, should have been saved, privatised and modernised to be our sole ship builder, the simple fact is we ( the tax payer) have spent billions setting up ASC and shutting them down now they are getting up to speed would be a criminal waste of money. We need to stop this crap of reinventing the wheel every decade or so based on which ever state has the most political capital at the time. Melbourne won out when the PM was from there, Adelaide when it had the ministers of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Finance then when WA had the same they came very close to getting a lot of work based on anything but merit. Actually Smith was from WA to and maybe that explains the hatchet job he did on ASC Adelaide setting up many of the current problems.

Real estate at Sydney Harbour aren't cheap. In my point of view, we will see FBE being moved out of Sydney harbor (and most likely ended up in Newcastle) someday in out lifetime just for some real estate projects. That's why Newcastle yard does have the potential to be the surviving yard. And if our politician really have the vision and the balls(I wonder if they have any of that), they should seriously consider nuclear option and get a real off-the shelf option called the Virginia class SSN that is practically the same cost (if not cheaper) than an evolved Collins/Soryu but way more capable.

Anyway, so far ASC has already got the monopoly for the maintenance contract and the high-end, engineering intensive system integration works already (which, to be honest, should both be open to tender for other yards in Aus too). Then why SA still crying wolf for those one-off low end welding jobs like it is now or never? I just don't see why some overseas construction matter that much.

 

[Volkodav]

Real estate at Sydney Harbour aren't cheap. In my point of view, we will see FBE being moved out of Sydney harbor (and most likely ended up in Newcastle) someday in out lifetime just for some real estate projects. That's why Newcastle yard does have the potential to be the surviving yard. And if our politician really have the vision and the balls(I wonder if they have any of that), they should seriously consider nuclear option and get a real off-the shelf option called the Virginia class SSN that is practically the same cost (if not cheaper) than an evolved Collins/Soryu but way more capable.

Anyway, so far ASC has already got the monopoly for the maintenance contract and the high-end, engineering intensive system integration works already (which, to be honest, should both be open to tender for other yards in Aus too). Then why SA still crying wolf for those one-off low end welding jobs like it is now or never? I just don't see why some overseas construction matter that much.

One off low end welding jobs? I think you really do not comprehend what is involved in shipbuilding, let alone submarine construction or maintenance, I can assure you there is nothing low end about it.

This is not about unemployment in SA or keeping barely literate unskilled people in work, it is about billions of dollars of tax payers dollars being invested to develop world class skills as part of a strategically desired national capability that we, as a nation, are seriously contemplating throwing away because it didn't work perfectly from day one. Rather than building on the expensively and painfully developed capability we have it looks likely we will throw it all away only to return and try it again in a decade or so at even greater expense. If South Korea or Singapore did stuff like that they would be third world nations instead of the economic powerhouses we see today.

 

[t68]

Real estate at Sydney Harbour aren't cheap. In my point of view, we will see FBE being moved out of Sydney harbor (and most likely ended up in Newcastle) someday in out lifetime just for some real estate projects. That's why Newcastle yard does have the potential to be the surviving yard. And if our politician really have the vision and the balls(I wonder if they have any of that), they should seriously consider nuclear option and get a real off-the shelf option called the Virginia class SSN that is practically the same cost (if not cheaper) than an evolved Collins/Soryu but way more capable.

Anyway, so far ASC has already got the monopoly for the maintenance contract and the high-end, engineering intensive system integration works already (which, to be honest, should both be open to tender for other yards in Aus too). Then why SA still crying wolf for those one-off low end welding jobs like it is now or never? I just don't see why some overseas construction matter that much.

Sometime ago Abraham Gubler came out with a brilliant plan, now that Sydney is finally getting a second international airport which has enough space to become one huge airport able to cover both.

AG plans was for FBE to move to the current site at Port Botanty which when remodelled would have enoug space and more for all the ships that currently use FBE plus have the space to move RAAF Richmond.

I'd have to track down the entire post of his thought it's here on DT somewhere. Oh and the current FBE converts into an international cruise passanger terminal.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And if our politician really have the vision and the balls(I wonder if they have any of that), they should seriously consider nuclear option and get a real off-the shelf option called the Virginia class SSN that is practically the same cost (if not cheaper) than an evolved Collins/Soryu but way more capable.

Do you think nukes haven't been considered? The last direction about evaluating nukes was when the abbott govt got into power - ever wondered why they went quiet about it, That wasn't the first time nukes have been considered

In what respect (outside of persistence) is a nuke better than a Collins/Soryu for RAN CONOPs?

The Soryus predecessor was nicknamed the "nuke killer" - you can assume with some confidence that it is a far better platform than its predecessor

what limits any sub is food - it doesn't matter how long they can trade on paper, they all have to come back to restock on food - including nukes. Collins was always designed to be able to run close to nuke mission cycles - I can't think of any other heavy conventional that gets close to it

Anyway, so far ASC has already got the monopoly for the maintenance contract and the high-end, engineering intensive system integration works already (which, to be honest, should both be open to tender for other yards in Aus too). Then why SA still crying wolf for those one-off low end welding jobs like it is now or never? I just don't see why some overseas construction matter that much.

some of the welders and engineering tasks done by ASC are the most complex in Australia. In fact when I was involved in setting up teams for certification there were no other industries outside of offshore drilling that came close, hence why there people were always in demand and were regularly poached as they wanted their welding and engineering skills

I'm not sure why you have this issue about SA crying wolf - the shipbuilding facilities are without peer - where else in the southern hemisphere is there another facility close to techport? The skills at that site are far from low end skillsets - and in particular the welding. What other industries of significance require certification for overhead welders, underwater welders etc.... We used to fail 90% of applicants because they couldn't do it.

As for overseas construction - the issue is (and I don't know how many more times I have to say this here, or to some of the deluded in the SIA) you cannot build the sub offshore, do a blue marlin and then bring it back for fit out. You have to build in modules, and if you are going to do that then there is NO reason at all as to why it can't be done here

and there is no way in Hades that we will be allowing partial fitout overseas (some of our critical partners would have a blue fit - and quite rightly so)

you're making a lot of assumptions, you'd be better served listening to people like Volkodav or asking questions rather than making those assumptions.

on other issues:
As for the "competitive evaluation process" statement - that is just meaningless drivel, Unfortunately you now have Labor and people like Xenophon running with the hares and making a daft thing even worse.

the evaluation is done within the tender process - and its govt which mandates australian or defence requirements so that the tender doesn't result in every man and his dog wanting to provide us with subs that may not have any relevance to RANs requirements

you can't have the evaluation before the tender - the tender definition is based on what RAN wants and includes any govt constraints (such as "must be built in Australia", must have suitably cleared people to "nn" level, all critical staffing must pass and meet minimum security levels of "nn", must be born in a country on the watch list etc.....

Just as an aside - when I attended the UDT Virgina briefings some years back the USN Proj Manager made a point of hilighting that the subs were built on Japanese manufacturing processes as they were the most effective and efficient they could find. They made the Virginias a greenfield project so that they weren't constrained by prev practices

 

[rockitten]

One off low end welding jobs? I think you really do not comprehend what is involved in shipbuilding, let alone submarine construction or maintenance, I can assure you there is nothing low end about it.

This is not about unemployment in SA or keeping barely literate unskilled people in work, it is about billions of dollars of tax payers dollars being invested to develop world class skills as part of a strategically desired national capability that we, as a nation, are seriously contemplating throwing away because it didn't work perfectly from day one. Rather than building on the expensively and painfully developed capability we have it looks likely we will throw it all away only to return and try it again in a decade or so at even greater expense. If South Korea or Singapore did stuff like that they would be third world nations instead of the economic powerhouses we see today.

I am an engineer myself, so of coz I know skill building is essential, But please bear in mind that people S Korea and Singapore have much lower wages than Aussie and so their price can be competitive in the international market. High wages, and the union actions (especially on the 80s) have no small part in "transforming" Australia from building everything to build nothing. On the other hand, over the decades, even S Korea and Singapore's economy had transited from one industry to another more profitable one several time. So they do "throwing away" capability too. What they don't do, is keep giving handout to a non competitive industry for decades like we did to Ford and Holden.

What I am questioning is, where will these high skilled people go AFTER the construction work is done? Keep some for maintenance, may be some will help out the ANZAC class replacement and sack the rest of them? From that RAND report, it seems unless we are able to export submarines (how about Taiwan?), we are not going to have another submarine project for another 20 years. So even if we don't "throwing away" that capability, there will be a building gap and have no work for them in ASC. And if gf0012 is right, then ASC may have to go green field and retrain their crew in order to build the Soryu as well.

True, some of these premium for local build will have to be paid for local maintenance capability anyway. But for the extra, is it better to be spend on other national building project such as a nuclear industry in SA? Or, it is really worth to scarify capability for local built just like our not so ideal choice of Tiger ARH+NH90 rather than Apachi+ Blackhawk.

 

[Volkodav]

There is always work for highly trained and experienced trades, technicians and engineers, the real issue is when you don't have enough of them.

Automotive is a completely different kettle of fish in that many working in it are neither trade or tertiary qualified, those who are have no problem finding work(so long as government policy doesn't kill multiple industries at the same time as boom time come to an end). Ford in fact is significantly expanding their engineering and design capability in Australia, most of those losing their jobs will be process / production workers who will have little chance of finding work else where. Ironically with the dropping value of the Australian dollar and the maturing of a number of free trade agreements the automotive industry, had it been able to hang on a couple of years longer could easily have become profitable again. In fact, if a major auto manufacturer could be encouraged to establish a state of the art, highly automated facility in Australia the industry could still be turned around and become a major exporter.

Singapore, South Korea and many other nations have consistent long term industrial strategies, something we seem to lack. Even resource rich nations such as the major oil producers but also Brazil etc. have made considerable efforts to diversify and build other industries for when their resources run out or are no longer in such demand, Australia appears to have gone the other way, failing to support existing industries during the temporary market distortion caused by the mining construction boom combined with the damage to US and European currencies by the GFC. As mining stops expanding and settles down to sustained production at lower commodity prices Australia now has fewer alternatives remaining to step up and fill the gap. A sorry lack of vision I'm afraid.

To seriously suggest shutting down recently completed facilities in Adelaide and Perth, as well as upgraded ones in Melbourne, in favour of upgrading Forgacs two quite old school yards in Newcastle is tantamount to suggesting we borrow the necessary money, draw it as cash and burn the lot!

 

[bdique]

I am an engineer myself, so of coz I know skill building is essential, But please bear in mind that people S Korea and Singapore have much lower wages than Aussie and so their price can be competitive in the international market. High wages, and the union actions (especially on the 80s) have no small part in "transforming" Australia from building everything to build nothing. On the other hand, over the decades, even S Korea and Singapore's economy had transited from one industry to another more profitable one several time. So they do "throwing away" capability too. What they don't do, is keep giving handout to a non competitive industry for decades like we did to Ford and Holden.

Just want to point out that at least for Singapore, there is no 'throwing-away' i.e.loss of any industrial capability. Even farming in land-scarce Singapore simply transited from being labour-intensive to being tech-intensive. Singapore needs the land space for other developments, but we cannot sacrifice our ability to feed ourselves in times of crises i.e. naval blockade. This is the 'consistent industrial strategies' that Volkodav mentioned.

In fact, since we are talking about shipbuilding and the maritime industry in general, Singapore has a long, though not quite well-known history of shipbuilding, even for other navies. On the civilian front, Singaporean companies Sembcorp and Keppel are leaders in building offshore oil rigs etc.

Most nations don't sacrifice one capability for another - they simply leverage on what they have to build up existing industrial capabilities, or venture into new ones in which they have the expertise and the advantage.

Sorry for the OT.

 

[gf0012-aust]

CNO says ship basing in Australia under consideration

USN perspective

 

[gf0012-aust]

Most nations don't sacrifice one capability for another - they simply leverage on what they have to build up existing industrial capabilities, or venture into new ones in which they have the expertise and the advantage.

+1

thanks for the input

 

[aussienscale]

I am an engineer myself, so of coz I know skill building is essentia

Just curious, Engineer doing what exactly ?

 

[rockitten]

Just curious, Engineer doing what exactly ?

Chemical/process Engineer, I had been working in the manufacturing sectors (car, water and chemicals), then Government (both state and Fedural), join the mining boom for a few years and then as project manager for EPCM/process improvement projects in engineering firms. Never work directly with the defense or ASC (though, I have applied for ADF twice for naval officer but failed the physical test) but I have enough first hand account about our auto industry, the unions, government bureaucracy, skill shortage in Australia and how project(s) go fubar.

Yet, if I had to choose between a more capable off-shore built Japanese sub and a less capable local built European sub, I will pick the former.

 

[Stock]

I am an engineer myself, so of coz I know skill building is essential, But please bear in mind that people S Korea and Singapore have much lower wages than Aussie and so their price can be competitive in the international market. High wages, and the union actions (especially on the 80s) have no small part in "transforming" Australia from building everything to build nothing. On the other hand, over the decades, even S Korea and Singapore's economy had transited from one industry to another more profitable one several time. So they do "throwing away" capability too. What they don't do, is keep giving handout to a non competitive industry for decades like we did to Ford and Holden.

What I am questioning is, where will these high skilled people go AFTER the construction work is done? Keep some for maintenance, may be some will help out the ANZAC class replacement and sack the rest of them? From that RAND report, it seems unless we are able to export submarines (how about Taiwan?), we are not going to have another submarine project for another 20 years. So even if we don't "throwing away" that capability, there will be a building gap and have no work for them in ASC. And if gf0012 is right, then ASC may have to go green field and retrain their crew in order to build the Soryu as well.

True, some of these premium for local build will have to be paid for local maintenance capability anyway. But for the extra, is it better to be spend on other national building project such as a nuclear industry in SA? Or, it is really worth to scarify capability for local built just like our not so ideal choice of Tiger ARH+NH90 rather than Apachi+ Blackhawk.

Australian industry involvement was only one element in the decision to go with Tiger ARH and MRH90 - there was only ever a couple of hundred jobs at stake in either case.

Both Tiger ARH and MRH90 met the requirements stated in the respective RFTs. Capability was not sacrificed in their selection and each aircraft - capability wise - is leading edge.

Supply chain deficiencies have prevented Tiger meeting rate of effort requirements; and design maturity issues have plagued the MRH90, which was little more than a concept when we selected it over a decade ago. In hindsight, the UH-60M would certainly have been a safer bet (pure MOTS).

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yet, if I had to choose between a more capable off-shore built Japanese sub and a less capable local built European sub, I will pick the former.

Evenif it doesn't meet requirements?

 

[ASSAIL]

Yet, if I had to choose between a more capable off-shore built Japanese sub and a less capable local built European sub, I will pick the former.

That's a throwaway line. Capability is dictated by strategic and theatre requirement. European subs are highly capable within their countries CONOPS.
Each country has a long and successful history of submarine building.

No existing DE submarine, apart from Collins, is "capable" within the RAN's context, German, French or Japanese and that's the point always lost in the daily regurgitation by the media and internet trolls.

However, of all the options, Soryu comes closest with but with complex changes and genuine risk, all others are just talk, vapourware as some on here espouse. Maybe its better therefor, to start from there rather than starting from zero to fulfil OUR capability.

 

[Volkodav]

The Collins is a late 80s, early 90s design, using predominantly proven equipment of even older design, constructed in the mid to late 90s with the last boat delivered in the early 2000s. The fact that it is only now, in the mid 2010s, being matched in some, not all, areas, demonstrates that it was and remains one of the most capable submarines, conventional or nuclear, ever developed. The biggest issue is there were never enough ordered to cover all the required roles, including the vital job of training and certifying new submariners.

There were teething problems with the first boat, rectified during build on the second, that some would have you believe have plagued the type to this day. The second and third boats performed very well without major modifications while the fourth and fifth were built to an improved baseline and the sixth was further modified in light of the experience gained with the first three to further improve performance. All have subsequently been brought up to the standard of the sixth with further upgrades being rolled out as they become available.

It is IMO a shame that boat six wasn't followed by at least another two built to the same baseline and then an evolved design developed to further expand the fleet.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I find the ideal of a OTS sub amusing same with sub maintenance. Subs aren't like cars or ships or aircraft. You don't just drop the oil and change a filter.

http://www.cockatooisland.gov.au/sy...5ed533/files/cmp-cockatooisland-dockyard3.pdf

Every piece of equipment on board the submarine was subjected to testing, had repairs made to it, was degreased, cleaned and repainted. This included all piping, electrical equipment, internal surfaces and the external hull. The accommodation bulkheads, fittings, doors, handles and internal linings were also worked on. Each refit involved nearly every aspect of Cockatoo Island, from joiners to electricians to painters and dockers. As an example of the amount of work required, every battery was removed for testing and charging. Over 400 such units, weighing half a ton each and standing at just over one metre high, were individually removed, serviced and later replaced.38 Not only was there an enormous amount of work to be done, but due to the unique makeup andcomponetry of the submarines, all the work had to be done with the utmost precision.

The submarine program also provided the Cockatoo Island Dockyard with opportunities to display their high levels of expertise that they had accumulated in over a century of shipbuilding. In each Page 55 Cockatoo Island Dockyard–Conservation Management Plan–Volume I, June 2007 Godden Mackay Logan refit, an average of 30,000 individual parts was required to complete the work. Many of these were produced on the Island. The refit program also allowed the dockyard to fully utilise its computer system, set up in the 1970s, making it the largest use of network analysis techniques anywhere in Australia.40 The idea of the refit was to return each submarine to as-new condition, and the Navy required the dockyard to develop an entire costing, planning and quality assurance program, making it the first dockyard in Australia to adopt such measures and, in the process, creating the best conventional submarine refit centre in the world.

You might as well build them where they are going to be serviced. Its not like we weren't good at maintaining submarines, in fact with the Oberons we had realized we would have been better off building them ourselves given the amount of work we had to do to maintain them. Which is why the Collins project came about. It wasn't a program to get unemployed teenagers back to work, it was a way to make submarine operations cheaper and more efficient.

The refit of HMAS Oxley, the first of an Oberon submarine in Australia, cost 76 percent of its purchase price.
http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol5no3Woolner.pdf

So say we spend $25 billion for Japanese submarines. First refit will cost what $18 billion? How much money have we saved?

 

[rockitten]

I find the ideal of a OTS sub amusing same with sub maintenance. Subs aren't like cars or ships or aircraft. You don't just drop the oil and change a filter.

http://www.cockatooisland.gov.au/sy...5ed533/files/cmp-cockatooisland-dockyard3.pdf





You might as well build them where they are going to be serviced. Its not like we weren't good at maintaining submarines, in fact with the Oberons we had realized we would have been better off building them ourselves given the amount of work we had to do to maintain them. Which is why the Collins project came about. It wasn't a program to get unemployed teenagers back to work, it was a way to make submarine operations cheaper and more efficient.

The refit of HMAS Oxley, the first of an Oberon submarine in Australia, cost 76 percent of its purchase price.
http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol5no3Woolner.pdf

So say we spend $25 billion for Japanese submarines. First refit will cost what $18 billion? How much money have we saved?

Interesting read. And for comparison, what's the cost of the first refit for Collins and the cost for 2nd refits for both types?

BTW, isn't the cost of the first refit should be purchase price per Soryu ($600million for Li battery ver) X 76% = $456million? Probably I am wrong, but assume Soryu doesn't have the issue like the O-class (design and RN's switch to all SSN) that also contribute to the high cost of maintenance, but not totally applicable Soryu. Then, when most up-fronts/learning curve has been paid during the first refit, will the subsequent refits still being so expensive?

 

[jeffb]

Interesting read. And for comparison, what's the cost of the first refit for Collins and the cost for 2nd refits for both types?

BTW, isn't the cost of the first refit should be purchase price per Soryu ($600million for Li battery ver) X 76% = $456million? Probably I am wrong, but assume Soryu doesn't have the issue like the O-class (design and RN's switch to all SSN) that also contribute to the high cost of maintenance, but not totally applicable Soryu. Then, when most up-fronts/learning curve has been paid during the first refit, will the subsequent refits still being so expensive?

I really don't understand where you're coming from when you're talking about costs but ignoring the amount of money that would be recovered if invested into the local economy rather than overseas. The costs involved with refits are pretty obvious aren't they? The more experience a yard has hands on with a design the less things cost, had the yard built the subs in the first place the cost of that first refit would not have been so high. If costs are your main concern then you seem to be missing a huge part of that puzzle.

You earlier said where would the skilled workforce go once the project has completed as if you just pay money and subs pop out overnight. A project without political interference for 12 subs could run for a very long time, batches of 4 every 6 years would mean 18 years of work, when you consider maintenance and refit work the skilled workforce is likely to continue straight into the next generation submarine.

Also you're ignoring the fact the RAN will require changes to the Soryu design to meet its requirements if that is the path they go down, regardless of where it is built. While the Japanese tech is proven, it is to some degree a paper design in the Australian context, from a nation that has never exported submarines at all no less (although it has been involved in large international projects itself).

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting read, And for comparison, what's the cost of the first refit for Collins and the cost for 2nd refits for both types

BTW, isn't the cost of the first refit should be purchase price per Soryu ($600million for Li battery ver) X 76% = $456million? Probably I am wrong, but assume most up-fronts has been paid during the first refit, then it is still a fair bit of cost saving.

HMAS Ovens 3rd refit (1991) cost $64 million, so the refits didn't seem to get much cheaper (even for adjusted dollars).

Well this is the question. How much would it cost to sustain overseas built submarines. AFAIK Oberon and Collins have have significant costs on each refit. The price generally goes down, but not as much as you would think. Particularly on a foreign built vessel.

Through-life-support was never easy with designs of the Oberon
era and the periodic refits performed at Vickers’ Cockatoo Island Dockyard in
Sydney Harbour were complex and expensive,36 with overseas suppliers
providing 85 to 90 percent of support. With the Royal Navy preoccupied by
nuclear boat operations it was increasingly difficult for the RAN to get British
advice and support. With the Falklands War, this all but ceased

This is buying from someone we had a long relationship with and had half our fleet built with and which they made 27 of them and were in operation with multiple international fleets (Canada, Chile, Brazil, Australia and the UK).