t68
Well-Known Member
I expect a lot of those jobs will be retitled under the new defence banner in a similer shake up of when defence cut the fat to give it more teeth such as the private company operations of DNSDC or what ever it's called now
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Joe Black
Active Member
Out from the ASPI conferences on Surface fleet and Submarines, I am hoping The DefMin and Navy don't enter into an analysis paralysis situation resulting in more delays in ordering the new subs and the future frigates.
Same, too, with the ACPBs replacement.
I am hoping in the next 12 months, RAN will announce a new class of OPVs to replace the ACPBs and in 18months time, decision on Collins class replace. In 24 months time, the decision for the future frigate is made.
Am I being too optimistic? Maybe.
Same, too, with the ACPBs replacement.
I am hoping in the next 12 months, RAN will announce a new class of OPVs to replace the ACPBs and in 18months time, decision on Collins class replace. In 24 months time, the decision for the future frigate is made.
Am I being too optimistic? Maybe.
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/reviews/firstprinciples/Docs/FirstPrinciplesReview.pdf
In all there are 76 recommendations, of which the government has agreed to 75.
I haven't read the entire 107 page document yet, let alone hoist in the import and ramifications of any change but it does no justice to simply headline 1,000 job losses within defence.
I have no further comment but there are others here who work within those structures, are effected by the review and are way better situated to comment on the review.
This subject should probably shift to the ADF thread because it is a Defence wide commentary and has widespread ramifications for both uniforms and public sector personnel.
The "big" announcement is a headlining grab by media outlets regarding recommendations announced in the Defence First Principles Review released today.
In all there are 76 recommendations, of which the government has agreed to 75.
I haven't read the entire 107 page document yet, let alone hoist in the import and ramifications of any change but it does no justice to simply headline 1,000 job losses within defence.
I have no further comment but there are others here who work within those structures, are effected by the review and are way better situated to comment on the review.
This subject should probably shift to the ADF thread because it is a Defence wide commentary and has widespread ramifications for both uniforms and public sector personnel.
Last edited:
Another gem from the ASPI Surface Ship Summit was the disclosure that the AWD's have slipped a further 12 months. DMO's Colin Thorne delivered the address which he outlined the Winter reviews "marvel and disbelief" about the project. Marvel at what has been achieved so far and disbelief that such a complex programme could have been considered stating from such a low base.
He identified the major cost blow out related to labour force productivity ($170 per compensated tonne cf the Danes who where reportedly constructing at $15 per compensated tonne - whatever that means?) but rather than blaming the workforce he puts the proposition that we have simply forgotten how to build ships.
An interesting article which confirms what most of us have been discussing and highlights the stupidity of losing the countries engineering skill base particularly within the RAN.
DMO and the future of Australian shipbuilding
He identified the major cost blow out related to labour force productivity ($170 per compensated tonne cf the Danes who where reportedly constructing at $15 per compensated tonne - whatever that means?) but rather than blaming the workforce he puts the proposition that we have simply forgotten how to build ships.
An interesting article which confirms what most of us have been discussing and highlights the stupidity of losing the countries engineering skill base particularly within the RAN.
DMO and the future of Australian shipbuilding
Linkedin shows what a lot of the problem is. I have connections that came into AWD following Labors budget driven gutting in 2012-13 to try and recover the lost momentum, now most of those very experienced and capable experts are gone and there's a new lot of experts in. As far as I can work it out this is the forth time ASCs engineering, project management and production hierarchy has been gutted and replaced since 2007. Basically every two years ASCs owners (the federal government) gut and rebuild ASC, even people who aren't made redundant or chose to leave, get shuffled into other roles, meaning several months are wasted every couple of years while the dust settles. If you ran business like this you would go broke.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think that's the whole problem they are trying to run it as a profitable business when ASC is there to build war fighting capabilty on behalf of the defence force, they don't build submarines to the commercial market do they?
ASC is not meant to make a profit, but just like everything they want to privatise it by making it look better in the short term instead of looking long term.
Quite a fan of this design with Damen turning out some useful concepts. Certainly appears to fit the bill in range and capability.
Isn't this exactly what we're after to replace the Balikpapan class??
Then there's the Damen 1800/2400 to replace the Armidale class!
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes, I'm a fan too!!
Up until a while ago (before seeing the Damen design, I was a fan of the BMT Caimen Landing Craft, but I think that the Damen design has gone just that little bit further.
The Damen '100' design, looks very much like a 'mini Tobruk', heli deck on the back, large main deck crane and a lower enclosed deck with clam shell doors.
Reading the product sheet the ship is supposed to only need a crew of 18 (which I think is only slightly higher than the LCH, and it is twice the size too!).
It also appears, from the PDF product sheet that the landing craft and their davits are an 'option', either take advantage of that deck space to house a couple of landing craft, or if that option is not taken up, then more cargo can be stored (wonder if there is a 'ramp' between decks, or if loading/unloading is only via the crane?).
Anyway, look like an impressive concept, and if and when the LCH replacement actually happens (hopefully sooner than later!), maybe this is one of the design concepts can be put forward as a solution!
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes my first impression was it a modern Round Table class unti I saw the basic spec on her, very impressive design
Trackmaster
Member
The 120 appears to me to be particularly impressive.
Substantial range and surely some sort of hangar or enclosed area could be incorporated for a helicopter.
Steel construction and enough welding and steel shaping to keep folks occupied at Bae in Victoria.
Substantial range and surely some sort of hangar or enclosed area could be incorporated for a helicopter.
Steel construction and enough welding and steel shaping to keep folks occupied at Bae in Victoria.
Nice piece of kit, will be interesting to see which way we go, looking at the PDF from the Damen site it does list an internal ramp capacity of 30t, so would be guessing it would be the case, it would just resign MBT's to the main deck
I still would not discount anything from BMT at this stage, as things heat up and requirements are defined to industry designs will evolve to suit
Cheers
More a moder version of the French Batrals which were used in this region. Teh bit I like is it allows the independent deployment of up to 180 equipped personal (noting most of those will be in high density accomodation), landing craft, vehicles and limited air capability. Quite useful for low level independent military operations and HADR.
t68
Well-Known Member
Well according to the Damen 120. the ramps are rated to
Bow/stern ramp's70 tonnes,and the Internal ramp 30 tonnes, nd can be optioned with a 25t crane
These certantly meet the requirments for the LST replacement in cargo capacity and better open sea ship handling, don't think the RAN will much better than these.
http://products.damen.com/~/media/P...Product_Sheet_Landing_Ship_Transport_120.ashx
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I was just comparing the spec sheets of both the 100 and 120, and all those 'basic' inclusions seem to be the same, the same capacity for the bow/stern ramps, internal ramp and the optional cranes.
The big difference comes with that 'extra 20m plug', range is up from 4,000nm to 8,000nm, troops/EMF goes up from 235 to 336, the extra set of 'optional' davits (or equivalent upper deck space), RoRo space up from 540m2 to 750m2, cargo deck up from 420m2 to 650m2 and so on.
And the 'core' crew only increases from 18 to 22.
Well we just have to wait and see 'if and when' the LCH replacement is planned to happen, theses designs certainly look interesting anyway.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If you have a look at some of the links below it will give you an idea of the capabilities (and potential capability growth) of the various shipbuilding, repair, 'module' fabrication capabilities and facilities, etc around the country.
Techport in Adelaide is probably the most obvious choice to be the 'prime' ship/submarine assembly location:
Australia’s premier naval industry hub supporting The Australian Navy AWDs
As you can see from the video the site itself is pretty large and there is a lot of scope for expansion, increased hardstand areas, fabrication sheds, increasing wharf space and increasing the size of the ship lift, for example if the 'ship lift' had been enlarged during the Rudd era (GFC infrastructure money for example), possibly the AOR's could have been built there.
Henderson in WA, there is Austal, builder of all things 'Aluminium', ACPB's, Cape Class for Customs, etc (plus all the 'commercial' shipbuilding work they do too).
Production Facilities :: About Austal :: en :: Austal
The question regarding Austal is will the Government select any further 'aluminium' ships for the Navy? Who knows! But when the Government recently announced the plan for the new class of 'Pacific Patrol Boats' they specified that those ships would be built from 'steel', so that probably excludes Austal.
On the other hand if the replacement for the ACPB's is an OPV based on a 'scaled down' US Navy LCS (or their proposed MRV 80) for example, then Austal would probably be the one to build in aluminium because of their expertise in that area.
There is also BAE at Henderson too, does a lot of maintenance for the fleet based in the West and is also doing the ASMD upgrade on the Anzac Frigates, from memory they didn't do any block work on the AWD's, but I do recall (someone can correct me), that they may have fabricated the main mast for the three AWD's.
And there is also The Australian Marine complex at Henderson with a common user facility too (really don't know enough about this) but I think that that facility BAE and Austal are all located near each other), but here's a link anyway.
Marine Engineering, Marine Services & Shipyard - Australian Marine Complex
And of course there is BAE at Williamstown, currently block work for the AWD's and block work and integration on the LHD's.
In the not too distant past two FFG's and 10 Anzac's were built there too, will we ever see 'Frigate' sized ships built there again? Probably not, but the yard also built the OPV's and IPV's for New Zealand, so it would be reasonable to assume that the yard is also capable of building some or all of the new Pacific Patrol Boats, could be a contender for the proposed OPV's to replace the ACPB's, replacement LCH and future replacement Hydrographic ships too and of course it could also be a 'block' supplier for the Future Frigates too.
And lastly is Forgacs in Newcastle, apart from it's commercial work, is also a block builder for the AWD's, and would be no doubt be capable of performing block work on the Future Frigates too.
<strong>Newcastle</strong> -
In a nutshell, Techport in SA is probably the 'obvious' choice to perform the replacement submarine build, assembly of the Future Frigates (possibly further into the future if the 'ship lift' is expanded, it could also be looked at as a site to eventually build replacements for the 'replacement' AOR's, Choules and LHD 'sized' ships). Williamstown is certainly capable of OPV, PB, LCH, etc, work (as well as block work), Forgacs would also be capable of block work, BAE at Henderson in WA will probably continue on doing maintenance and 'upgrade' work into the future to support the WA based fleet.
And that leave Austal (apart from it's commercial activities), well that will all depend on what any future Navy ships are build from, it it's not steel, then Austal would in the front seat for that type of construction.
So I think that just about covers it! Of course the is the overriding 'politics' of ship building too, no doubt each 'State Government' will be pushing for their 'share' of the work and also at a 'Federal Government' level, depending on which 'seat' you want to 'win' at election time too!!
Cheers,
The link does not work for me. Any other ways to view this article?
Try going to the ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute ) home page and find recent articles by Andrew Davies - good luck
No luck either. The whole page won't load.
Could it be that the site can not be accessed from outside Australia?
t68
Well-Known Member
Could be loads fine to me thou
- Status