Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

How much budget has been allocated to Sea 1179 Phase 2A (Armidale replacements) is anybody's guess. But 10 OPVs (let's say) to replace 14 Armidales - unlikely to get any change out of $1.5 billion based on what the Brits paid for theirs.

Stock,

I think we need to stop the bus, back it up a few dozen metres, get out and have a look at the history of this.

It appears that SEA1179 was the 'replacement' project (or part replacement for the PB 'component' of the original much broader deferred SEA1180) created from the Gillard Government 2013 DWP.

From what I gather the aim of SEA1179 was to replace the ACPB's with a proven design and local construction, and by proven design I mean another class of PB's (not OCV's or OPV's). An obvious choice would have been a navalised version of the Cape Class for Customs, which of course was an evolution of the ACPB's, but because there was no new DCP released with the 2013 DWP, I have never seen what the budget or timeframe for that project was and we have had a change of Government too, well I would think that SEA1179 in that form is now redundant.

If we go back a bit further to the Rudd Government 2009 DWP where SEA1180 was created, we can see that that plan was to replace 26 ships from four different classes (including the ACPB's) with a new single multi-role class of 20 OCV's.

If you have a look at the last DCP to be published (the 2012 DCP), the budget of SEA1180 for 20 OCV's was between $5B to $10B, and the suggestion was that the final price would be around the middle, eg, $7.5B.

(As a side note, regardless of what 'reason or explanation' the Gillard 2013 DWP gave for 'deferring' SEA1180, I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of the reasons for deferral was due to cost, in the order of $7.5B, when that Government was also at the same time taking money out of the Defence budget to try and fill it's Government budget black hole, SEA1179 would have been considerably less money, just my opinion of course!)

So rolling forward to today, the Abbott Government should be releasing it's new DWP and DCP in the next few months and if the 'hints' given by the new Def Min are to be believed, then 'this' Government is planning to replace the ACPB's with a new class of OPV's, not PB's as proposed in SEA1179.

So I would suggest that whatever $'s were going to be allocated for SEA1179 are meaningless and equally I can't imagine that the new DWP will 'restore' SEA1180 as it was proposed with it's planned expenditure of around $7.5B for 20 OCV's.


So where does that leave us?

I would think that a new SEAxxxx project will be raised (or a dramatically altered SEA1179), the number of hulls probably won't be anywhere near the 20 proposed in SEA1180 and there may be less than the current 14 ACPB's (well 13 and a burnt wreck!).

If the new project specifies somewhere between 10-12 new ships (even 10 or 12 would be on the 'high' side), then the budget, for the total project, could be anywhere between $3B to $5B depending on the size and capabilities of the OPV's.

It will no doubt be much more than SEA1179, but equally I'd imagine that it would be considerably less than SEA1180's proposed budget.

Anyway, just my opinion of course, in a few months we should all know!!!

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

I've referred to this Economics committee report on two occasions so thought I had better post it. It's a lengthy report but for anyone interested in the productivity of naval shipbuilding, DMO's recommendations, costs of upgrading docking facilities to build larger ships and much more, this is a very enlightening read and worth the time spent.

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/naval_shipbuilding/part1/report.pdf

 

[Stock]

Its all about capability, time on task and crew comfort. We won't be replacing the ACPBs on a one for one basis if the platform is upgraded to an OPV.
Crew costs are also relevant. There are currently 21 ACPB crews so if we end up with say 6 OPV replacements (2 on task) there will be manpower savings over the current arrangement because multiple crewing should be dumped as it does nothing to improve care and maintenance of a dedicated platform.

It may well be that further Customs Cape class could supplement the OPV's.

The above scenario satisfies the continued industry concerns over work continuity in Henderson and Williamstown. If work continues on the F105 hull for the future frigates, cost/productivity parity with the DDG 51's will be achieved by hull #5 according to DMO in the Senate committee report I referred earlier and production of modules will continue as at present for some time.

Don't mind the idea of additional Cape-class to complement the OPVs.

 

[Stock]

Stock,

I think we need to stop the bus, back it up a few dozen metres, get out and have a look at the history of this.

It appears that SEA1179 was the 'replacement' project (or part replacement for the PB 'component' of the original much broader deferred SEA1180) created from the Gillard Government 2013 DWP.

From what I gather the aim of SEA1179 was to replace the ACPB's with a proven design and local construction, and by proven design I mean another class of PB's (not OCV's or OPV's). An obvious choice would have been a navalised version of the Cape Class for Customs, which of course was an evolution of the ACPB's, but because there was no new DCP released with the 2013 DWP, I have never seen what the budget or timeframe for that project was and we have had a change of Government too, well I would think that SEA1179 in that form is now redundant.

If we go back a bit further to the Rudd Government 2009 DWP where SEA1180 was created, we can see that that plan was to replace 26 ships from four different classes (including the ACPB's) with a new single multi-role class of 20 OCV's.

If you have a look at the last DCP to be published (the 2012 DCP), the budget of SEA1180 for 20 OCV's was between $5B to $10B, and the suggestion was that the final price would be around the middle, eg, $7.5B.

(As a side note, regardless of what 'reason or explanation' the Gillard 2013 DWP gave for 'deferring' SEA1180, I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of the reasons for deferral was due to cost, in the order of $7.5B, when that Government was also at the same time taking money out of the Defence budget to try and fill it's Government budget black hole, SEA1179 would have been considerably less money, just my opinion of course!)

So rolling forward to today, the Abbott Government should be releasing it's new DWP and DCP in the next few months and if the 'hints' given by the new Def Min are to be believed, then 'this' Government is planning to replace the ACPB's with a new class of OPV's, not PB's as proposed in SEA1179.

So I would suggest that whatever $'s were going to be allocated for SEA1179 are meaningless and equally I can't imagine that the new DWP will 'restore' SEA1180 as it was proposed with it's planned expenditure of around $7.5B for 20 OCV's.


So where does that leave us?

I would think that a new SEAxxxx project will be raised (or a dramatically altered SEA1179), the number of hulls probably won't be anywhere near the 20 proposed in SEA1180 and there may be less than the current 14 ACPB's (well 13 and a burnt wreck!).

If the new project specifies somewhere between 10-12 new ships (even 10 or 12 would be on the 'high' side), then the budget, for the total project, could be anywhere between $3B to $5B depending on the size and capabilities of the OPV's.

It will no doubt be much more than SEA1179, but equally I'd imagine that it would be considerably less than SEA1180's proposed budget.

Anyway, just my opinion of course, in a few months we should all know!!!

Cheers,

John,

Yes, there's a lot that's unclear right now. Would have been handy for the Minister to elaborate on the OPV topic at the conference, rather than just deliver a brief line without background or further explanation.

Not sure if Sea 1179 will ever see the light of day in view of the OPVs. But again, the Minister could have clarified in a few brief additional lines.

Will be interesting to watch unfold.

 

[John Newman]

John,

Yes, there's a lot that's unclear right now. Would have been handy for the Minister to elaborate on the OPV topic at the conference, rather than just deliver a brief line without background or further explanation.

Not sure if Sea 1179 will ever see the light of day in view of the OPVs. But again, the Minister could have clarified in a few brief additional lines.

Will be interesting to watch unfold.

You have to remember that we are talking about a politician making a speech (doesn't matter which side of the fence), and politicians can be very 'economical' with what they say (the less you say, the less you can get in trouble!) and you also have to remember too that the new DWP and DCP are only just around the corner and any 'good news' announcements will be delivered then.

If there was more detail to be had, he would have said so, or if there was a Q&A session, it would have been up to the questions being asked, either way it doesn't really matter.

But what he 'did' clearly say was that the ACPB's would be replaced with a class of OPV's, and I think that is more than enough at this stage to let anyone who is interested and I also think from his statement that the ACPB's are being replaced with OPV's is a pretty obvious statement that SEA1179 (in it's present form) is a dead duck!!

 

[bdique]

I believe the OCV/OPV is a better value, more capable, option through life, that may actually prove cheaper overall. Being larger, more seaworthy and durable, they would be capable of undertaking longer ranged, longer duration patrols in higher sea states.

Steel is cheap and air is free really does apply in the case of OPV vs PBs as their systems are very similar, if not the same. What you are getting is more space, better habitability and versatility. They require slightly larger crews but this is an advantage in terms of larger engineering departments leading to better ships husbandry and improved training capabilities. Fewer boats conducting longer patrols means fewer crews overall and the potential to get rid of the division system currently in place and return to crews being assigned to a particular ship.

Add in the fact other nations are using their OPVs for international missions they would once have used a frigate for and we are talking even better value for money. Basically every constabulary, UN policing and border protection job they can relieve major combatants in, the more money they save. While equipped to operate helicopters they don't need to embark them, just as PBs not on Op Sovereign Borders don't need carry two boarding parties, or have security teams. They could be operated very economically in PB roles, replace the frigates on border protection duties meaning the RAN is ahead even if they never take on MCMV and hydrographic roles.

Volk, really appreciate this. I'm certain this doesn't just apply to the Australian context, but to many other nations too i.e. Singapore replacing 12 Fearless patrol vessels with 8 LMVs that have precisely the capabilities you mentioned in a typical OPV.

 

[Volkodav]

IMO the 2013 DWP was all about cutting costs and distancing the government from the 2010 DWP and associated DCP (perhaps with a little anti ADF left wing ideology thrown in as well).

As to BAE improving while ASC and Forgacs went backwards, remember BAE came from a very low base, while ASC and Forgacs had to absorb a lot of unscheduled work taken from BAE, once they had turned things around and were showing real improvement, in a pointless, punitive exercise. Forgacs had to ramp up a second facility and train a new work force. Government owned ASC, despite being given extra work to do was prevented from recruiting the originally planned workforce and has gone through three major reorganisations and large redundancies since 2010, completely screwing productivity and handing many functions over to Raytheon, all primarily to save upfront costs at the expense of overall project costs.

All of this loss of qualified, experienced personnel and shuffling people into new roles, occurred concurrently with the majority of BIW staff returning to the US. So while the actual production and technical people building the ship were getting into full swing, the engineering, project management and supporting functions were gutted, shaken, stirred and reorganised to death. The truly sad thing is about the only change from the first two reorganisations is that Rod Equid of Raytheon, a non-shipbuilder, is still CEO of the AWD Alliance and he, along with the senior Raytheon managers continue to undermine and back stab ASC in their ongoing campaign to become the stand alone prime contractor for AWD and eventually the ANZAC replacement.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The above scenario satisfies the continued industry concerns over work continuity in Henderson and Williamstown. If work continues on the F105 hull for the future frigates, cost/productivity parity with the DDG 51's will be achieved by hull #5 according to DMO in the Senate committee report I referred earlier and production of modules will continue as at present for some time.

Which I believe its its strongest case. IMO the F-105 hulled frigates has a lot going for it. Even with new modern engines, systems and other improvements, the ability to keep churning out modules, reuse all the set up from the existing AWD builds means the project starts out way ahead of any other local project in ADF history.

In his view, if the future frigate is based on the same hull as the AWD, 'we should be able to get to world's best practice around about ship 3, and with Australian radars and Australian technology in it'. He informed the committee that he had never seen a better opportunity to have 'a real strategic capability that is cost efficient, that no-one has to apologise for' and that is of value to the taxpayer

You would get better ships, cheaper with benefits in training, logistics, maintenance, upgrades etc.

IMO I think the reduction in hull numbers from the OCV concept are too great. To go to 6 hulls is too much a reduction. IMO it should be around 10-14 as a minimum. Enough to make local build volume worth while, but also to have a suitable number of hulls in the water.

 

[John Newman]

I've referred to this Economics committee report on two occasions so thought I had better post it. It's a lengthy report but for anyone interested in the productivity of naval shipbuilding, DMO's recommendations, costs of upgrading docking facilities to build larger ships and much more, this is a very enlightening read and worth the time spent.

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/naval_shipbuilding/part1/report.pdf

Thanks mate, I looked on the APH website and was finding it difficult to find this particular senate report, will read when I get a chance, hope it gives me a laugh or two!!!


Rather than creating a new post, I thought I'd make a comment on a couple of your posts today (they have been coming thick and fast, easy to loose track!)

Your particular comments from a couple of posts were:

Putting 2 + 2 together, I would not be surprised to see BAE Williamstown getting an OPV order in the coming DWP and it would probably be a mature design similar to HMS Clyde et al. (A long shot I know but certainly a benefit to all, particularly for the RAN)

It may well be that further Customs Cape class could supplement the OPV's.

The above scenario satisfies the continued industry concerns over work continuity in Henderson and Williamstown.

One thing that I think will be interesting when the Government hands down the new DWP and DCP is trying to find the 'balance' between on the one hand, ensuring that Navy get the right ships and in the right numbers too, and on the other hand trying to satisfy the Australian Shipbuilding Industry too (and that also requires satisfying the various State Governments that will no doubt be barking at the heels of the Federal Government, "more Sir, more please!"), there will always be a 'political' edge to the decisions.

Putting the 'top' end aside for a moment (Future Frigates and Replacement Submarines that will in all likelihood be build in Techport Adelaide with block work being spread around the country as with the AWD's), I was thinking more of the 'smaller' but equally important projects that need to be done.

The smaller projects would be:
* Up to 21 Replacement Pacific Patrol Boats (announced by the Def Min on 5 March), one thing to note was that the Def Min specified that these boats would be constructed of 'steel'.
* OPV's to replace the ACBP's - Assail, you are suggesting around 6, Singray Oz suggested 10-14, I'll say around 10, just for the sake of this comment, but we won't know till the DWP.
* 6 replacement LCH
* 6 Mine Warfare ships - will probably go through an upgrade and life extension and then possibly replaced in the longer term.
* 6 Hydrographic ships of two different classes - will probably go though an upgrade and eventual replacement.

So who would want a slice of that pie? Who will get a slice of that pie?

* BAE Williamstown - Getting to the end of work on the last LHD and block work for the AWD's will probably start to wind down too.
* BAE Hendeson - About half way through the ASMD upgrade of the Anzac's, would probably continue doing support and maintenance of the WA based fleet (don't know if there is a capability to actually 'build' ships there?)
* Austal Henderson - Work on the eight Cape Class must be starting to wind down, so no doubt on the 'downward slope' in regard to Defence / Government work (apart from commercial activities)
* Forgacs Newcastle - Block work for the AWD's (apart from their commercial work), don't know if they have the ability to 'build' ships currently.


So what project (or projects) would be first cabs of the rank? And who gets what? This is where it gets interesting.

First off I think would be the Replacement Pacific Patrol Boats, these 'up to 21' ships will obviously be the easiest and least technically challenging ships to build, according to the Def Min's statement of 5 March there is likely to be some decision on them towards the end of this year.

So who would likely get to have a bite of this one? With the Government stating that they would be constructed of 'steel', well that would appear to leave Austal out in the cold in this project, so I reckon that BAE Williamstown would appear to be the likely candidate (at the very least from a 'political' point of view too), the next question is would all 'up to 21' be built at the one yard? Maybe the build could be split between the BAE Williamstown and BAE Henderson yards, especially if BAE Williamstown also get to have a bite of the OPV's.


Next the OPV's, this is where things might get a bit interesting, obviously until the DWP is announced we won't know how many ships in the class or what they are to be constructed of, will the Government specify 'steel' only, or will it likely be open to either steel or aluminium?

So again bringing 'political' considerations into this, I wouldn't mind having a bet that if BAE Williamstown gets the replacement Pacific Patrol Boats, then possibly Austal could be thrown a bone and be given the OPV's and we would see a version of the MRV-80 design put forward (as it was around the time of SEA1180).

On the other hand, if a 'steel' design is chosen, that would probably put BAE in the box seat for the OPV project as well as the Pacific Patrol Boats.

So what does the Government do to keep Austal and the WA Government happy if Austal misses out on the OPV's (as well as missing out on the Pacific Patrol Boats because of the steel construction)?

If the OPV's that are chosen to replace the ACPB's are in steel and in smaller numbers too, then maybe there will be a case to increase Customs fleet of Cape Class PB's, maybe even down the track when the Hydrographic fleet is up for replacement maybe a 'Hydrographic' version of the MRV-80 or other Austal designs could be chosen as replacements for the Hydropgraphic fleet.

The LCH replacements (if they do eventually happen), well that's a hard one, again a yard such as BAE Williamstown would no doubt be equipped to build such ships, but again from the 'political' aspect, how much of the work will be spread around (or able to be spread around?).

And I suppose that leaves Forgacs in Newcastle, maybe they might get the Mine Warfare ship upgrades, or just disappear from defence work if not enough can be thrown their way.


So that was just 'one' version of what could happen, could shuffle the deck all night and come up with different versions too, but that's just one example of how the work could be shared around and also how difficult it could be for the Government with satisfying all the yards and various State Governments too!!!

Cheers,

 

[Volkodav]

Which I believe its its strongest case. IMO the F-105 hulled frigates has a lot going for it. Even with new modern engines, systems and other improvements, the ability to keep churning out modules, reuse all the set up from the existing AWD builds means the project starts out way ahead of any other local project in ADF history.



You would get better ships, cheaper with benefits in training, logistics, maintenance, upgrades etc.

IMO I think the reduction in hull numbers from the OCV concept are too great. To go to 6 hulls is too much a reduction. IMO it should be around 10-14 as a minimum. Enough to make local build volume worth while, but also to have a suitable number of hulls in the water.

The thing is the F-105 is an aging design, a generation behind Type 45, Type 26, DDG1000 etc. It's fine for a class built from the late 90s to the early 2010s but is already behind the curve on crew size, propulsion efficiency, power generation and there are quirks relating to to its construction, i.e. how plates are arranged, plate thickness, that are not best practice. To be honest, F-105 made sense for Spain as they had already built four F-100s, but for Australia, with a long and successful history of using USN designs, a licence build, or MOTS acquisition, of Flight 2 Arleigh Burkes would have been much smarter.

In an ideal (or fantasy to be honest) world Hawke Labor would have ordered a sister to Success and followed through with the full Australian Frigate Project of six, rather than just two, additional FFGs, followed by three license built Flight IIA Burkes, all built at Cockatoo.

 

[Goknub]

Can't the internal structures, layout and other quirks being rectified during an "evolution" within continuous build?

Essentially a "Flight 2" of our own.

Once we have the efficiency and experience with that particular hull it should be easier to modify that than a more modern design we know little about.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The thing is the F-105 is an aging design, a generation behind Type 45, Type 26, DDG1000 etc. It's fine for a class built from the late 90s to the early 2010s but is already behind the curve on crew size, propulsion efficiency, power generation and there are quirks relating to to its construction, i.e. how plates are arranged, plate thickness, that are not best practice. To be honest, F-105 made sense for Spain as they had already built four F-100s, but for Australia, with a long and successful history of using USN designs, a licence build, or MOTS acquisition, of Flight 2 Arleigh Burkes would have been much smarter.

I can understand there are some limitations and flaws for in re-purposing the F-100 for use as a frigate replacement. But I think we will have to live with those limitations. Some of these could be improved as part of the program. We can probably accept the inelegant design, any inefficiencies.

As much as we would like to go back in time, we can't. We have to live with the decisions made . Looking back we could done a lot better (agree with FFG and burkes). But its the forward part we really have to worry about. IMO anything other than a F-100 build for the anzac replacements puts the whole local industry at risk. We can't afford any more massive setbacks.

I would still be tying in the Minesweepers and survey ships in with the OPV concept. Again reducing hull types. Build volume. Different fitout and systems but same or variation on hull.

 

[Milne Bay]

I can understand there are some limitations and flaws for in re-purposing the F-100 for use as a frigate replacement. But I think we will have to live with those limitations. Some of these could be improved as part of the program. We can probably accept the inelegant design, any inefficiencies.

As much as we would like to go back in time, we can't. We have to live with the decisions made . Looking back we could done a lot better (agree with FFG and burkes). But its the forward part we really have to worry about. IMO anything other than a F-100 build for the anzac replacements puts the whole local industry at risk. We can't afford any more massive setbacks.

I would still be tying in the Minesweepers and survey ships in with the OPV concept. Again reducing hull types. Build volume. Different fitout and systems but same or variation on hull.

What's that old saying - "perfection is the enemy of good enough....."
I agree that with 20/20 hindsight we can see lots of flaws, bad decisions and missed opportunities. However there will be scope for improvement of a sound design even if it isn't the best design
MB

 

[justsomeaussie]

But that was for SEA1180, which apart from replacing the ACPB's, was also to replace the mine warfare ships and two classes of Hydrographic ships and that the I suppose the question now is, what is going to be the scope of the 'new' SEA XXXX (whatever it is going to be called)? And is it only restricted to replacing the ACPB's and nothing else? Do the ACPB's have a more 'restricted' area of operations (of which I have no idea)?
,

When ever Defence talks about SEA1179 they specifically mention that it will be a steel hull much like the requirements for the Pacific Patrol Boat Program which means it’s definitely not going to be a Cape Class, MRV-80 or in fact any Austal build since they only do aluminium.

 

[John Newman]

When ever Defence talks about SEA1179 they specifically mention that it will be a steel hull much like the requirements for the Pacific Patrol Boat Program which means it’s definitely not going to be a Cape Class, MRV-80 or in fact any Austal build since they only do aluminium.

I agree that the Pacific Patrol Boat replacements have been specified in 'Steel', agree 100%, but I have never read or heard that the ACPB replacement (as proposed in SEA1179) has been decided one way or the other.

See the link below that one of the other guys put up here a few days ago:

Defence Technology Review : DTR APR 2015, Page 1


'Defence' replied to a question from DTR about SEA1179 and the relevant 'part' of the reply is repeated below (or click on the link above for the 'full' article):

"Factors including the size, capabilities, construction material, acquisition schedule and the number of vessels to be acquired are being considered by the FSR, ........"

So as you can see the 'construction material' is undecided, but I think the point is being missed altogether and that is that SEA1179, which was a 'part' replacement project for the deferred, and much 'broader' SEA1180, probably won't exist in it's present form once the new DWP is handed down.

Just to repeat the recent history, the Rudd 2009 DWP proposed SEA1180, 20 OCV's to replace 26 ships of 4 different classes, the Gillard 2013 DWP 'deferred' SEA1180 way off into the distance and to address at least part of 1180, created 1179 as the replacement PB's for ACPB's.

Recently we had the new Def Min at an ASPI conference a few days ago state that a class of OPV's will replace the ACPB's.

So as you can see, until the Abbott Government release the new DWP and DCP, then things are still unclear, what we do know from what the Def Min said is that another class of PB's won't be replacing the ACPB's, but instead they will be replaced by what will no doubt be larger OPV's and as far as the 'construction material' is concerned, again until we see the details of the new DWP, that's an open question too.

If the door is left open on construction material, then Austal will still be in the game!

 

[chis73]

Any word yet on whether the new Pacific patrol boats will incorporate any innovative propulsion technology? One of the things I've noted in the various reports on the current class is the difficulty some nations have in putting them to sea, due to the cost of fuel. If I recall, some nations only manage 30 sea-days a year from their boats. The boats were designed to be simple to maintain, but I wonder if some "fresh" ideas in propulsion tech would be useful - I'm thinking of things like a Flettner rotor or kite-sails - things that won't break the bank, but will allow routine patrol to be done cheaply. Maybe even a shift back to steam - using a lower grade bunker fuel than marine diesel, perhaps something that could be produced as a by-product of say plantation waste.

The Pacific class patrol boats have certainly been doing great deeds in the wake of the Vanuatu cyclone. There are boats from the Solomons & Tonga now helping out, and the Samoan boat was one of the first responders - delivering aid to Tuvalu. Unfortunately, the Vanuatu boat appears to have been damaged in the cyclone.

Some useful background info on renewable energy ship propulsion below. There has been quite a lot of interest in this lately, particularly from the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/schoolofmechanicalaerospaceandcivilengineering/research/centres/tyndall/newsandevents/pdfs2014/Turning-the-tide--the-need-for-sustainable-sea-transport-in-the-Pacific.pdf
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Tech_Brief_RE_for%20Shipping_2015.pdf

 

[Volkodav]

Ok there have been very serious issues with the Armidales that relate to their aluminium construction, expensive and time consuming issues that can not be fixed and will require continuing additional expense to keep the class functional. The permanent solution is to replace them.

Austal and WA based politicians will undoubtedly still push their wares but realistically steel is superior for the requirement. Besides, Austal uses their Pilipino workers fore major construction project, most recently the Capes. They set up a facility in the Philippines several years ago and trained a local work force, now when they have local work they bring their Philipino welders in on 457 visas for the duration instead of employing or training Australians.

Should the government decide on OPVs to replace the Armidales then the frigate decision can be put off while the more urgently required OPVs are built. This should not be an issue as the ANZACs are currently receiving a comprehensive and by all reports, a very successful upgrade and then there are also the Australian built FFGs, that should be good for another decade. Stretch the ANZAC replacement out several years and we have time to assess other more capable and efficient options.

 

[John Newman]

Ok there have been very serious issues with the Armidales that relate to their aluminium construction, expensive and time consuming issues that can not be fixed and will require continuing additional expense to keep the class functional. The permanent solution is to replace them.

Austal and WA based politicians will undoubtedly still push their wares but realistically steel is superior for the requirement. Besides, Austal uses their Pilipino workers fore major construction project, most recently the Capes. They set up a facility in the Philippines several years ago and trained a local work force, now when they have local work they bring their Philipino welders in on 457 visas for the duration instead of employing or training Australians.

Should the government decide on OPVs to replace the Armidales then the frigate decision can be put off while the more urgently required OPVs are built. This should not be an issue as the ANZACs are currently receiving a comprehensive and by all reports, a very successful upgrade and then there are also the Australian built FFGs, that should be good for another decade. Stretch the ANZAC replacement out several years and we have time to assess other more capable and efficient options.

Putting aside the issue of 'steel - good!', 'aluminium - bad!' for the moment, that's a whole debate on its own...

I don't think it will be just Austal and the WA based politicians pushing their wares, it will also be all the other yards/companies and State politicians (of all political flavours) from SA, Vic and NSW that will also be pushing their wares and agendas too, 'we all want a slice of the pie too Sir!!'.

And that I think will be part of the dilemma for the Abbott Government in how it is able to slice the Naval shipbuilding pie up and satisfy the various economic and job requirements across all those companies and the States they are located in, and 'apart' from the most important issue of providing the appropriate ships in appropriate numbers for the RAN, (on the previous page I did a bit of a 'what if' yesterday on this issue).

It's probably reasonable to think that the replacement Pacific Class Patrol Boats will be first cab or the rank (the Def Min's announcement about the up to 21 PCPB's six weeks ago mentioned that some sort of decision should be known by the end of the year).

If 'one' yard gets all of this work (and obviously it will depend on the delivery rate per year), it could be a long stretched out delivery process (the original 22 were built over a period of 12 years from 1985-1997), at the other end of the scale, for example, Austal built 14 ACPB's over a period of 4 years from 2004 to late 2007, so however it is sliced and diced, one yard could reasonable expect to produce the 'up to 21 boats' over a period of 6-8 years or so, and of course that may not 'occupy' the whole of that yard's workforce.

That leaves the OPV's (and potentially the replacement LCH), as 'Valley of Death' gap fillers before the start on the longer term 'big ticket' items such as the Future Frigates and Submarines.

It's going to be interesting to see how the Government is able to address all of these issues, appropriate ships in appropriate numbers for the RAN (and our Pacific neighbours), appropriate amount of work allocated to the various yards in the various states too.

 

[John Newman]

No sooner I do a post about possible projects for various yards and I wonder over to the defence.gov.au website and come across this:

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Release of the RAND Corporation report

The Government just released a report into the Australian naval ship building industry, "Australia’s Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise – preparing for the 21st century".

Here is a link to the online PDF (294 pages, bit of heavy reading!!!)

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1000/RR1093/RAND_RR1093.pdf

Be interesting to see what the report says and how it lines up with the DWP and DCP when they are released.

Happy reading!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

When ever Defence talks about SEA1179 they specifically mention that it will be a steel hull much like the requirements for the Pacific Patrol Boat Program which means it’s definitely not going to be a Cape Class, MRV-80 or in fact any Austal build since they only do aluminium.

they've got a steel hull proposal

can't comment further