It's all down to priorities, a lot of these ideas would be affordable "if only", the middle and upper classes were happy to give up their welfare, major corporations (especially multinationals) started to pay the tax they are supposed to and all the various special interest groups pulled their heads in for the greater good, i.e. bucklies chance in hell.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
All the battalions in the multi-role brigades are light infantry already. I suspect if a 4th Brigade were to be considered in the present climate, it would be the amphibious brigade we've discussed here.
Army could meet it's strategic 'Brigade' requirement with the multi-role brigades and the 'battalion group' requirement from within the Amphibious Brigade.
Such could have 2RAR as the initial core, be expanded through extra battalions (3 in total to meet the raise, train, sustain deployment requirement) and an Amphibious focused Armoured Combat Regiment equipped with a suitable vehicle to provide for the amphibious role we see the USMC conduct.
The remainder of the brigade would entail the usual combat support to enable it to act as a combined arms unit, similar to the remainder of Army and similarly equipped (M777A2 artillery and so on).
It wouldn't be cheap, but it would enhance ADF significantly, IMHO.
Bluey 006
Active Member
I was thinking from a rapid response perspective, we do have all the new C17s after all.
1 x Airborne (rapid deployment)
3 x Multi-Role (with one Amphibious focused)
Support and enabling brigades
that way it extends the deployment cycle
i.e: Special Forces and airborne brigade (as first respondents)
relieved by 1st Multi-role brigade (Amphibious)
then the 2nd Multi-role brigade,
and 3rd finally the 3rd Multi-role brigade
etc
t68
Well-Known Member
Whilst the idea of two Marine Amphiboius Brigades are unlikely to happen, but such force would need to be replaced in the unlikely event that we would us it, my vision of an Australian Navy-Marine corp is that it conducts all aspects of maritime manoeuvre from the LHD and brown water operations raids party from CB90 etc
Of course the building block has to start somewhere and that is the RAR until such a time a Marine corp could be stood up, it would also be heavily reliant on exchange posting with the RM& USMC to gather the institutional knowledge, it's not going to happen overnight but at least a decade in the planning.
It may not be as pressured at the moment from years past *it that is the time to reevaluate our operational concepts without having to constantly move piece's due to operational demand*
Agree it's not a pressing foresight of the current government with the current fiscal reality, but it's not to say that is not fiscally irresponsible to safe guard a national shipbuilding industry and our strategic guidance options.
At this stage of the game the ADF Amphiboius *concept is a toothless tiger with out hard $$ spent on giving it teeth to dominate its *primary area of operations*
Under the current concepts the ARG will operate in mainly uncontested environment until such a time that the RAAF can furnish fast moving defence perimeter from fast attack craft both surface vessel & aircraft at distance and persistently, and Navy does not *has the primarily means of supporting those operations, when the LHD/LPD are tied up with operations at sea for an ARG, we don't have the options but to use STUFT
Fiscal reality has changed according to the last budget, there is no longer an emergency and money can be spent in the name of fairness and, more importantly, investment. Doesn't bode well for extra brigades but could help get local builds across the line.
Also, now the defmin is no longer a rent seeking Sandgroper, trying to kill off ship building in NSW, VIC and SA, with the aim of sending all remaining work westwards, we appear to be getting a more level headed commentary with only Corman still slagging off ASC in conjunction with his deliberate release of the "forensic audit" to sour the"good news" launch of Hobart.
Also, now the defmin is no longer a rent seeking Sandgroper, trying to kill off ship building in NSW, VIC and SA, with the aim of sending all remaining work westwards, we appear to be getting a more level headed commentary with only Corman still slagging off ASC in conjunction with his deliberate release of the "forensic audit" to sour the"good news" launch of Hobart.
It wasn't just Cormann slagging off ASC. Greg Sheridan in the Australian on Friday was highly critical of the AWD project. We are paying $3 billion per vessel when they could have been purchased overseas for $1 billion per ship. That's one hell of a premium to have the ships built locally. The slippage is also cause for concern.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Question is if extra hulls would run to budget if ordered?
the road runner
Active Member
Was under the impression that some of the cost of the Air Warfare Destroyer was for setting up tech port, plant equipment ,training workers up , and a number of other hidden costs to get the AWD project rolling?
Add to that ,the government did slowdown the build times of the ships adding associated costs to the project.If we built 6 ships straight up,economy's of scale would have had a huge impact on reducing the cost of the ships and training up our workforce to work more efficient.
The press always seem to dumb down the maths ... 9 billion dollars divided by 3 ships ... that's 3 billion a ship !!!!
Add to that ,the government did slowdown the build times of the ships adding associated costs to the project.If we built 6 ships straight up,economy's of scale would have had a huge impact on reducing the cost of the ships and training up our workforce to work more efficient.
The press always seem to dumb down the maths ... 9 billion dollars divided by 3 ships ... that's 3 billion a ship !!!!
What Sheridan, and similar blinkered individuals who have no understanding of the topic, don't factor is only the cost of the third ship is anywhere near a real indication of the performance of the industry. The figures being quoted aren't just for the ships, they should also include the construction of a state of the art shipyard in Adelaide, the upgrade of three existing yards in Victoria and NSW (Williamstown and Forgacs two yards), as well as training not only those four work forces almost from scratch but also the work forces of other major contractors (pipe segments, masts, steel cutting, prefab accommodation etc.) as well. Expenses that would not have been needed if there had not been a ship building black hole following the ANZACs.
This is why a continuous, rolling build is vital, without it we will be doomed to pay the start up / rebuilding overheads again and again as we have been doing since we started building ships in this country. This is true not just for Australia but also overseas, just look at the pain the UK went through with the Astutes and to a lesser degree the Darings.
Ok, so 3 ships @ $1 billion per ship marginal cost. That leaves $6 billion for fixed set-up and establishment costs. Although this is now a sunk cost it will be lost if follow on orders are not made soon. Trouble is, if the economy is as stuffed as the government says it is, future orders may be pushed back and we risk losing the benefit of this investment.
The economy will only be stuffed if there are no alternative industries to step up now the mining construction boom is winding down.
If you do give a guarantee of a continuous build program for the forseeable future, what chance that the ships/submarines will still be delivered at the same elevated price and with the same delay?
Private company and union malfeasance will allow enormous cost blowouts, strikes that will delay and add cost, no incentive for quality.
I guess the answer will be trust us, we would never do that.
There is no way, given past experience, any modern government will give a guaranteed monopoly and unlimited work to a local shipbuilding industry.
The only way local shipbuilding will survive is if they perform in comparision to overseas shipbuilding, to a level that is not absurdly expensive, delayed and quality. Don't have to reach same level as overseas but must be within cooee.
I accept that the restarting has been difficult for them, but shipbuilding in Australia has no chance, given past experience, of ever getting a continuous build from government. They would be mad to ever agree to such, as it leaves the industry with no incentive to perform.
Private company and union malfeasance will allow enormous cost blowouts, strikes that will delay and add cost, no incentive for quality.
I guess the answer will be trust us, we would never do that.
There is no way, given past experience, any modern government will give a guaranteed monopoly and unlimited work to a local shipbuilding industry.
The only way local shipbuilding will survive is if they perform in comparision to overseas shipbuilding, to a level that is not absurdly expensive, delayed and quality. Don't have to reach same level as overseas but must be within cooee.
I accept that the restarting has been difficult for them, but shipbuilding in Australia has no chance, given past experience, of ever getting a continuous build from government. They would be mad to ever agree to such, as it leaves the industry with no incentive to perform.
Wake up, there has been stuff all industrial action in defence since the industry was rebuilt under Hawke. In fact, with the possible exception of construction, which is riddled with corruption on all sides, there has been stuff all in the way of strikes in Australia since the 80's. The average worker these days is more interested in training and ticking boxes to move up pay grades than to go on strike and effectively carry non-performing slackers.
Shipbuilding in particular was completely rejigged during the AFP (Aust FFGbuild) and privatisation of Williamstown, then the establishment of ASC tto build the Kockums Type 471. The ANZACs build improved throughout the project with HMAS Perth being delivered well ahead of schedule and below cost, with the project as a whole achieving a net boost to the Australian economy, i.e. the benefit was significantly greater than the additional cost of building locally (which incidentally was , I believe, only in the order of 10% more than an overseas build). As I understand it HMAS Sydney (the third AWD) is tracking towards half the labour costs of Hobart, a fourth and any other subsequent ships would be better still.
While there are undoubtedly slack, greedy individuals and groups out there they don't tend to survive in manufacturing and engineering these days, you are far more likely to find them in the much lauded financial and resources sectors, as well as the political gravy train, not the public service but the multitude of staffers, advisers, consultants and lobbyists.
point taken and I agree - there are many spivs around any governemnt contract.
Also agree re the industrial relations landscape in Australia in general in recent years. Most union representatives have worked out productivity is the key to future prosperity.
There are glaring exceptions - CFMEU.
you will notice in the above I included the companies themselves as potentially abusing a guaranteed work load and orders.
A guaranteed order book in perpetuity is something any government will fear giving anyone.
It would be ideal if government did do that, and if company and workers representatives also acted in the nations best interest rather than narrow self interest. How many overseas owners will have such an altruistic attitude to Australia, rather than their own shareholders overseas?
I wish a way could be found to give the Australian shipbuilders a future, but I fear the results in the AWD build, partly not the builders fault, have made finding such a way next time impodssible.
On a related note, how much do you think RAN would prefer 3 local built and maintained AWD's vs 4+ overseas built and maintained AWD's.
Local build doesn't do as much for the end user as do greater numbers of platforms and capability for the end user.
If we are a defence discussion group, rather than a local industry discussion group, I am surprised more isn't made of the result of local build policy on the end user.
I do wonder if from the beginning if there was a commitment of a 4th AWD if that would have made the project much more viable and efficient from the outset. We wouldn't have sought to deliberately delay the project as a political decision (deliberately costing more money). While it wouldn't have closed the valley of death, it would go some way to covering the gap combined with a smaller project(s ).
If we had made the decision early to go with say 4 AWD and 8 F-105 based hulls would that make the entire project more efficient. Volumes being secured means that work can be more effectively planned out.
Rather than make short term, commitments and hope that the next government can sort it all out and take the blame for any inefficiencies.
Joe Black
Active Member
One should also asked, is it too late for a 4th AWD? Why not build the 4th ship and that will buy us some time to sort out the Future Frigates.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The current Government is no doubt caught between a rock and a hard place on this one, on the one hand the Def Min has made positive comments about seeing this project through to completion and has certainly been talking positive on creating the environment for a sustainable Naval shipbuilding industry (no doubt we have to wait and see what the DWP says about how they plan to achieve this), but there are other concerns too.
Those concerns are comments made by the Def Min in the last couple of days, see below:
Defence Ministers » Joint Media Release – Minister for Defence & Minister for Finance – Air Warfare Destroyer program still fixing serious legacy issues – 22 May 2015
The relevant paragraph is:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
The relevant paragraph is:
Despite what we all may or may not think of this current Government and the people in charge of it, I think it's pretty fair to say that up to this point Defence funding has done pretty well. Whilst we can all complain about various aspects of the last two Federal Budgets in a general sense, Defence has had an increase in funding two years in a row and the forwards estimates look pretty good too, and of course the commitment to get to, and stay at, 2% of GDP by the mid 2020's.
What the Def Min said (in my opinion) is fair, he has a budget to work within and if extra money has to be spent on one thing, well something else has to give, and that is despite increases in overall Defence spending. The bucket of money available for Defence is not endless, its not bottomless, and as a taxpayer, it shouldn't be endless and bottomless too!
And that's why I'm always in two minds about Naval shipbuilding here in Australia, sure I want to see a sustainable, and more importantly effective, Naval shipbuilding industry (a 'fair' premium for building locally is acceptable too), but still, at what cost? To me the needs of the RAN comes first, get the right equipment, on time and on budget, and if at times those 'needs' of the RAN are best served by an overseas acquisition, well so be it.
If we look at aircraft acquisitions for the RAAF (Navy and Army too), no one seems to bat an eyelid when the Government announces that tens of billions of dollars are going 'offshore' to be spent on the purchase of equipment such as: F/A-18F, EF-18G, F-35A, C-17A, P-8A, Triton, MH-60R, CH-47F, etc, direct for overseas production lines (sure we get a few crumbs back for our aerospace industries), but we all say, great FMS acquisition! Just the capability the ADF needed!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a viable, sustainable and cost effective Naval shipbuilding industry (even with a 'fair' premium attached to it too!), but I do get worried when far more money is being expended that was planned and when it appears likely that some other important Defence capability is going to get the chop, then I start to worry.
Does this mean the end of replacements for the LCH? Does it mean less capable and a lesser numbers of OPV's? Does it mean less capable and potentially lesser number of Collins and Anzac replacements? Or does it mean the RAAF doesn't get no's 9 and 10 of the C-17A's or that no more KC-30A's are procured? And what price does Army pay too?
Hopefully, when we see the new DWP, the Government does find a way to 'minimise' this explosion in cost for the AWD project and can still provide the RAN (and ADF generally) with all the capabilities that are needed and we don't look back and say "well that $10B sure bought us three very nice capable AWD's, but pity about the other capabilities that we had to forgo to help pay for them!"
Cheers,
Those concerns are comments made by the Def Min in the last couple of days, see below:
Defence Ministers » Joint Media Release – Minister for Defence & Minister for Finance – Air Warfare Destroyer program still fixing serious legacy issues – 22 May 2015
The relevant paragraph is:
And this one (don't need a subscription to read this one):
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
The relevant paragraph is:
So what is the other capability (or capabilities) that is heading for the chop to free up funding for the completion of the AWD project? One can only guess!!
Despite what we all may or may not think of this current Government and the people in charge of it, I think it's pretty fair to say that up to this point Defence funding has done pretty well. Whilst we can all complain about various aspects of the last two Federal Budgets in a general sense, Defence has had an increase in funding two years in a row and the forwards estimates look pretty good too, and of course the commitment to get to, and stay at, 2% of GDP by the mid 2020's.
What the Def Min said (in my opinion) is fair, he has a budget to work within and if extra money has to be spent on one thing, well something else has to give, and that is despite increases in overall Defence spending. The bucket of money available for Defence is not endless, its not bottomless, and as a taxpayer, it shouldn't be endless and bottomless too!
And that's why I'm always in two minds about Naval shipbuilding here in Australia, sure I want to see a sustainable, and more importantly effective, Naval shipbuilding industry (a 'fair' premium for building locally is acceptable too), but still, at what cost? To me the needs of the RAN comes first, get the right equipment, on time and on budget, and if at times those 'needs' of the RAN are best served by an overseas acquisition, well so be it.
If we look at aircraft acquisitions for the RAAF (Navy and Army too), no one seems to bat an eyelid when the Government announces that tens of billions of dollars are going 'offshore' to be spent on the purchase of equipment such as: F/A-18F, EF-18G, F-35A, C-17A, P-8A, Triton, MH-60R, CH-47F, etc, direct for overseas production lines (sure we get a few crumbs back for our aerospace industries), but we all say, great FMS acquisition! Just the capability the ADF needed!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a viable, sustainable and cost effective Naval shipbuilding industry (even with a 'fair' premium attached to it too!), but I do get worried when far more money is being expended that was planned and when it appears likely that some other important Defence capability is going to get the chop, then I start to worry.
Does this mean the end of replacements for the LCH? Does it mean less capable and a lesser numbers of OPV's? Does it mean less capable and potentially lesser number of Collins and Anzac replacements? Or does it mean the RAAF doesn't get no's 9 and 10 of the C-17A's or that no more KC-30A's are procured? And what price does Army pay too?
Hopefully, when we see the new DWP, the Government does find a way to 'minimise' this explosion in cost for the AWD project and can still provide the RAN (and ADF generally) with all the capabilities that are needed and we don't look back and say "well that $10B sure bought us three very nice capable AWD's, but pity about the other capabilities that we had to forgo to help pay for them!"
Cheers,
Joe Black
Active Member
Now Defence is not so sure Soryu is the best sub for RAN. Would it be a Captain's call if we eventually go with Soryu?
Defence hoses down PM's Soryu sub hype - InDaily | Adelaide News
Another interesting article I happen to stumbled upon about submarine combat system. Would Japan allow customisation of the Soryu with our slated AN/BYG-1 combat system if we acquire them?
Concerns abound over future submarine combat system
Defence hoses down PM's Soryu sub hype - InDaily | Adelaide News
Another interesting article I happen to stumbled upon about submarine combat system. Would Japan allow customisation of the Soryu with our slated AN/BYG-1 combat system if we acquire them?
Concerns abound over future submarine combat system
One small point ..... it is not a pure monopoly situation. The current build system allows three companies to be engaged in shipbuilding with limited work to a forth. Contracts can change work share where things go awry, as has happened.
For Australia this system is really the only option and there should be improving efficiencies over time. Noting Tech port is a common user facility there is nothing stopping addition capability taking up residence there to support programmes ...... or take a bigger share of them.
It shouldn't be a captains call on a $100+ billion (Sea 1000 and Sea 5000) plus the future of several entire industries (submarine building, ship building, many associated industries), plus the diplomatic situation that will/may be created.
If the PM makes a unilateral decision by himself on something as important as this, bypassing the Def Min, DMO, Navy, (or even against them) with no transparency etc it would be grounds to dismiss them (IMO). People at various levels would petition (or should petition) to G.G to dismiss the PM. Again IMO. It would of course depend on the circumstances at the time. I would imagine the opposition would kick up a stick, as would several independents and perhaps some even within the party particularly those with electorates in these areas.
We do not live in a dictatorship where there is no oversight.
If say PM turned around and said we are buying 12 x S1000 submarines from Russia (built there). They are not suitable and do not meet requirements, they change our political alliance, the DM is obviously bypassed, the RAN is vocal in its unhappiness, the US is pissed, the average Australian is pissed, there was no transparency and no due process (or what there was, is deliberately interfered with and bypassed). Even better the Russian companies don't even want to build them for us (because they know that not what we want), are unhappy they were dragged into it, and its purely a political tie up and photo opportunity.
It would be foolhardy indeed if the PM made such a decision. In this very flawed hypothetical you could imagine the PM would be sacked, an election called and everyone would move on with their lives with such silliness and embarrassment behind them.
- Status