Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

The problem with Australian shipbuilding is there is no plan, defence is held hostage to the whims of the ever changeling goverment views. We all saw this in the stark difference between the Rudd White Paper of 2009 and the Gillard White Paper of 2013 and that's between leaders in the same political party.The USGov has a shipbuilding plan that looks at forward projections of 30 years, we are large enough to sustain a plan of that caliber.


When the Anzac class frigates were being built the program was deliberately slowed by 2 years to take advantage to reduce working costs and maintain essential skills for the future Air Warfare Destroyer project, it's intersting to note that Tenex sold Williamstown to BAE and the BAE element was the workmanship was the underlining problem with the AWD build, but can you put the blame squarely with the workers? I think not it was a culmination of events.

When the Anzacs were being built key Australian staff were sent to work with Blohm+Voss in Hamburg for 3.5 years and gain a working knowledge of best practise to the Australian design with an office set up next to were all the work was, when you compare this to the AWD build we had never built as an Alliance before and one of the key aspects of the design was the passage of designs from Navantia, but Navantia was not part of the Alliance as this quote from the Auditor-General describes

"The non-inclusion of Navantia has detracted from the Alliance’s ability to collectively and collaboratively manage risks, which are among the main reasons for establishing such an arrangement; and there has been incomplete alignment of incentives for sharing of best practices and for reducing costs, from design conception through to shipbuilding and ship acceptance."

I believe that in the Goverments haste to divide up the work share for the AWD was not achievable with such a small number of ships being built and AWD has been a painfull lesson, these lessons can be mitigated with the next gen frigate. I believe Australia should settle on tech port for all defence shipbuilding needs and consolidate building to one location.

 

[vonnoobie]

The problem with Australian shipbuilding is there is no plan, defence is held hostage to the whims of the ever changeling goverment views. We all saw this in the stark difference between the Rudd White Paper of 2009 and the Gillard White Paper of 2013 and that's between leaders in the same political party.The USGov has a shipbuilding plan that looks at forward projections of 30 years, we are large enough to sustain a plan of that caliber.


When the Anzac class frigates were being built the program was deliberately slowed by 2 years to take advantage to reduce working costs and maintain essential skills for the future Air Warfare Destroyer project, it's intersting to note that Tenex sold Williamstown to BAE and the BAE element was the workmanship was the underlining problem with the AWD build, but can you put the blame squarely with the workers? I think not it was a culmination of events.

When the Anzacs were being built key Australian staff were sent to work with Blohm+Voss in Hamburg for 3.5 years and gain a working knowledge of best practise to the Australian design with an office set up next to were all the work was, when you compare this to the AWD build we had never built as an Alliance before and one of the key aspects of the design was the passage of designs from Navantia, but Navantia was not part of the Alliance as this quote from the Auditor-General describes

"The non-inclusion of Navantia has detracted from the Alliance’s ability to collectively and collaboratively manage risks, which are among the main reasons for establishing such an arrangement; and there has been incomplete alignment of incentives for sharing of best practices and for reducing costs, from design conception through to shipbuilding and ship acceptance."

I believe that in the Goverments haste to divide up the work share for the AWD was not achievable with such a small number of ships being built and AWD has been a painfull lesson, these lessons can be mitigated with the next gen frigate. I believe Australia should settle on tech port for all defence shipbuilding needs and consolidate building to one location.

Not sure it's fair to single out BAE alone as being the underlying problem with the AWD. A number of companies are involved and all have stuffed up to some extent not just BAE.

Successive government's (Mostly Howard) left picking the Perth/Adelaide replacement too long which resulted in several years or no ship building.

A requirement that originally numbered 6 ships when conceived back in 1992 has been halved with the faint hope of a fourth, This will lead to another gap between the finishing of the Hobart's and the start of the Frigates.

When we went with the Hobart's and the AWD Alliance we ignored everything we had learnt from the Anzac class program on how to run a program on time and on budget. We didn't send people over seas years earlier to learn the Spanish production techniques which in turn resulted in us being confused by there plans for the ships.

All that aside though, Thing's have ironed out into a cost efficient industry so we should keep it, Order 3 more Hobart's. They should do nicely in filling the production gap between now and the frigates and quite frankly we need them, Our situation wasn't so bad back in the 90's, Since then every nation around us (Except the Kiwi's ) has only gotten larger fleet's of more powerful ships.

Not saying we should try and match them but we can't keep going off the belief that a dozen or so frigates and destroyer's will be an effective force.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I believe that in the Goverments haste to divide up the work share for the AWD was not achievable with such a small number of ships being built and AWD has been a painfull lesson, these lessons can be mitigated with the next gen frigate. I believe Australia should settle on tech port for all defence shipbuilding needs and consolidate building to one location.

I think tech port is the future. While modules might be assembled elsewhere, I would believe most construction and final assembly will happen there as its had the money spent. There has been so much political interference in ship building and other military build programs you can see how its been stuffed up. If someone had ordered something we could have avoided some of this mess (a 4th AWD, a 3rd LHD- off the rack low risk designs already chosen).

At least if we had bough something we would have something for the money we are spending. IMO a 3rd LHD would have been ideal to keep BAE busy as it was a project that they could handle and write the development across 3 hulls instead of 2. Possibly cheaper to buy an off the peg from spain.

To many yards not enough work. Most of the established yards were in NSW, where there is no political necessity to fund work programs. If councils had their way the Navy would be out of Sydney completely and all islands, forshore would be handed over to local government for development for townhouses for Chinese millionaires to purchase and leave empty.

 

[Stampede]

I think tech port is the future. While modules might be assembled elsewhere, I would believe most construction and final assembly will happen there as its had the money spent. There has been so much political interference in ship building and other military build programs you can see how its been stuffed up. If someone had ordered something we could have avoided some of this mess (a 4th AWD, a 3rd LHD- off the rack low risk designs already chosen).

At least if we had bough something we would have something for the money we are spending. IMO a 3rd LHD would have been ideal to keep BAE busy as it was a project that they could handle and write the development across 3 hulls instead of 2. Possibly cheaper to buy an off the peg from spain.

To many yards not enough work. Most of the established yards were in NSW, where there is no political necessity to fund work programs. If councils had their way the Navy would be out of Sydney completely and all islands, forshore would be handed over to local government for development for townhouses for Chinese millionaires to purchase and leave empty.

StingrayOZ thanks for raising the subject of a 3rd hull.

While a third LHD may seem excessive for some, and in particular a former Defence Minister who felt the Navy were "out of control" when a third ship was suggested.It does raise the issue of what do we need and what can afford for our maritime defence.
Australia is a big island with huge ocean expances on three sides and a large complex island archipelago to our north with a ice free coast line permitting 365 day a year sea movement.We need big ships to move large amounts, big distances and deliver embarked forces in both permissive and hostile environments. Australias needs are very different to other Navy's of like size.
Oppertunities arise that smart government's enact apon such as the recent purchase of two C-17's for the RAAF.Such an oppertunity exists at BAE Williamstown where work is winding down and the skill base employed for the LHD,s is dwindling.
Let's move on getting Navantia to build a third LHD,s hull and start block work for the remainder of work.
As great an asset as HMAS Choules is it is not an LHD and like any single ship class is not always going to be available.
The Canberra class will prove to be the most sort after asset in the ADF for the decades ahead. Three ships should always prvide an option to government of one being available.With two ships only there is little redundancy.
While defence budgets are not open ended the cost for Austrlalia to buy/staff and run an LHD are not insurmountable.
How does a future LHD HMAS Melbourne sound

 

[Punta74]

Nuship Adelaide it seems departed on first sea trials yesterday.

Can anyone clarify if Canberra will be going to Talisman Sabre ? Be nice to see some pictures of her along side USS George Washington.

 

[John Newman]

From what I know, those LCS are aluminum hulls so it is better off to build them on Austal's yard in Perth (which has lots of experiences on aluminium hulls) rather than on Williamstown or ASC facilities.

On the other hand, it seem more and more likely that Australia is going to keep only ONE yard for future surface combatants (and no local submarines), so it is a winner takes all situation and seems ASC will be the one for political reasons.

No offense to anyone from SA or ASC, but I would really prefer a shipbuilding hub in NSW rather than SA. IMHO, setting up the naval yard 2000km from FBE (just imagine if the base of RN's fleet is in Scapaflow Scottland but the yard is in St Petersburg, Russia) is just ..... not a really good idea.

Austal
Yes of course the LCS are aluminium (nothing new in that statement), but why do you say that Austal is 'better off' building them in WA? Why? There is no restriction on Austal to be able to set up a manufacturing facility where it wishes (don't forget that Austal has facilities in both the US and the Philippines too) and if it wished to have a manufacturing facility at Techport, well it can.

The point of my comment regarding Austal wasn't that I was suggesting or advocating that they should purchase ASC, the point of my comment was that Austal said 'it was interested in ASC', and there appears to be some pretty obvious reasons why they have made those statements.

As I mentioned yesterday, a couple of days after Austal announced they were interested in ASC, they also announced they were chasing a potential LCS contract with Saudi Arabia, the second reason (in my opinion) is the possibility that when the Government does announce the DWP and the accompanying plan for Naval Shipbuilding in this country, they are 'positioning' themselves to be able to offer both their OPV (MRV80) and LCS designs for the RAN and build them at Techport too!

Until the DWP is announced we won't know exactly what the Government has planned for the RAN, it may still be the '11' major fleet units, eg 3 AWD's and 8 Future Frigates of a similar size (evolved AWD hull for example), but it could also be different, there was some speculation and suggestions recently that maybe the Anzac replacement could be a 'two tier' solution, smaller number of high end and larger number of lower spec ships, and that opens the door up for LCS type ships as a possible candidate for the second tier.

So from a business and commercial point of view, it does appears that Austal is positioning itself, its making all the right noises to be noticed by the Government.

Love or hate Austal, love or hate aluminium ships (Steel good! Aluminium bad!), the simple point is that Austal has shown that it is cable of surviving on it's own and hasn't had to totally rely on the Australian Government to 'feed' it, it has and is producing not only military vessels for the O/S market, but also commercial products too.

Again, I'm not advocating for Austal, not at all, but I think it's pretty clear from their recent statements (as mentioned above), they are positioning themselves for the potential to have a reasonably sized bite of the Naval shipbuilding pie that the Government is soon to announce with the DWP.


Collins replacement
You said there were going to be 'no local submarines', what proof do you have for such a statement? Have you got some inside knowledge that the rest of us don't?

Yes there is the potential for a full overseas build, and there is also the potential for a partial overseas build and of course a full local build too, I just don't know how anyone could say at this stage there will be no local build, I'd like to know how you think there will be no locally built submarines.


ASC and other shipbuilding locations
Why would you want to see a shipbuilding hub in NSW? Seriously why? No pun intended, but that ships sailed long ago!

There seems to be enough problems at the moment with keeping the existing yards going with enough work, why spend billions of dollars on another facility, sorry that just doesn't make sense at all.

It makes perfect sense to me that FBW has the facilities at Henderson to support that fleet (eg, the BAE facility currently performing the ASMD upgrades on the Anzac Frigates) and of course Austal being located there too.

You seem to have forgotten that here in Sydney, right in the heart of FBE is the Captain Cook dry dock, it is perfectly capable (and large enough) to have a number of ships in the dock undergoing either maintenance, repair or upgrade all at the one time too. Your analogy of the RN's fleet having to travel 2000k from Scotland to Russia just doesn't hold water (again no pun intended!).

Ok so the boxes are ticked on maintenance and support facilities for both the Eastern and Western fleets, so what about where ships are 'actually' assembled?

Despite the fact that I'm a very proud Sydneysider and New South Welshman (I was there that day watching HMAS Success launched, happy it was launched, sad it was the end of Naval shipbuilding in Sydney Harbour too), but I'm more than happy to see that the investment that has already been made in SA at the Techport site continue. I've put this link up numerous times before, but it's worth revisiting again:

Australia’s premier naval industry hub supporting The Australian Navy AWDs

It clearly shows the current status of the Techport facility and it clearly shows the 'potential' to expand on the already not inconsiderable investment that has been made at Techport. So why reinvent the wheel and create another ship assembly site on the East Coast?

As to the future of ASC itself, well that will be up to the Federal Government to decide when and if 'part or whole' of ASC is sold off.

To me the logical solution would be for the Federal Government to retain ownership of the 'submarine' side of ASC (or it may partner with the winner of the Collins replacement), it makes sense to have control of the side of ASC that is involved in both construction and ongoing maintenance of the submarine fleet (for all the sensitive National Security reasons that have been previously mentioned when it comes to Submarine construction and consolidation of combat systems, etc).

On the other hand the 'shipbuilding/block consolidation' side of the ASC business may be suitable to be sold off to the right buyer, that buyer could in fact be the supplier of the designs for the Future Frigates, OPV's, Pacific Patrols Boats, possible LCS types ships, etc, etc.

It could include the likes of BAE, Austal, Navantia, the Germans, etc, it's just too early to say what might end up being the sensible solution on the shipbuilding side of the ASC business, or it might not be sold off at all, who knows!

The other is point is that ASC shipbuilding doesn't have to be sold off for multiple shipbuilding projects to be undertaken at the Techport site, there can actually be a number of 'tenants' operating from the site doing the 'own' thing.

I think that the one thing that is clear, there is the potential for Techport to be expanded significantly, that the site is more than suitable to not only build, Submarines, Future Frigates, OPV's, PPB's, LCH(R), eventual replacements for Choules, further down the track replacement LHD's, replacements for the new AOR's, etc, etc, it has the potential to be 'the' naval shipbuilding and assembly hub in Australia.

So that leaves BAE and Williamstown, is it the end of Naval shipbuilding in Victoria? (as it was here in NSW when Cockatoo shut down), is it in the national interest to keep it going, or is it only in the Vic State Governments interest to keep ship construction/assembly happening at the Williamstown site?

BAE has made it clear they are not going to compete for the Pacific Patrol Boat competition, it really doesn't leave many options unless the Federal Government (or State Government) can quickly find a way to throw them a bone to chew on till the next round of 'block' work commences for the Future Frigate project for example.

Maybe the solution for the Victorian Government to keep BAE operating in Victoria is to find and provide a 'greenfield' site somewhere on Port Phillip Bay to build a new facility to specialize in block work, but do we really need two locations for final assembly of Naval ships? That's the big question.

Anyway, just my opinion of course, happy to hear if you guys agree or disagree!

Cheers,

 

[Stampede]

Nuship Adelaide it seems departed on first sea trials yesterday.

Can anyone clarify if Canberra will be going to Talisman Sabre ? Be nice to see some pictures of her along side USS George Washington.

Thanks for the info.

Must pop down to Williamstown and have a final look before she's off to Sydney.
Will miss the sight of the LHD,s when visiting Port Phillip bay.
Such impressive ships
Maybe fleet Base East could be moved to Melbourne!!

 

[rockitten]

John, my idea is simple if a bit too radical:

Keep only ONE YARD to build everything and do all the maintenance works. No modular will be "outsourced" to other yards, and the only exception will be a maintenance yard in FBW.

And, since FBE needs a yard near-by to do light maintenance works anyway, so I would like to just move all building works to that yard as well. Otherwise, our navy will have to sending our naval vessels 2000km back and forth for maintenance works sounds like a waste of time and resources.

Yes, there are facilities already in place in Techport, but I wonder would that outweigh the extra time and fuel expenditures our navy will have to spend.

Regarding to "submarine building industry" in Australia, unless we are going to adopt a continuous build strategy similar to Japan or aiming for an export market, I don't see how this industry can that be sustainable at all.

So I won't support a local build Collins replacement (I do support an evolved Soryu regardless if it is made in Japan) unless the government showing us how they are going to keep and sustain that capacity after the construction is done.

 

[vonnoobie]

Austal
Yes of course the LCS are aluminium (nothing new in that statement), but why do you say that Austal is 'better off' building them in WA? Why? There is no restriction on Austal to be able to set up a manufacturing facility where it wishes (don't forget that Austal has facilities in both the US and the Philippines too) and if it wished to have a manufacturing facility at Techport, well it can.

The point of my comment regarding Austal wasn't that I was suggesting or advocating that they should purchase ASC, the point of my comment was that Austal said 'it was interested in ASC', and there appears to be some pretty obvious reasons why they have made those statements.

As I mentioned yesterday, a couple of days after Austal announced they were interested in ASC, they also announced they were chasing a potential LCS contract with Saudi Arabia, the second reason (in my opinion) is the possibility that when the Government does announce the DWP and the accompanying plan for Naval Shipbuilding in this country, they are 'positioning' themselves to be able to offer both their OPV (MRV80) and LCS designs for the RAN and build them at Techport too!

Until the DWP is announced we won't know exactly what the Government has planned for the RAN, it may still be the '11' major fleet units, eg 3 AWD's and 8 Future Frigates of a similar size (evolved AWD hull for example), but it could also be different, there was some speculation and suggestions recently that maybe the Anzac replacement could be a 'two tier' solution, smaller number of high end and larger number of lower spec ships, and that opens the door up for LCS type ships as a possible candidate for the second tier.

So from a business and commercial point of view, it does appears that Austal is positioning itself, its making all the right noises to be noticed by the Government.

Love or hate Austal, love or hate aluminium ships (Steel good! Aluminium bad!), the simple point is that Austal has shown that it is cable of surviving on it's own and hasn't had to totally rely on the Australian Government to 'feed' it, it has and is producing not only military vessels for the O/S market, but also commercial products too.

Again, I'm not advocating for Austal, not at all, but I think it's pretty clear from their recent statements (as mentioned above), they are positioning themselves for the potential to have a reasonably sized bite of the Naval shipbuilding pie that the Government is soon to announce with the DWP.


Collins replacement
You said there were going to be 'no local submarines', what proof do you have for such a statement? Have you got some inside knowledge that the rest of us don't?

Yes there is the potential for a full overseas build, and there is also the potential for a partial overseas build and of course a full local build too, I just don't know how anyone could say at this stage there will be no local build, I'd like to know how you think there will be no locally built submarines.


ASC and other shipbuilding locations
Why would you want to see a shipbuilding hub in NSW? Seriously why? No pun intended, but that ships sailed long ago!

There seems to be enough problems at the moment with keeping the existing yards going with enough work, why spend billions of dollars on another facility, sorry that just doesn't make sense at all.

It makes perfect sense to me that FBW has the facilities at Henderson to support that fleet (eg, the BAE facility currently performing the ASMD upgrades on the Anzac Frigates) and of course Austal being located there too.

You seem to have forgotten that here in Sydney, right in the heart of FBE is the Captain Cook dry dock, it is perfectly capable (and large enough) to have a number of ships in the dock undergoing either maintenance, repair or upgrade all at the one time too. Your analogy of the RN's fleet having to travel 2000k from Scotland to Russia just doesn't hold water (again no pun intended!).

Ok so the boxes are ticked on maintenance and support facilities for both the Eastern and Western fleets, so what about where ships are 'actually' assembled?

Despite the fact that I'm a very proud Sydneysider and New South Welshman (I was there that day watching HMAS Success launched, happy it was launched, sad it was the end of Naval shipbuilding in Sydney Harbour too), but I'm more than happy to see that the investment that has already been made in SA at the Techport site continue. I've put this link up numerous times before, but it's worth revisiting again:

Australia’s premier naval industry hub supporting The Australian Navy AWDs

It clearly shows the current status of the Techport facility and it clearly shows the 'potential' to expand on the already not inconsiderable investment that has been made at Techport. So why reinvent the wheel and create another ship assembly site on the East Coast?

As to the future of ASC itself, well that will be up to the Federal Government to decide when and if 'part or whole' of ASC is sold off.

To me the logical solution would be for the Federal Government to retain ownership of the 'submarine' side of ASC (or it may partner with the winner of the Collins replacement), it makes sense to have control of the side of ASC that is involved in both construction and ongoing maintenance of the submarine fleet (for all the sensitive National Security reasons that have been previously mentioned when it comes to Submarine construction and consolidation of combat systems, etc).

On the other hand the 'shipbuilding/block consolidation' side of the ASC business may be suitable to be sold off to the right buyer, that buyer could in fact be the supplier of the designs for the Future Frigates, OPV's, Pacific Patrols Boats, possible LCS types ships, etc, etc.

It could include the likes of BAE, Austal, Navantia, the Germans, etc, it's just too early to say what might end up being the sensible solution on the shipbuilding side of the ASC business, or it might not be sold off at all, who knows!

The other is point is that ASC shipbuilding doesn't have to be sold off for multiple shipbuilding projects to be undertaken at the Techport site, there can actually be a number of 'tenants' operating from the site doing the 'own' thing.

I think that the one thing that is clear, there is the potential for Techport to be expanded significantly, that the site is more than suitable to not only build, Submarines, Future Frigates, OPV's, PPB's, LCH(R), eventual replacements for Choules, further down the track replacement LHD's, replacements for the new AOR's, etc, etc, it has the potential to be 'the' naval shipbuilding and assembly hub in Australia.

So that leaves BAE and Williamstown, is it the end of Naval shipbuilding in Victoria? (as it was here in NSW when Cockatoo shut down), is it in the national interest to keep it going, or is it only in the Vic State Governments interest to keep ship construction/assembly happening at the Williamstown site?

BAE has made it clear they are not going to compete for the Pacific Patrol Boat competition, it really doesn't leave many options unless the Federal Government (or State Government) can quickly find a way to throw them a bone to chew on till the next round of 'block' work commences for the Future Frigate project for example.

Maybe the solution for the Victorian Government to keep BAE operating in Victoria is to find and provide a 'greenfield' site somewhere on Port Phillip Bay to build a new facility to specialize in block work, but do we really need two locations for final assembly of Naval ships? That's the big question.

Anyway, just my opinion of course, happy to hear if you guys agree or disagree!

Cheers,

Austal

I don't think Austal is interested in ASC in regard's to building LCS aluminum type vessel's. With past statements (Austal has been interested in acquiring ASC for a number of years) I imagine they would be willing to produce steel hulled vessels but if it was to only keep on building aluminium ship's then acquiring ASC (Ship building division) would be a pointless expenditure or require the shutting down of the Henderson facility.

If you look into Austal you will notice they are shifting more of the commercial work to the Philippines and turning Henderson more into a military focused site. Austal having two different sites in Australia to build aluminium hulled military vessel's would simply be poor business. The LCS vessel's they are putting forth to Saudi Arabia are almost certainly to be built at either Mobile (US site) or Henderson. Both have the existing facilities and work forces already trained in the different construction techniques for Aluminum vessel's.

I believe Austal is positioning them selves more from being only Aluminum vessel builder's to Aluminum and Steel vessel builder's (And Submarines), Diversifying there company making it more competitive globally.

Collins class replacement

Agreed we just don't know enough to make an informed decision. I hope the comity set up to decide what's best does so purely on the merit's of the submarines (for cost) rather then political motivations and fingers crossed Abbott doesn't make another captains call.

Looking at the options purely on capabilities none of them can say definitively which is the better option as they are all going to be effectively new build submarines that to date only exist on paper.

Looking at them purely in economical term's I reckon the TKMS option with the type 216 to be the best one. Gives us the best chance of actual export's rather then just our domestic requirement's.

ASC and other shipbuilding locations

Good point, It is pointless to invest in a new shipyard when we already have one that has been improving upon it's self. As to the locations and distances from the fleet bases. Well Perth is not an issue, Already have facilities there that are prime for expansion and on the East cost there are a number of locations that do maintenance work.

There is no actual need to have the construction next door to a fleet base. In fact in a military sense it is to an extent some what better off having them isolated from one another not to mention having the main future production facilities at Techport is logical as it is right between the two fleet bases. Has been mentioned several times we have too many production facilities and that we need to close at least half of them down (At least in the sense of them building ships at there sites).

Leave main production at Tech port, Have maintenance locations at Henderson, Cairncross and Garden Island for the most part with the last two going to once again be beniffiting from a lower AUD from the civilian market (Cruise line companies want the navy to move out of Garden Island so they can use it for there ship maintenance more often [Demand from civilian market is there]), while other location's should be closer down from ship production and move toward's block/system production.

Regards, Matthew.

 

[Volkodav]

John, my idea is simple if a bit too radical:

Keep only ONE YARD to build everything and do all the maintenance works. No modular will be "outsourced" to other yards, and the only exception will be a maintenance yard in FBW.

And, since FBE needs a yard near-by to do light maintenance works anyway, so I would like to just move all building works to that yard as well. Otherwise, our navy will have to sending our naval vessels 2000km back and forth for maintenance works sounds like a waste of time and resources.

Yes, there are facilities already in place in Techport, but I wonder would that outweigh the extra time and fuel expenditures our navy will have to spend.

Regarding to "submarine building industry" in Australia, unless we are going to adopt a continuous build strategy similar to Japan or aiming for an export market, I don't see how this industry can that be sustainable at all.

So I won't support a local build Collins replacement (I do support an evolved Soryu regardless if it is made in Japan) unless the government showing us how they are going to keep and sustain that capacity after the construction is done.

No! Expanding, or more realistically, rebuilding a facility in NSW and closing Techport would simply be repeating the same stupid mistake successive governments have made in Australia for decades. Cockatoo was shafted in favor of Williamstown, then they in turn were done over for techport and it has been common knowledge that many of the attacks on ASC are primarily to justify moving work to the West. Basically every time we have a capable yard with an experienced and competent workforce, we either simply shut them down, or starve them of work forcing redundancies.

The workers and managers who ferked the AWD blocks at Williamstown are not the same as the ones who built the ANZACs, they were made redundant or moved to other projects when Tenix lost the AWD bid and sold to BAE.

Spending billions ramping up a shipbuilding capability then scraping it in favour of an overseas, or new location in Australia is just a pointless waste of money. Cockatoo should have been expanded and modernised instead of Williamstown, but once it had happened Williamstown should have been supported to capitalize on the investment but instead ASC was expanded. Now we seem to be heading in the same stupid direction again but offshore builds until Techport, Williamstown and Forgacs are dead, then the inevitable announcement that a new build will start up in WA or possibly NSW depending on the political needs of whoever is PM at the time.

 

[John Fedup]

If Canada can build all the ships it needs with only 2 yards,,, then maybe here in Oz, we could do the same. Then each yard would be more viable, as there would be more work per yard. Of course not having a single ship ordered in going on 7 years does not help anyone. Canberra class fitout was a little bit of work I guess. Canada has 35 million people,,, 2 naval shipyards,,, Oz has 23 million (guesstimate),, so maybe 2 shipyards is all we need?

If Labor had ordered four OPVs, an off the shelf design of say 1800t, that would have been a quite useful capability, I am sure unit cost would be pretty modest as long as the navy avoided the temptation to add all sorts of stuff to make them into corvettes. A quite nice, modest project that would have fitted right in the middle of the larger destroyer/frigate builds, and given a steady stream of work to keep people busy

Not sure how many yards Australia needs but it's naval requirements are much larger than Canada's or more correctly our naval requirements are being neglected.

 

[vonnoobie]

John, my idea is simple if a bit too radical:

Keep only ONE YARD to build everything and do all the maintenance works. No modular will be "outsourced" to other yards, and the only exception will be a maintenance yard in FBW.

And, since FBE needs a yard near-by to do light maintenance works anyway, so I would like to just move all building works to that yard as well. Otherwise, our navy will have to sending our naval vessels 2000km back and forth for maintenance works sounds like a waste of time and resources.

Yes, there are facilities already in place in Techport, but I wonder would that outweigh the extra time and fuel expenditures our navy will have to spend.

Regarding to "submarine building industry" in Australia, unless we are going to adopt a continuous build strategy similar to Japan or aiming for an export market, I don't see how this industry can that be sustainable at all.

So I won't support a local build Collins replacement (I do support an evolved Soryu regardless if it is made in Japan) unless the government showing us how they are going to keep and sustain that capacity after the construction is done.

If we wanted to build everything at a single site then we would need a good 40 hectares of land

No existing site on the East cost is that large or even has that sort of growth room. The closest thing to it is the Forgacs site in Cairncross Brisbane and that could be expanded to 30 hectares (With land acquisitions) but would then put it 800km away from FBE

It is more beneficial to have multiple sites, One on each cost of maintenance (Henderson and Garden Island) and a site to build everything (Techport). Building at Techport even if it is a long distance from everything is not actually that big of a deal. It is pretty much smack dab in the middle between the two Fleet bases making it ideal to support both and the only vessel's that would have to return there would be those suffering massive damage or the submarines once a decade or so for there refit.

As to building all the block's at a single site, Well then with that you get the risk of the person in charge becoming lazy as they have no competition which will lead to poor management, which lead's to poor work which lead's to higher costs and longer build times.

 

[rockitten]

As to building all the block's at a single site, Well then with that you get the risk of the person in charge becoming lazy as they have no competition which will lead to poor management, which lead's to poor work which lead's to higher costs and longer build times.

The competition will be from building the ship overseas. If our local yard got sloppy and poorly managed, it deserved to loss the bid to overseas yard(s).

 

[John Fedup]

The competition will be from building the ship overseas. If our local yard got sloppy and poorly managed, it deserved to loss the bid to overseas yard(s).

Your competition model works in the business world but once you throw politicians into the mix, not so much, as any citizen in Australia or Canada following naval procurement is aware.

 

[Stampede]

Your competition model works in the business world but once you throw politicians into the mix, not so much, as any citizen in Australia or Canada following naval procurement is aware.

Just a thought on navys retiring S-70 seahawks.
Is there scope of retaining some for utility and SAR role in the future.
I understand they have been worked very hard over recent years but navy I suggest will need more helicopters than the 24 new MR-60R Romeo's and 6 NH-90.
New destroyers will probably have a two spot hanger as will the new supply ships and this is nothing compared to the needs of Choules and LHD's.
Army I suggest is short in aviation already so I don't see too much assitance coming from them.
Without knowing whats in the DWP there appears to be alot of talk of a OPV sized vessel which would be both welcomed and suggest need a helicopter.
From 16 Seahawks I wonder if a small upgrade to maintain serviceability and safety
with reduced numbers is an option.I would strip out the ASW equipment and employ the aircraft for utility and support only. Maybe a second teir asset only, freeing up our newer helicopters for thier front line role.

Thoughts!

 

[vonnoobie]

The competition will be from building the ship overseas. If our local yard got sloppy and poorly managed, it deserved to loss the bid to overseas yard(s).

And with that the chance that naval ship building dies in Australia completely increases massively. Soon as work shift's over seas then you have a work force sitting around doing nothing, End result, Ship building gone.

 

[John Newman]

John, my idea is simple if a bit too radical:

Keep only ONE YARD to build everything and do all the maintenance works. No modular will be "outsourced" to other yards, and the only exception will be a maintenance yard in FBW.

And, since FBE needs a yard near-by to do light maintenance works anyway, so I would like to just move all building works to that yard as well. Otherwise, our navy will have to sending our naval vessels 2000km back and forth for maintenance works sounds like a waste of time and resources.

Yes, there are facilities already in place in Techport, but I wonder would that outweigh the extra time and fuel expenditures our navy will have to spend.

Regarding to "submarine building industry" in Australia, unless we are going to adopt a continuous build strategy similar to Japan or aiming for an export market, I don't see how this industry can that be sustainable at all.

So I won't support a local build Collins replacement (I do support an evolved Soryu regardless if it is made in Japan) unless the government showing us how they are going to keep and sustain that capacity after the construction is done.

Mate, seriously? Your not serious are you?

On the one had you are saying there should be 'only one yard' to undertake all construction and maintenance (eg on the East Coast) then in the next breath say, oh, the exception will be FBW which will have a yard for maintenance, you've blown your one yard idea straight out of the water with that one!

You keep suggesting that the ships based at FBE will have to 'waste' fuel, time and resources travelling 2,000k (back and forth) for maintenance work, mate, seriously?

The ships based at FBE don't even have to travel 2,000m to undertake maintenance, (major or minor), repairs, upgrades, etc, because there is this big bloody great concrete construction connecting Garden Island to the mainland, it's call the "Captain Cook Dry Dock"!

Please explain to me when one singe ship based at FBE has had to travel that 2,000k for maintenance that you are talking about? When?

The maintenance facilities at Garden Island is more than capable of performing minor and major work on anything ranging from the smallest boat all the way up to the LHD's (I will grant there is currently one exception, and that is that all Anzac class Frigates are having their ASMD upgrade done in WA, but that does make sense having 'one' yard perform the work on a fleet of ships that is split between FBE and FBW), but other than this major 'upgrade' all other maintenance work that is required from time to time on the Anzacs is done right there at FBE along with all the other ships based there.

If you are worried about the RAN's ships having to travel 2,000k and waste time and fuel, well we might as well pack up the whole of the navy and the population too and move everything to Tasmania, then all we will have to worry about is circumnavigating that tiny little island rather than patrolling the millions of square kilometres of ocean that we currently have an interest in!

As I said in my previous post, with having the navy split between FBE and FBW we already have all the infrastructure necessary to perform any and all maintenance that those ships require in those two locations.

And lastly Techport, why would we want to throw away the considerable investment that has already been made to create a submarine heavy maintenance and docking facility and a facility that is currently building the AWD's and most likely the Collins replacement, Future Frigates and possibly OPV's too and start all over again? Why?

Techport has the potential to see significant increases in its capabilities in the coming years, it would be completely pointless to throw away what has already been invested in and planned for that site and just shut it down and start all over again on the East Coast, makes no sense whatsoever.

Mate, whilst I respect your opinion and your right to your opinion, I think you are totally wrong, no offence ok?

Cheers,

 

[koala]

Nuship Adelaide it seems departed on first sea trials yesterday.

Can anyone clarify if Canberra will be going to Talisman Sabre ? Be nice to see some pictures of her along side USS George Washington.

I was on the Manly Ferry this weekend and I noticed (well it wasn't hard to notice) HMAS Canberra tied up to a mooring out in the middle of the harbour east of FBE, there were two US Ships in port and FBE looked pretty full.
I wonder how much parking space will be available when we have the 2 LHD's and the AWD's mixed with some overseas visitors.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I was on the Manly Ferry this weekend and I noticed (well it wasn't hard to notice) HMAS Canberra tied up to a mooring out in the middle of the harbour east of FBE, there were two US Ships in port and FBE looked pretty full.
I wonder how much parking space will be available when we have the 2 LHD's and the AWD's mixed with some overseas visitors.

Parking is always tight in the harbor. But actually there is room around. As the naval review showed as well as space in nearby ports/harbors. Much of the time at least one or two of those will be out and about.

IMO more frequent vistors will help squash chatter about the RAN leaving Sydney. US sailors spend and drink, well like sailors. Pumping money into the local economy. People also come in and see the ships (more so than with cruise ships). Maybe the RAN should start rumors that if they leave they will become a port for additional cruise ships, so instead of a few military ships, they will have 10,000's gawking tourists playing polka music into the wee hours.

 

[koala]

Parking is always tight in the harbor. But actually there is room around. As the naval review showed as well as space in nearby ports/harbors. Much of the time at least one or two of those will be out and about.

IMO more frequent vistors will help squash chatter about the RAN leaving Sydney. US sailors spend and drink, well like sailors. Pumping money into the local economy. People also come in and see the ships (more so than with cruise ships). Maybe the RAN should start rumors that if they leave they will become a port for additional cruise ships, so instead of a few military ships, they will have 10,000's gawking tourists playing polka music into the wee hours.

Your correct Stingray, with the lockout laws in Kings Cross the Cross would go broke without all those American sailors and Porky's strip club would be empty.

But it was an impressive site to see HMAS Canberra close up as the ferry master navigated nearly alongside Canberra