Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
As it stands at the moment there is very little concrete out there as we effectively have a new government and it is not entirely clear what it's priorities, let alone it's policies or strategic direction on defence are.
Since Gillard / Smith chose not to follow the Rudd / Fitzgibbon DWP there appears to have been a lack of genuine strategic direction with many critical requirements proceeding more on political priority than strategic or even economic need. We have had five years of band aids and captains calls, of entire capabilities being retired while bodged up fixes are budgeted in favour of genuine solutions.
Smiths love of buying big brightly coloured monstrosities for HADR and border protection when bringing forward the LCH(R), OCV and AORs would have smarter. We had Labor who seemed incapable of getting any project to the point of placing an order unless it was FMS and the work had been done for them, followed by the coalition whose primary mission initially seemed to be to bash ASC so the public would accept a MOTS submarine build in Japan, this included ruling out a local AOR build due to alleged local incompetence while dropping hints of a fast frigate order from WA.
After so long of no serious effort or intellect from the political leadership of defence as well as a lot of interference and politicing from PM&C, DFAT and the WA Mafia, we have a new, apparently competent and capable, minister who has to unpick the mess. This is all made worse by the fact that some of current acquisition programs, though seriously flawed, can not be restarted or fixed because they are to urgent, having been delayed for too long by the previous incompetents, Gillard/Smith, Abbott/Johnston/Andrews.
It is now too late to restart the submarine replacement project, to open the AOR project to local yards, order an additional AWD, bring forward the LCH replacement, or OCV for that matter, all the new minister can do is work out what can be fixed and what we need to live with.
Since Gillard / Smith chose not to follow the Rudd / Fitzgibbon DWP there appears to have been a lack of genuine strategic direction with many critical requirements proceeding more on political priority than strategic or even economic need. We have had five years of band aids and captains calls, of entire capabilities being retired while bodged up fixes are budgeted in favour of genuine solutions.
Smiths love of buying big brightly coloured monstrosities for HADR and border protection when bringing forward the LCH(R), OCV and AORs would have smarter. We had Labor who seemed incapable of getting any project to the point of placing an order unless it was FMS and the work had been done for them, followed by the coalition whose primary mission initially seemed to be to bash ASC so the public would accept a MOTS submarine build in Japan, this included ruling out a local AOR build due to alleged local incompetence while dropping hints of a fast frigate order from WA.
After so long of no serious effort or intellect from the political leadership of defence as well as a lot of interference and politicing from PM&C, DFAT and the WA Mafia, we have a new, apparently competent and capable, minister who has to unpick the mess. This is all made worse by the fact that some of current acquisition programs, though seriously flawed, can not be restarted or fixed because they are to urgent, having been delayed for too long by the previous incompetents, Gillard/Smith, Abbott/Johnston/Andrews.
It is now too late to restart the submarine replacement project, to open the AOR project to local yards, order an additional AWD, bring forward the LCH replacement, or OCV for that matter, all the new minister can do is work out what can be fixed and what we need to live with.
All we can hope for now is that the opposition work's with Turnbull and Payne while there own party doesn't keep chucking a hissy fit about Turnbull taking the party "too far" to the left (Even though surprise surprise it is making the party more popular :crazy).
Time for a third major party made up of everyone sitting around the center of politics seeing as that tends to be the ground most made up of common sense and meaningful action.
Agreed to late for another AWD, Can only hope for a 9th Frigate and that said Frigates are actually more capable then general as has been proposed and mentioned, Pointless to get 7,000 ton frigates that will be no better armed then the Anzac's.
It is a shame that the AOR's are being built over seas, That said looking at the Canadian situation would we have faced similar costs? Ideally we would have still built the AOR's over seas and used the savings to get another AWD (Wishful thinking).
The LCH program really should be kicked into gear, retiring the asset's before we have even narrowed down what we want is not the greatest of moves.
The OCV program cant exactly be restarted but Payne could modify it ie: Order a batch under current proposal, upgrade the second batch to more capable or even larger version etc. With the number's involved the OCV program isn't exactly impossible to fix, We still have some breathing room depending on how quickly they want to order them.
That's just my take on all of it, For now though all we can do is face palm at idiotic stories from the media and let Payne take her time and do what she can to fix the mess (best of luck to her). I don't see any major news for the RAN in the acquisitions department coming through for at least then next 6 months.
Time for a third major party made up of everyone sitting around the center of politics seeing as that tends to be the ground most made up of common sense and meaningful action.
Agreed to late for another AWD, Can only hope for a 9th Frigate and that said Frigates are actually more capable then general as has been proposed and mentioned, Pointless to get 7,000 ton frigates that will be no better armed then the Anzac's.
It is a shame that the AOR's are being built over seas, That said looking at the Canadian situation would we have faced similar costs? Ideally we would have still built the AOR's over seas and used the savings to get another AWD (Wishful thinking).
The LCH program really should be kicked into gear, retiring the asset's before we have even narrowed down what we want is not the greatest of moves.
The OCV program cant exactly be restarted but Payne could modify it ie: Order a batch under current proposal, upgrade the second batch to more capable or even larger version etc. With the number's involved the OCV program isn't exactly impossible to fix, We still have some breathing room depending on how quickly they want to order them.
That's just my take on all of it, For now though all we can do is face palm at idiotic stories from the media and let Payne take her time and do what she can to fix the mess (best of luck to her). I don't see any major news for the RAN in the acquisitions department coming through for at least then next 6 months.
the opposition needs to trot out a decent shadow minister before they even conser approaching the table.
I'm not sure if you've watched Conroys performance, but it is has been absolutely embarassing. Especially his input into Subs.
he's a first class dill and should never have been given that brief in the first place.
Very much agree. No-one well to the left of Labor or well to the right of the Liberals should ever be anywhere near the Defence portfolio unless they're genius level thinkers with the capacity to be dispassionate about their work.
It's just too difficult to get buy in from the opposition (either way) from distant and entrenched positions.
Conroy is way left and no genius, his performance shows he's as dumb as a bag of spanners. Labor needs a new and competent shadow minister. For that matter, the Libs need there to be a new and competent shadow minister to get the debate into something approaching sensible discourse.
oldsig
absolutely, all governments need to be held to account by effective oppositions (which doesn't translate to continuous obstruction)
as you said, he's about as smart as a bag full - and I think you're being charitable even then.
he's nowhere near being a Faulkner or Combet. (who as an engineer was always injecting critical thinking into his contribution)
he makes Kevin Andrews look like the Usain Bolt of effective intellectual sprinters.....
I was just thinking that the reason Conroy is in the seat is because factional deals mean he has to have a senior job but they couldn't put him up against anyone bright, as there aren't too many dumber than Johnston then Andrews, defence was it. I wonder where they will send him now, hopefully into retirement and beam in someone with a brain.
this:
I forget who it is on Shortens right flank, but they also have a surname that starts with "C"
colloquially the pair are known as C1 and C2
its common knowledge on the hill that Shorten needed Conroys support from the left flank to get and keep his job.
I forget who it is on Shortens right flank, but they also have a surname that starts with "C"
colloquially the pair are known as C1 and C2
Could possibly be Jason Clare or Jim Chalmers, Doug Cameron is way too far left. Maybe Kim Carr?
IIRC its Cameron
Conroy is of the right, Cameron the left.
small "c" is Chris Bowen
basically its the 3 Amigos
God help us if Cameron and Conroy wield all the power and influence, the ALP will be destined to fight the 1950's class wars forever and are destined to remain in opposition for a long time. Where are the Keatings, the Faulkners and the other realists within that once great party, its become as rotten as many of the constituent Unions
and right on cue the WA shipping mafia chimes on in:
Shipbuilder calls for WA to get bigger share of defence contracts - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
alloy boats are all so useful for "big navy"
Shipbuilder calls for WA to get bigger share of defence contracts - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
alloy boats are all so useful for "big navy"
You are as hopeless as me getting up at this hour.and right on cue the WA shipping mafia chimes on in:
Shipbuilder calls for WA to get bigger share of defence contracts - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
alloy boats are all so useful for "big navy"
The Austal claims irk me as I realize that much of the work they used to do here is now in the Phillipines. I will give INCAT this much .... they have stayed in Tasmania.
Austal have doen some great work but I am no fan of either the ACPB or the CCPB and feel the ACPB has been particularly short lived. I don't think Navy are in love with aluminium either hence the offer to build in steel.
While I like the ACPB I do feel that it is a vessel that probably was not suited to Australia's conditions (ocean just too bloody rough around us), hopefully lessons learnt in the ACPB have been built into the CCPB so I'm going to hold off on giving it any praise or hate.
As to where Austal does much of there work, Well that simply comes down to economics and you cant fault a company for that. Historically the AUD has been around 65 - 70 cents to the USD, When they went and acquired the Philippine shipyard in 2011 it was $1.03 AUD to $1 USD. Take into account most of it's order book was military/para military and that the Philippine shipyard is to build commercial asset's then it is simply a smart logical step. Any business man that didn't take such a step would have to be an idiot.
In regards to the actual article, Well it is simply Austal pandering to the Community trying to get more work. Can't fault them for that, You can fault them for doing it before they have acquired for them self any skill base what so ever in building steel hulled vessels. They should look into building up something from scratch or buy out a company that already has the basic knowledge at least.
I was really unimpressed when I discovered that Austal was bringing welders into WA on 457 visas because "there aren't sufficient suitably qualified and experienced Australians to do the work" completely ignoring the fact that these 457 workers were predominantly trained by suitably qualified and experienced Australians, who were then made redundant, several years earlier when Austal off shored almost all their commercial work.
Austal, like BAE, created the skills and experience shortages, that have plagued shipbuilding in recent years, through their staffing and training decisions last decade. They offshore work, fail to retain good people, fail to train a new generation, then win (steel work) from the companies that invest in training and capability.
The thing is Austal is not the only company being pushed forward by the WA mafia, there's a move to build subs there if DCNS win the bid as "only WA currently has the expertise to form to weld the special steels needed by the short fin etc. etc. Completely ignoring that there is far more to building subs than welding. They don't consider that they could do work and send it to Adelaide, no the parochial morons want the whole thing, not realising it would be easier for ASC to adapt to different structural techniques than for a non sub builder to learn everything else needed.
The ACPBs suck big time and would struggle anywhere, unfortunately the Capes are just as bad. The thing is they made some basic mistakes in the ACPBs design that were not present in the earlier Bays that they have not fixed in the CCPBs, while sexing them up in other ways. A bit like a car manufacturer who stuffed up their new platform and then kept stretching adding bling without fixing the core design issues, issues that an experienced naval shipbuilder would have found and fixed at design review phase.
With all this antipathy towards Austal, surely someone has to mention that of all the Australian shipbuilders, they are miles ahead in international success and have won enormous competitive contracts from the largest and arguably most professional (and in ship building most xenophobic) navy in the world, including for core frontline warships.
Buy any objective measure, Austal is a company Australia should be proud of, and supportive of. They are unlikely to be perfect, but they are equally unlikely to be the devil.
Just for reference, I do not have any allegiance to WA.
The schoolgirl bickering between the shipbuilders in this nation is a demonstration of why we are so weak in shipbuilding reputation amoungst those that pay.
Buy any objective measure, Austal is a company Australia should be proud of, and supportive of. They are unlikely to be perfect, but they are equally unlikely to be the devil.
Just for reference, I do not have any allegiance to WA.
The schoolgirl bickering between the shipbuilders in this nation is a demonstration of why we are so weak in shipbuilding reputation amoungst those that pay.
Last edited:
Joe Black
Active Member
I'm from WA so I will side with Austal in this instance. Yes, they are not perfect, but hey at least they have won many commercial and military work overseas and that translate to income coming into Australia.
The last time I've checked, we are still playing in the same team, Team Australia, aren't we.... oh, the Captain's gone I suppose
Its not bickering - its the fact that the very skills that are needed to build the core component of all vessels for RAN don't exist within Austal - and that is the harsh unvarnished fact
when companies like this run puff pieces like that you end up with the dumbed down representation of their world.
incat were the largest ferry and alloy vessel builder by tonnage in the world at one stage - by similar extrapolation that does not make them a suitable contender for building steel hulled vessels
and then what we end up with is "joe public" accepts the PR newsflash as legitimate commentary on how capable Austal or ASC are etc etc....
I personally believe that we shouldn't allow any company to snowball the public - and thats what this exercise was.
I'm too friggin old and been in this business too long to turn off my project, industry. company and platform "hat" off.
similarly other people in here also passing comment have a lot more expertise re sub building, vessel construction than all the media talking heads put together
its worth everyones benefit in here to hear what they say even if they don't like it - its unadulterated and based on actual experience
I'd add, and not to put too fine a point on it - that Austals performance with a series of vessels in AustGovt employment have not been as successful as they imply
the Benchijigua Express is not a sub or frigate etc etc....... building fast ferry flatpackers is not the same as building frigates, or steel OPV's and I'd suggest that if they think that their BPC vessels have been a success then they weren't reading or listening to the people that count.
marketing BS has a time and place - but it still needs to be based on fact.and trying to equate volume sales in alloy hulls as some form of equivalent capability to building steel hulls is disingenuous at best
- Status