Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

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.

I loved Austal until I had to work with some of their very well built but not so well designed naval vessels, including working at their WA facilities for a period on a project. Basically comparing them to a naval shipbuilder is like comparing a luxury camper van builder to an armoured vehicle designer and manufacturer, you can paint the best designed and built RV in the world green but it will still be less capable and fit for purpose than the most austere purpose built armoured vehicle from an experienced builder. Start strengthening and armouring the RV to turn it into an effective AFV, it will at best be compromised but likely also lacking in durability and reliability.

As for the Austal designs selected for the USN, they are a modified fast ferry and a new concept light combatant that was developed with massive assistance from Bath Iron Works (a very experienced naval shipbuilder) and American Bureau of Ships but still suffered significant design and quality issues that, inspire of significant effort and investment, are still not fully rectified.

 

[vonnoobie]

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.

If you don't mind me asking, What exact issues are you referring to with the ACPB's and is it based off of fact that the same issues are ongoing with the CCPB's?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I loved Austal until I had to work with some of their very well built but not so well designed naval vessels, including working at their WA facilities for a period on a project.

ditto, in fact I was an almost ardent supporter of their build quality when compared to Incat. (a number of contractors I know of have said dealing with satan would be a joy after dealing with Clifford)

but ... time and experience showed that the initial fervour was a tad misplaced.

 

[Todjaeger]

If you don't mind me asking, What exact issues are you referring to with the ACPB's and is it based off of fact that the same issues are ongoing with the CCPB's?

I certainly do not have Volk's expertise or experience, but IIRC one of the issues with the ACPB has been toxic gas buildup (hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide) from the onboard waste water facilities. This made a compartment large enough to hold 20 people in an 'accommodation' space/holding area unusable as accommodations.

There have also been numerous issues with cracks in the aluminum hulls, especially around the engine spaces, across the entire class. This is partially due to the higher than planned for operational tempo, and partially due to the materials (aluminum) used.

Something to keep in mind with regards to the whole ACPB debacle, which is not Austal's fault, is that the programme contract set out specific targets in terms of sea keeping, operating costs, conditions under which the vessels would operate, etc. Which for the most part, Austal did deliver a vessel which met the tender specifications.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the ACPB's were called upon to a greater degree, and under harsher conditions, than had been set out in the tender. This is one of the downsides to 'building to spec' vs. building beyond spec. Sticking to the letter of requirements can mean less ability or utility if/when called upon for something a bit more.

In the case of the ACPB, an aluminum-hulled vessel of ~270 tons and 60 metres, they were not really designed for extended operations in 'bluewater' environments. Yet due to Gov't policies regarding illegal fishing and SIEV's, many unfortunately were doing so routinely.

Of the many takeaways from this, is that at least some of whatever design(s) finally replace the ACPB's, some larger and more robust patrol vessels are needed. Larger because a number of the SIEV's had considerably more passengers than an ACPB could safely accommodate even in an emergency, and more robust because the potential conditions the vessels can encounter in areas of interest, or while in transit.

 

[Volkodav]

If you don't mind me asking, What exact issues are you referring to with the ACPB's and is it based off of fact that the same issues are ongoing with the CCPB's?

Corrosion, excessive marine growth, fatigue cracking for a start. Austal got to the point that buckled and fatigued frames in the Armidales was being replaced by thicker section frames (at the customers expense as they are out of warranty), lots of water in fuel contamination issues causing corrosion of critical components. These are issues an experienced naval designer would be on top of but beyond the experience of a company specialising in fast ferries.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I certainly do not have Volk's expertise or experience, but IIRC one of the issues with the ACPB has been toxic gas buildup (hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide) from the onboard waste water facilities. This made a compartment large enough to hold 20 people in an 'accommodation' space/holding area unusable as accommodations.

There have also been numerous issues with cracks in the aluminum hulls, especially around the engine spaces, across the entire class. This is partially due to the higher than planned for operational tempo, and partially due to the materials (aluminum) used.

Something to keep in mind with regards to the whole ACPB debacle, which is not Austal's fault, is that the programme contract set out specific targets in terms of sea keeping, operating costs, conditions under which the vessels would operate, etc. Which for the most part, Austal did deliver a vessel which met the tender specifications.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the ACPB's were called upon to a greater degree, and under harsher conditions, than had been set out in the tender. This is one of the downsides to 'building to spec' vs. building beyond spec. Sticking to the letter of requirements can mean less ability or utility if/when called upon for something a bit more.

In the case of the ACPB, an aluminum-hulled vessel of ~270 tons and 60 metres, they were not really designed for extended operations in 'bluewater' environments. Yet due to Gov't policies regarding illegal fishing and SIEV's, many unfortunately were doing so routinely.

Of the many takeaways from this, is that at least some of whatever design(s) finally replace the ACPB's, some larger and more robust patrol vessels are needed. Larger because a number of the SIEV's had considerably more passengers than an ACPB could safely accommodate even in an emergency, and more robust because the potential conditions the vessels can encounter in areas of interest, or while in transit.

I can think of any number of LTCDR's who hated driving them as they just didn't perform well in the Indian Ocean

its also why there's this current of "lets go back to steel hulls" within the service

australia has responsibility for managing and/protecting 1/9th of the worlds major ocean areas - so its was a pipe dream IMO to get seduced by the notion that those vessels would last in that environment and with the increased tempo

the cost break advantages under those conditions, and with the surge rates factored in just don't lend themselves to using alloy hulls.

However, I will inject the caveat that there are people on here with far more direct awareness and appreciation and they may well have a different take on it all

 

[vonnoobie]

Corrosion, excessive marine growth, fatigue cracking for a start. Austal got to the point that buckled and fatigued frames in the Armidales was being replaced by thicker section frames (at the customers expense as they are out of warranty), lots of water in fuel contamination issues causing corrosion of critical components. These are issues an experienced naval designer would be on top of but beyond the experience of a company specialising in fast ferries.

Corrosion and Marine growth are a maintenance issue, ie: DMS, Not Austal at fault.

Fatigue is an issue but that is to be expected of a boat built to certain specifications that has been pushed past even the intended surge capability levels.

The water in the fuel issue is a long past issue (2006 - 2007) that I have not heard of since, Being first of a class it is to be expected, It was solved so why you bring it up I don't know.

As far as i can tell the only ongoing issue with them that is Austal's fault no question about it is the hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide build up in the austere compartment.

You can't fault the ship builder for maintenance issues when they are not the ones performing the maintenance, nor can you fault them for hull damage to a vessel which is being used beyond the projected requirements of them. All they can be faulted for is the chemical build up, that is it.

That all aside, None of that tell's me that the same issues will occur with the CCPB's as you claimed earlier.

 

[Volkodav]

Corrosion and Marine growth are a maintenance issue, ie: DMS, Not Austal at fault.

Fatigue is an issue but that is to be expected of a boat built to certain specifications that has been pushed past even the intended surge capability levels.

The water in the fuel issue is a long past issue (2006 - 2007) that I have not heard of since, Being first of a class it is to be expected, It was solved so why you bring it up I don't know.

As far as i can tell the only ongoing issue with them that is Austal's fault no question about it is the hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide build up in the austere compartment.

You can't fault the ship builder for maintenance issues when they are not the ones performing the maintenance, nor can you fault them for hull damage to a vessel which is being used beyond the projected requirements of them. All they can be faulted for is the chemical build up, that is it.

That all aside, None of that tell's me that the same issues will occur with the CCPB's as you claimed earlier.

You are, like the politicians, missing the point entirely, while poor maintenance causes many problems, poor design can and in the case of the Armidales, result in excessive maintenance being required..You should not need to pull boats out of the water as often as was the case to repair corrosion when everyone is operating according to the builders instructions.

Water contamination was an ongoing problem well after 2007, I was hearing about it from the Charge Chiefs as lat as mid 2014. Sterntube issues with corrosion and marine growth are an ongoing problem on both classes, the capes having issues while undergoing sea trials. Having the same issues recurring over and over again, requiring ever greater maintenance effort is a design issue that is being expensively worked around due to the difficulty or even impossibility of getting a suitable permanent fix, again a design issue.

Whose fault is it if you need to get your car serviced two or three times more often than stated in the manual? Whose fault you need to replace the tyres every 10000km or have the head tightened, valves adjusted, timing reset? The Armidales required far more maintenance than they should and blaming the maintainer is as bad as blaming the crew when all concerned are working their backsides off to provide a capability. FFS the showers don't even fully drain due to a permanent list, what do you think happens when the same list leaves water sitting between the frames? Perhaps the RAN or DMS need to provide a permanent squeegee team to go to sea with each boat to keep the showers and bilges dry.

 

[old faithful]

Hmmmm, squeegie team would be a good gig.....wonder what they would pay?
Have heard there are some engine mount issues with the Cape class, on the gen sets as well as main engines. You would think that would be sorted by now eh?

 

[t68]

Hmmmm, squeegie team would be a good gig.....wonder what they would pay?
Have heard there are some engine mount issues with the Cape class, on the gen sets as well as main engines. You would think that would be sorted by now eh?

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

 

[Beam]

The Australian Naval Institute website has recently posted two speeches, one from the RN's Admiral Lord West, the other from the RAN CN. I was struck by the totally opposite thrusts of the speeches.

The RAN is about future growth and managing development of the future fleet, the RN about lack a real fleet.

One bemoaning the past, the another looking to the future.

 

[Todjaeger]

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

The follow on to that is, "fool me three times, and I deserved it..."

 

[koala]

Bill and Ben

Was very impressive working down at Woolloomooloo this week having a great view of the LHD's together.

Good old Tobruk in the forground
looked tiny in comparison

Have we got a nickname for the pair yet as we called our LPA's Bill and Ben?

Would be great to see what names this pair unofficially get called!

Have a great week everyone especially our serving elite.

 

[rockitten]

As a sales attempt, the German again said they not only wanna build subs in Australia, they wanna export that design as well. But what if Canada want to build the submarine themselves or some country like India or Pakistan also want the design as well?

No Cookies | The Advertiser

Again, just in case someone unable to crack the subscription cookies.
"Germans want to export submarines made in Australia to the world
November 8, 2015 7:30pm
TORY SHEPHERD Political Editor

AUSTRALIAN submarines could be exported to the world under a German plan to make Techport a base for the region.

German shipbuilders TKMS — if they beat Japan and France in the competitive evaluation process to build the Future Submarines — will treat the Osborne facility as a greenfields site.

They are prepared to bring in robotic welders, cranes, and other heavy machinery and to build whatever infrastructure is needed to create a shipyard that can churn out at least eight submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.

But their ambitions run even higher, as they believe the Australian submarine, versions of it, or parts of its technology would be wanted by other navies.

TKMS Australia chairman John White, who co-authored a secret Government report into what has previously gone wrong at the ASC site and how to fix it, said exports were “absolutely” on the cards, and that the market was growing for bigger submarines such as the 4000-tonne option Australia is looking for.

“If we wanted to export a version of the Australian submarine we could only do it with the Australian Government’s approval and that could be to a country like Canada,” Dr White said.

“We are setting up TKMSA as a competent designer and builder of submarines and a competent partner for the Australian Government for sustainment and future upgrades should they wish and we will actively be looking to develop a facility.

“It will hopefully integrate elements of ASC, but that’s up to the Government to decide — we will actively seek to establish it as a regional hub to service naval industry needs (for) both surface ships and submarines.”

The public campaigns of the three potential international partners have intensified as the November 30 deadline for bids nears.

After that, the Government will select a partner and make a decision about where to build the submarines.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is expected to visit all three contenders in the coming weeks, and will be in Berlin this week. Shipbuilding is sure to be on the agenda.

TKMS had pegged the price of 12 submarines at $20 billion, and the Government has said the project will eventually be worth $50 billion because of the ongoing maintenance.

However, The Advertiser understands the soon-to-be released Defence White Paper will outline plans for eight submarines, but will leave open an option for 12 or a continuous program.

German State Secretary and maritime industry spokesman Uwe Beckmeyer has visited Adelaide and praised the workers at ASC, and said the facility could be extended for new projects.

Germany’s preferred strategy is to build all the submarines in Adelaide.

“It’s important for South Australia ... the people need jobs,” Mr Beckmeyer told The Advertiser in a briefing in Berlin. “The Germans (will) do their best to offer jobs.”"

 

[alexsa]

As a sales attempt, the German again said they not only wanna build subs in Australia, they wanna export that design as well. But what if Canada want to build the submarine themselves or some country like India or Pakistan also want the design as well?

[.”"

OK, at times my spelling is crap but "wanna" in lieu of "want to" ........ seriously. I know it is off topic but this sort of thing get my teeth grinding. You may speak that way but there is no reason to write it that wya ...... particularly when you get it right in the second sentence :lul

 

[vonnoobie]

rockritten, That is all old news.

Germany already said they would like to do to Osborne what they have done in Kiel etc and create a global shipyard so to speak.

They already said they would like to export submarines from there to other nations in our region and while not easy it also is not an impossible task. India is a 50-50 chance depending on how they go in sorting out there domestic industry while Canada would be a real good chance, If they want a conventional long range submarine (ideally from an ally) then Australia would be ideal. Not likely they are going to build up a submarine build capacity for such low numbers (4 or so).

All this is is the media rehashing old stories because they literally have nothing else to write about.

 

[StingrayOZ]

They already said they would like to export submarines from there to other nations in our region and while not easy it also is not an impossible task. India is a 50-50 chance depending on how they go in sorting out there domestic industry while Canada would be a real good chance, If they want a conventional long range submarine (ideally from an ally) then Australia would be ideal. Not likely they are going to build up a submarine build capacity for such low numbers (4 or so).

I wouldn't be holding my breath on India (who already has SSN and existing SSK subs) and Canada. Both have erm, interesting procurement processes. Call me when they have a signed contract with India or Canada, with money behind it.

The Germans are doing what they have done best in this process. They are all over everything. The talk about a global base for submarine builds costs the Germans nothing, its not a promise, if no sales come through, then nothing will happen, if anyone orders and wants them build in Australia, a happy coincidence. They know talk like this, no matter how unlikely will get people talking and thinking about their option.

You can see how they get a lot of international sales.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Naval cyber alert article in the Oz

Grandiosely titled "Cyber torpedo alert: China, Russia hack submarine plans of bidders"

If using Chrome use incognito mode and google the above words and you'll get past the paywall

Long story short other countries are purportedly interested in the subs that the german, french and japanese companies are proposing for the Collin's replacement and trying to 'find out' more about them.Currently no indication that there have been any security breaches.

For some light reading check out the comments at the bottom.
There is a small but vocal "buy yank nukes" mob who take every opportunity to slam the idea of Australia buying anything other than nuke.

rb

 

[rockitten]

rockritten, That is all old news.

Germany already said they would like to do to Osborne what they have done in Kiel etc and create a global shipyard so to speak.

They already said they would like to export submarines from there to other nations in our region and while not easy it also is not an impossible task. India is a 50-50 chance depending on how they go in sorting out there domestic industry while Canada would be a real good chance, If they want a conventional long range submarine (ideally from an ally) then Australia would be ideal. Not likely they are going to build up a submarine build capacity for such low numbers (4 or so).

All this is is the media rehashing old stories because they literally have nothing else to write about.

The different bit is, they want to export more type 216, which Australia will have a lots of design input. The "old news" were more sounds like Australia may manufacture/support other nations type 214/218.

That reminds me an article from Australian naval institute. It stated that if we chose a French or German design, that 2 countries may export a similar design to other customers in the region, and thus degrade the tactical superiority of our submarine fleet.
-
If my memory serves me correctly, 40 years ago the French said they want to build mirage F-1 in Australia even if they lost the bid or not, and so far, I still haven't seen any Australian made Mirage F-1 at all.

 

[gf0012-aust]

export options?

seriously, there is so much that has to be considered - esp from some basic construct delimiters sucha s ITARs and proprietary tech that is owned by Australia and is not even made available to our closest allies - and vice versa

what a ridiculous thing to promote

I'm guessing some gullible politician has lapped that one up