what other yard has the facilities to build modern warships including lifts and cranes?
BAE screwed willy - the others would struggle as well as they had even less skilled workers and even less infrastructure to build modern combatants
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
BAE screwed willy - the others would struggle as well as they had even less skilled workers and even less infrastructure to build modern combatants
Perhaps, but if it is a foregone conclusion that all modern warships will be built in SA, then why are they still bleating about it?
MB
political colour and movement
same as WA saying that they are australias best shipbuilder and should do DDG's. SSK's and OPV/OCV's
Yes, I can see that. For SA to want the submarine build as well though, seems just plain greedy. It will be interesting to see if any announcements come before the possible double dissolution.
MB
I wouldn't put money on that
I don't see the logic in anyone else doing it - all the bidders have indicated that they will work with ASC
common sense has to prevail. everyother pretend bidder in australia doesn't have the infrastructure or relevant staff in place
not all shipyards can build subs
not all shipyards have the relevant equipment
not all shipyards have the relevant staff already in place
not all shipyards have historical leverage
it makes no sense to gut a yard of equipment, or buy equipment to compete
it makes no sense to poach dozens of staff from one yard to build another and gut capability
it makes more sense to split the work, which is what ASC would do anyway as opposed to some of the other idiotic propositions where companies think they can do it all
reality check, all the large builds done by volume yards are distributed across companies - which is the ASC model and the preferred industry model so that everyone gets a bite
to reiterate, common sense should prevail over parochialism and partisanship
Yes, that makes sense.
Let's hope that the current DefMin retains her portfolio after the next election and is not "promoted" somewhere else
MB
Well, the Budget will have to be passed before parliament is dissolved.
Edit:
Further, July 2 is the last day they can have a double dissolution with all senators up for reelection. Any later and it would be just a regular election with only half the Senate up for reelection.
Oops, responded to the wrong post by gf.
there are existing projects that might try to be fast tracked if they're just in review stages. Budget passing doesn't affect them - delays in Govt processes will/may though.
Sorry, I meant the Budget as a whole and not just for Defence. I was replying to your earlier post about a possible July 2 election.
Why would we need to purchase 3 or 4 nukes? How in anyway would that help us acquire a force of 12 submarines in any quicker then a pure force of 12 conventional submarines?
Nukes are off the table. This has been done in this thread many times.
I highly doubt we can just buy into a Virginia or Astute line, even if we wanted to. Just like I doubt we could just buy into Japan's submarine production line. There are long lead items, scheduling etc. Sure the US can build a submarine fairly quickly but they aren't set up for speculative overseas customers. Japan is trying to increase their number of operational subs, so short of establishing a unique line for Australia its not going to happen.
There are only 3 Astutes currently operational and they started the build back in 2001. There will only be 7 of them. So I would think a 50%+ increase in production would be problematic, particularly considering they are more than half way through the build.
They US may have more flexibility, but not much. The US or the UK is extremely unlikely to give us subs. They need subs, they setup large and expensive programs to build subs for them. The world isn't our supermarket where every item is in stock sitting on a shelf and we just put them into our cart.
Really diesel subs are the only type we are going to get in the time frame. We can build diesel subs. We are being offered the best in the world, arguably more capable than many SSN's. We will have enough to be extremely important globally. They will have global capability. Top rank combat systems, sensors, weapons, hull strength, noise signatures etc.
For the missions they will be tasked with it will be ideal. The US and the UK can handle missions that SSN's are required for.
Because from the appointment of David Johnston as Defmin in 2013 until his removal when his bias became so blatantly obvious he continually undermined, criticised and back stabbed ASC. This was not because they were any worse than their competitors, or even that they were to blame for the issues with projects that had been a political footballs rather than a capability acquisitions from its kick off, but because their main facilities were in SA. He was one of a number of influential people from WA who were determined to see anything that couldn't be moved to the west moved offshore to free up money to do other things for the benefit of WA.
This is pretty much what happened with the move of capability from Sydney to Melbourne under Hawke, the move from Melbourne to Adelaide under Howard and then WAs belated attempt to repeat the mistakes of the past. IMO it would have been cheaper to fix Cockatoo and do everything there than build up Williamstown, then ASC, billions that could have been poured into capability and growth elsewhere.
Exactly, if we had been smart we would have made the most of our best facility, instead of starting everything from scratch based on which state has the most influential senators at a given time. Failure to order ships from Williamstown means they have lost the edge they had at the ANZAC project just as failing to order sufficient ships from Cockatoo destroyed any chance of them being efficient, two destroyers in the 50s, two frigates in the 60s and one more in the 70s, plus a couple of other small ships since WWIi, is it any surprise they struggled with Success and the dodgy build data provided by the French?
Why are we so determined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again? You would think it was a very simple concept, if the overseas yards everyone so admires took more than a decade of consistent, evolving works to get that good, why do the punters here think we have failed and should cut our losses because we haven't nailed it in six years on the first of a class of three ships built in a new yard? To suggest work should be sent somewhere else because its not fair one state gets it all is even worse, actually its insane. Would anyone even contemplate shutting down operations in the Pilbara and moving to Roxby Downs "because its not fair" WA gets all the mining royalties?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, it would be difficult to get nukes from either country as both are replacing their SSN fleets and really don't have the capacity to build more. Also, the SSBN fleet renewal is coming up as well. The one advantage Australia has is the ability to build high tech subs. The US might be willing to expand Australia's sub manufacturing capability for SSNs as it would provide the USN with a "on the other side of the world support facility". Given the long transit times (an issue for the RAN just as much for the USN), high speed escape and underwater endurance, the SSN despite its cost is a superior solution and fewer subs might be a possibility. A Virginia costs 2.5+ billion. The enhanced Soryu should be less but how much less? I guess it doesn't really matter. If the politics prevent the superior nuclear option (lots of disagreement expected on this) so be it. Hardly unique, Canadian politics is making the superior F-35 option next to impossible as well.
Sorry Volkadov - you seem to have forgotten that in September 2012 the Australian people were promised by the then Government that the AWD program would be delivered within Budget whilst being stretched out to level a manpower peak (a reason I supported).
Just 12 months later David was appointed DefMIN and was told that was untrue - that the AWD program now exceeded its planned budget by at least $300M. Within another year it was $600M+ and now even ASC admits its $900M.
The Seasprite program was lambasted for wasting much the same amount but somehow ASC must remain immune from any criticism.
Was there a coverup leading to the 2103 election as I refuse to believe that the $300M overrun was not know prior to 7th September 2013?
As a disclosure I worked for BAE and its predecessors for 26 years and if the same slack cost control and schedule overrun had occurred there we would have been pilloried by all and sundry. I remember a number of times when our subcontractors let us down but the Commonwealth response was subcontractor performance is the Prime's responsibility - I have never heard this about ASC as they always like to blame others.
Please remember that David Johnson did give due credit to ASC for its great improvement in Collins maintenance following the Coles report.
only on a hull count - its not a capability guide
t68
Well-Known Member
Nor I, considering recent event in regards to S Korea and the suspected sinking of Cheonan ROK Navy corvette you'd think that Japan/ S Korea would put their differences aside and collaborate n submarine design as China is as much a treat to S Korea as N Korea
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Aren't many of them Romeos or the Chinese copy, and a lot of mini subs. Russia has 60 by that list but how many of them will ever go to sea again. It also shows just how capable Australias fleet will become if we build all 12.
a lot of those NorK subs sound like underwater defibrillators....
the ratio of Russian subs that were available was also not high (from a few years back) but the Russians are also on a fleet modernisation exercise
at the end of the day its about training before hulls though
- Status