Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Alf662]

No, that was Civmec that purchased the Forjacs facility. It is certainly strange to see steel hull construction go to Austal. But there is an election coming and all of this pork will be spread far and wide to shore up votes - so strange things may be in the wings

Yes you are correct, it was Civmec. And I agree about Austal and steel ship builds, I do not have warm and fussy feelings about it at all.

And the answer to my other question regarding sustainment of the PPB(R), it will be done in Cairns, I just read it in the Defmin's press release:

Defence Ministers » Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – Continuous Naval Shipbuilding

 

[vonnoobie]

IIRC didn't Austal buy Forgacs in Newcastle. I would imagine that would go some way towards giving them the additional skill sets that they need for building in steel.

Pity Damen didn't get up with their version for the PPB (I am a bit partial to them). It may be a bit early, but where will the Austal PPB be sustained? Henderson or Cairns?

That was Civmec, Not Austal so doesnt really do anything for either one.

Quite honestly if Austal doesnt buy ASC (ignoring criticism of Austal the Government is more likely to sell to the winner rather then some third party) I could see them looking at buying Civmec. Gives them a more diversified business, acquisition of a business well experienced in Steel compared to Austal and allow's them possible access to more defence contracts (Frigates and Submarines specifically) and all at a fraction of the cost. They are talking a combined ASC valuation of $1 billion compared to Civmecs market cap of less then $200m AUD.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Quite honestly if Austal doesnt buy ASC (ignoring criticism of Austal the Government is more likely to sell to the winner rather then some third party)

good god no. they'd gut ASC, bring in their arrogant culture of poor middle and upper management and end up gutting the facilities to amortise their costs on the west coast.

 

[Muar River]

I'd imagine they are thinking of Austal as a builder for the OPV's? No other contender really exist's there currently that could build a ship of that size as no one else has the infrastructure in place.

Would take time to build the facilities and Austal really is the only one there that has such facilities in place, No time for any one to build them considering the tight time frame.

As for the frigates, Even though the BAE made it past thr first round I don't see it being chosen. Time frame just too tight and it needs too much work, Now that we have had our experiance with Navantia and know what to look out for I see that being our best bet assuming they upgrade all of the old crap in them.

What type of upgrades do you think are necessary? Would this have been covered in the feasibility study that Navantia undertook for the RAN?

Are there any complicating issues with the RN ship?

 

[Volkodav]

Austals selection to construct and maintain the PPBs is interesting as they currently don't build steel hulls, don't maintain steel ships, don't maintain the current PPBs and were an expensive, poorly performing contractor on the ACPB. Ironically the maintainer of the PPBs is DMS and unlike the ACPB contract, this one has been highly successful and trouble free, with no involvement from Austal whatsoever. In fact DMS successfully ran a multitude of profitable contracts for the Commonwealth of Australia with the only non performing ones involving Austal as designer and builder of the asset.

Interesting that Austals continued poor performance is being rewarded with contract after contract while the government was seriously considering shutting ASC down in Adelaide. At least they have finally realised BAE Williamstown is a very different creature to Tenix and will probably be as difficult and expensive to fix as it was in the late 80s, especially as they have already repeated the mistakes that caused so many of the quality and schedule issues with AWD and LHD in making much of their skilled workforce redundant.

 

[Todjaeger]

What type of upgrades do you think are necessary? Would this have been covered in the feasibility study that Navantia undertook for the RAN?

Are there any complicating issues with the RN ship?

If the BAE ship is the Type 26, the major issue is that it is still very much in the design phase. A good deal would depend on how much design work could be finished and tested, including incorporation of Australian specified systems, between now and when setup needs to commence for the first steel to be cut, and/or orders placed for long-lead items.

 

[Volkodav]

If the BAE ship is the Type 26, the major issue is that it is still very much in the design phase. A good deal would depend on how much design work could be finished and tested, including incorporation of Australian specified systems, between now and when setup needs to commence for the first steel to be cut, and/or orders placed for long-lead items.

On the flip side though, they would also probably be the best fit for the RANs requirements. The UK is very good at developing war fighting platforms, they just haven't had the weapons and sensors we require, the Type 26 and the facility to specify systems changes this.

 

[Todjaeger]

On the flip side though, they would also probably be the best fit for the RANs requirements. The UK is very good at developing war fighting platforms, they just haven't had the weapons and sensors we require, the Type 26 and the facility to specify systems changes this.

It would all seem then to depend on how quickly an Australian variant could be designed, and if the time frame would allow for signing the contract, setup, and the start of construction.

The OPV build might permit a bit more of a stretch, since that could be lengthened to keep the work force assembled and active while the details are worked out. OTOH at some point the first ANZAC-class frigates are going to need to be decommissioned, or else undergo significant work to keep them fit for service. I would rather not have them undergoing expensive work like was done with HMAS Success, just to get a couple of more years of service while the replacement programme is fiddled with.

 

[Muar River]

If the BAE ship is the Type 26, the major issue is that it is still very much in the design phase. A good deal would depend on how much design work could be finished and tested, including incorporation of Australian specified systems, between now and when setup needs to commence for the first steel to be cut, and/or orders placed for long-lead items.

Thanks for your reply. It seems like a very tight timeframe especially if BAE are producing two variants of the one ship.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for your reply. It seems like a very tight timeframe especially if BAE are producing two variants of the one ship.

The impression I have of the Type 26 is that the overall hull and superstructure should be the same, with space/weight margins so that different navies can fit them out with their respective weapons and systems, much like the MEKO family of warships.

In that regards, the Type 26 design would likely be more like a family of designs. Not unlike how MEKO 200 is the overall base frigate design for the ANZAC, Yavuz, Barbaros, Hydra, and Vasco da Gama-classes of frigate, in use by the Australian, New Zealand, Turkish, Greek, and Portuguese navies respectively.

 

[alexsa]

Just finished watching the PM and Defmin announce the ship build process. The Pacific Pbs will be steel and built by Austal, the OPV are down to three, Fassmer, Lurssen and Damen and will be started in Adelaide and when the AWD Sydney is completed and the Frigates commenced the construction will move to Henderson
The Future frigates are down to three, BAE, Fincantieri FREMM and Navantia.

Two big surprises for me, first I thought the T26 was out of the picture and second the Fassmer OPV 80 or 85. That slipped under the radar but looks a goer in the Chilean Navy.

And remember all that reporting indicating that the F105 hull was out of the running etc etc. The T26 is very much a paper design at the moment given no steel has been cut on parent of this option. I suspect it is a stalking horse being pushed by an 'Australian content argument'. The easiest transition will be the F105 variant with the FREMM being the only other in service option.

 

[alexsa]

Unless BAE gutted it, there should be a facility in Henderson WA with an 8,000 ton shiplift IIRC from when BAE bought Tenix.

Even with that, I have trouble understanding the notion of Austal making steel patrol boats. Do they have experience working in steel? Or is this some sort of 'new ' capability which would need to be build up?

The OPV is starting in ASC then moving to the AMC at Henderson so I would not assume Austal are running this show just yet. Also note that the OPV will be a 2000 tonne ships and the final yard is likely to be a consolidation and finishing yard.

This would allow other yards to build modules, as they do for the AWD, in order to keep as much of the workforce occupied as possible.

If the future frigate and next submarine is to be built at ASC it is going to get tight in a hurry so moving the OPV to the West makes some sense.

 

[vonnoobie]

The OPV is starting in ASC then moving to the AMC at Henderson so I would not assume Austal are running this show just yet. Also note that the OPV will be a 2000 tonne ships and the final yard is likely to be a consolidation and finishing yard.

This would allow other yards to build modules, as they do for the AWD, in order to keep as much of the workforce occupied as possible.

If the future frigate and next submarine is to be built at ASC it is going to get tight in a hurry so moving the OPV to the West makes some sense.

Understandable them having to make use of another yard as ASC will reach max capacity within the decade between large surface combatants and submarines but based on current infrastructure does the AMC have the capacity to assemble the OPV's there if we exclude Austal's infrastructure?

Does seem to me at least the AMC is becoming a large maintenance/upgrade location, Is there still room to build the OPV's and upgrade and maintain a large portion of the RAN at the same time?

 

[hauritz]

I would be surprised if the RAN went for the Type 26. As things stand it isn't even certain when construction will commence. Could be next year or even 2018. It is pretty much the definition of a paper ship.

A updated version of the Hobart class is a possibility ... but the least risky option may well be the Italian Fremm.

 

[ASSAIL]

If the future frigate and next submarine is to be built at ASC it is going to get tight in a hurry so moving the OPV to the West makes some sense.

Alex do you have any insight into that "goalpost" on the Bay class RFAs. We had a discussion on here and it's was said that its for mounting lights. That seems unreasonable to me because it's a very heavy structure and I keep reading references to there being " two reinforced deck static load spots for medium and heavy lift helos". My interpretation of that is the beams provide that reinforcement.
Alternatively, I'm looking to complicate a simple fact.
Thanks

 

[John Newman]

I suppose everyone here can put there spin on the 'who, what, where and why' with todays announcement, for what it's worth, here's mine (without specifics of which design will eventually be selected).

Defence Ministers » Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – Continuous Naval Shipbuilding

Reading, and re-reading today's announcements, I can see logic behind the 'who, what, where and why' that I mentioned above. Starting at the bottom end first.

PPB-R
On the one hand bit surprised to see the Damen / Nth Qld build option miss out, but on the other hand, with the Cape Class PB's build coming to an end, then I can see the sense in using the existing Austal facility being utilised to build the PPB-R's, and of course the PPB-R's will be maintained in Nth Qld which puts the sustainment on the 'door step' of the majority of the users, win for WA and Nth Qld.

OPV
As announced today, the build will start in SA and eventually move to WA, this confirms a comment last year when the Abbott Government announced the bringing forward the construction of the OPV's and Future Frigates, it was either the PM or the Def Min of that time, said something about the OPV's starting assembly in SA, but the continuing question of where the remainder of the OPV's would be built was an open question, especially once construction of the Future Frigates started.

Again makes sense to me, I would imagine that the 'window of opportunity' or 'valley of death' (depending on your point of view), between the end of major works on the AWD's and the start of the Future Frigates, will obviously allow for the 're use' of the facilities for the AWD's to be used for the first of the OPV's (maybe between 2-3 or 4 hulls max?).

Now some might say, but facilities will have to be built at Henderson in WA to complete the remainder of the OPV build, why not use the facilities existing at Techport? Well actually there are no 'separate' existing facilities at Techport to build the OPV's.

Have a look at the SA Government's flythrough of Techport:

Techport Flythrough

Even in the SA Government's own 'future view' of Techport, they are suggesting that facilities would have to be built for the OPV's (assuming this is for the full fleet of 12 hulls), then it's pretty clear, in my opinion, that the start of construction for the OPV's will happen by using the 'existing' AWD facilities as a stop gap before moving the build to WA to allow for the Future Frigates to be built in Techport.

Future Frigates
Regardless of which design is chosen (and that is whole other discussion as with the OPV's), the nine Future Frigates will be assembled at Techport, the outstanding question will be how much block work will be shared around and where?

For the three different classes of ships mentioned above, I would imagine that the PPB-R's will be completely built in WA (possibly with components and various parts make in other states), the OPV's and Future Frigates on the other hand will be made from blocks, the big question is going to be where will the blocks be built?

Obviously I can see block work being performed in both SA and WA for their respective main classes of ships being built, but are we going to see a repeat of block work for NSW and VIC as with the AWD? That's a question yet to be answered, and I suppose what 'facilities' are still active and operational at that time too.

For ongoing support and sustainment of the various fleets, it's clear that the PPB-R's will be supported in Cairns, I'd imagine that the OPV's would also be supported in Cairns, Darwin and possibly at Henderson too for more 'major' upgrades. The Future Frigates, that could be split between both Henderson and here in Sydney at Garden Island in the future.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth!!!

Cheers,

 

[Volkodav]

Actually wondering why, considering the aim is a continuous build and the requirement is for twelve OPVs, that we are still bringing the new frigates forward? Logically, if there is sufficient life in the ANZACs, we could just build all the OPVs first then start the frigates several years later. Build blocks around the country, gradually increasing local content, letting each yard specialise in what they do best, ship after ship after ship.

 

[alexsa]

Alex do you have any insight into that "goalpost" on the Bay class RFAs. We had a discussion on here and it's was said that its for mounting lights. That seems unreasonable to me because it's a very heavy structure and I keep reading references to there being " two reinforced deck static load spots for medium and heavy lift helos". My interpretation of that is the beams provide that reinforcement.
Alternatively, I'm looking to complicate a simple fact.
Thanks

I don't have enough insight on the design but the way it is configured suggests it is not deck bracing (imaging the torsion stresses around the joints at the top of the tripod if this was to prevent deck flex ..... and the fact the beam itself can flex). Light tower sounds good to me. Be nice to check with an RFA bod.

 

[alexsa]

Understandable them having to make use of another yard as ASC will reach max capacity within the decade between large surface combatants and submarines but based on current infrastructure does the AMC have the capacity to assemble the OPV's there if we exclude Austal's infrastructure?

Does seem to me at least the AMC is becoming a large maintenance/upgrade location, Is there still room to build the OPV's and upgrade and maintain a large portion of the RAN at the same time?

When you consider much of the activity has been to carry out the ASMD upgrade on the ANZAC things may get a little quieter soon. Ships will still need refit but nothing of the sort the ASMD changes required.

 

[John Newman]

Just had a quick look at the Austal website to see what they had to say about the announcement of them winning the PPB-R, here's the link and images of what the ships will look like too:

Austal Selected as Preferred Tenderer for Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement Project | Austal: Corporate