or anything fat, fast and with a low draught
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
As the PPB maintenance being done in Cairns was announced a good bit earlier, I suspect that this is another unfounded conspiracy theory - the sort that abounds at election time. Entsch may have forgotten or been merely ill informed, and just as likely was reminded, rather than encouraged to "tow" (sic) the line
oldsig127
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Don't disagree, but we are in 'election mode' and we often have to read between the lines of what the Politicians say, not necessarily the actual words, 'Henderson' yes, Austal specifically? Well that is the question.
And if Turnbull is saying/inferring that Austal has won the right to build the OPV's, well isn't that just another so called 'Captains' pick and not going through 'due process'? Not my choice of words, but others have certainly used that expression, especially in relation to Abbott and the Japanese subs, I wonder what BAE might have to say when the time comes?
It may well be that Austal gets to build the OPV's at Henderson (and the first two at Techport too), but equally until the various 'teams' are announced, that other players might not want to have a slice of the action too.
I would certainly imagine that both Austal and BAE will both be putting their hands up to 'team' with whoever is the winning design.
The only thing for certain that we know about the various shipbuilding programs is that Austal has been awarded the PPB replacements, that is 100% and that the subs will be built at Techport, who actually owns or controls ASC by that time, who knows too? Same for the Frigates as well.
most of them have set up teaming MOU's as a precaution
John Newman
The Bunker Group
That seems to be the case with a lot of competitions, contender A teams with local team A, contender B, teams with local team B, etc, etc.
When it came to the PPB's, I think there were three contenders, Austal, one in Tasmania with Incat and a Nth Qld consortium too, three contenders and three different designs.
The submarines of course, three contenders, Japan, German and the winning French contender, but I suppose all three would have had some teaming arrangement with ASC and using the Techport common user facility, as that is where they were to be built locally, the question ultimately would have been, who would have had control and possibly, ownership of ASC's submarine arm?
The Future Frigates, again three contenders, probably about the only guarantee is that BAE Australia will be teaming with the Type 26 offering, again using the common user facility to launch them, but I'd imagine the winner would take over the ASC shipbuilding facilities currently being used for the AWD's, again depends on the future ownership and 'splitting' of ASC into two arms, if that happens.
So getting back to the OPV's, two German and one Dutch design, I'd imagine that both Austal and BAE are involved in teaming with the various designers.
The who, what, where and why of the OPV build, is anybody's guess, at least until there is some sort of public announcement.
Maintenance of the OPVs in Cairns is a fait accompli. There are no slipping facilities in Darwin which can lift a vessel of 80 mtrs despite the Pearl Marine Synchro lift in Darwin being a 2,500 tonne capacity it's only 40 mtrs long IIRC and that would prevent conforming with the weight distribution limits.
There has been NT govt. talk of further development of a common user facility and a new shipyard and lift with a much larger capacity which may involve some defence funding in future but this is many years away.
The result will take us back to the 1970's when the Darwin based Attack class refitted in Cairns at NQEA but it does put stress on family life for those who have moved to Darwin with their partners only to be left alone while their partners are in Cairns for an extended refit. Been there done that.
which is why if someone triggered considered thought and applied critical analysis, they wouldn't have been bagging ASC or South Australia
To me the WA Treasurers response (as the primary example) was a classic example of naivete and parochialism clouding judgement.
You would have seen that the vendors were a tad more circumspect when beating their offer drums.....
State politicians are a PITA - there should be a law banning them from pontificating on Federal issues
The civilian ships planned or delivered to date are:
2 submarine rescue vessels ...... In country
1 aviation training ship .... In build (and no ...... Is is not an OPV2400)
4 oil/water lighters ..... In country and in service
Ocean Protector ..... As an auxillary
Ocean Sheild ...... To transfer to fully ABF control at some stage but still operated by Teekay
There is certainly appetite for 'civilian vessels' but I know of nothing certain beyond those above that are currently under serious consideration.
Nick underscore
Member
Thanks alexsa. The new contract for the ASRV will fall under civilian (DMS) pennant?
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
There is always the New Zealand solution - we abolished our budding provincial legislatures back in 1876, to the general relief of everyone who wasn't directly employed by them.State politicians are a PITA - there should be a law banning them from pontificating on Federal issues
For good measure we also got rid of the Upper House/Senate in 1950, on the grounds that it was no bloody use to anyone.
Sorry, somewhat off topic.
Hehe and the trick in 1950 was that the govt of the day managed to convince the Upper House (Legislative Council) to vote itself out of existence. The difference between the NZ Legislative Council and the Australian Senate was that the members of the Legislative Council were appointed by the govt of the day and the members of the Australian Senate are elected by the general public. My apologies as well.
fftopic
Civilian owned and civilian operated. The operator is DMS. They will also be the operator of the aviation support ship.
Joe Black
Active Member
John, see this Austal news article, I think it is fairly clear that they will get to build the OPV once the build moves over to WA.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Inspects Austal's Western Australian Shipyard | Austal: Corporate
I think the context in which Malcolm Turnbull said is pretty clear pointing at Austal "of course after the first two are built in Adelaide, they will be built here at Henderson as well.” Here the reference to the Henderson shipbuilder here is non other than Austal given he was giving this speech at Austal.
The really dumb thing is OPVs are not small ships, other than in comparison with our new large destroyers / frigates, so why are we opting for specialist large and small ship yards? Would it not have made more sense to retain the model of BAE, Forgacs and ASC each building specific blocks with other general blocks being allocated on competative merit?
Instead now there will be pretty much automatic awarding of patrol boats and OPVs to Austal and majors to ASC with no reward for good performance and no sanction for bad.
Joe Black
Active Member
You've got a point there, but I suppose the govt of today look at which "local" shipbuilders to support, ASC is a natural candidate, the other "noticeable" shipbuilder with some reputation internationally and the "most likely" to survive and thrive would be Austal. BAE is a foreign company. Forgacs or shall we say Civmec is still relatively "unknown" internationally and probably would play a 2nd tier yards in the military vessels space. ADI and Tenix no longer exists as individual companies or standalone brands.
Of course, this is a rather simplistic view of how I read the govt's actions and intentions.
Last edited:
I would have thought it useful to have two or more yards able to complete block work. You could benchmark performance. Shift work according to various factors. Avoid disputes, poor performance, redundancy, the ability to scale, competency, unexpected workforce problems (mining?).
And to add to that, I still cant understand the reasoning, other than political, building the first 2 OPV's in Adelaide ? Gearing the workforce up for it, tooling etc to then move the whole operation to the west to make room for the Future Frigate.
Ideally that time between the AWD and commencement of the FF should be used to upgrade the CUF to help future proof it. Increasing the lift to max capacity would have been a good start surely ?
Now with the program that has been put into place, assuming it continues as planned, we will never have the capacity/capability to build ships like future supply ships, support ship, LHA's, LPD's etc, Lost opportunity I think !!
Cheers
And the circle goes round and round!
In a few years there will likely be angst at performance - quality, schedule, cost, etc., if past experience is to be relived.
Then someone will point out the lack of reward/sanction with guaranteed work, and someone will try to change the whole process again, with eye watering waste of money.
Cause jobs unfortunately... This is how they pollies want to cover the 'valley of death...'
It doesn't make any real sense except to Nick Xenophobia and the like.
https://youtu.be/toL1tXrLA1c
from a strategic risk perspective you'd spread the love as much as possible.
spread the builds and maint as far as possible.
we used to build knock down kits for thin skins as well, places like geelong could have had some diverse potential to act as a build, maint and logistics hub - it meets the trifecta of air land and sea hubs being within 30mins in any direction
another reason to ban the States so that there is less parochial rubbish in the air to pollute contracts
spread the builds and maint as far as possible.
we used to build knock down kits for thin skins as well, places like geelong could have had some diverse potential to act as a build, maint and logistics hub - it meets the trifecta of air land and sea hubs being within 30mins in any direction
another reason to ban the States so that there is less parochial rubbish in the air to pollute contracts
- Status