Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

[QUOTE="alexsa, post: 332110, member: 4297”]

Pity there is now a run down of skills between now and the OPV as there will be another ramp up required. However, If we maintain a supported industry then it should be efficient noting the examples of build of skills and delivery cycle related to the ANZAC, Collins and DDG end of production run. The yards will .... hopefully... be more agile and able to induct design changes with limited impact on delivery.

Now on that, if nothing else, we can agree.

Although I would point out that there are also a couple of US yards that have been, effectively, in continuous production of warships only for many years. There’s even one in the UK which could almost make the same claim, although I wouldn’t hold it up as an example.[/QUOTE]

Apparently ASC Shipbuilding is going to get down to between 300 and 400 personnel even with the OPV contract, with most of the run down being in engineering, test and technical areas, the hardest to build up in new projects, doh!

 

[John Fedup]

They didn't baulk, they made an unsolicited offer which was rejected because it was outside the tendering rules.
The tragedy is that they could have saved the Canadian government a bucket load and had the ships online earlier, IMHO

Their unsolicited proposal also called for the first three ships to be built in Europe which made this offer DOA. As for saving money, maybe but let’s face it, our procurement efforts tend to be epic fail!

 

[John Fedup]

To be fair the only build we may have a chance on s the future submarines, don't think Canada wants to go thru the pain of building them from scratch if they replace the Victoria's

The bigger questions are will Canada even continue with subs and is it worthwhile for either Australia or France to pursue a 4 ship order with a dysfunctional procurement system like Canada’s. The CSC program outcome will provide an answer to this question.

 

[vonnoobie]

The bigger questions are will Canada even continue with subs and is it worthwhile for either Australia or France to pursue a 4 ship order with a dysfunctional procurement system like Canada’s. The CSC program outcome will provide an answer to this question.

Will depend if they will acquire the same as what Oz offers or want different, if they will import or want built in house. If they will go for the same as Oz and have built in Oz then there is room to give Canada 25%+ of the build which would hopefully shut up any critics and unions. As in Oz Canada can build stuff quality on time and on budget but just needs continuous work.. 4 submarines wouldnt be but building a quarter of of each submarine over a 16+ run over them over 20 - 30 years is doable.

 

[John Fedup]

IMO, there is no political will to fund future subs for Canada, certainly by our current government. I believe any future order, were it to occur, will be small making a foreign build the only option.

 

[hauritz]

Do you know why the French baulked? I am curious about the reason.

While there was no reason given as to why the offer was mas made outside the tendering rules it would be fair enough to assume they weren't happy with the bidding process.

I think the bid they put directly to the government was probably more an ultimatum than a bid.

It could have been an intellectual property issue they had with passing information directly to Irving shipyards. Whatever the reason they seemed to have deliberately sabotaged their own bid by not following the process that was set out.

 

[swerve]

IIRC they said there was exactly the problem you say, giving intellectual property to a potential rival.

 

[serger989]

Their unsolicited proposal also called for the first three ships to be built in Europe which made this offer DOA. As for saving money, maybe but let’s face it, our procurement efforts tend to be epic fail!

Actually it was the previous offer they made in October where they build the first 3. The final offer was all 15 built in Canada at Irving, though some news outlets got their separate offerings mixed up in terms of the timeline. No one knows why they did this, but presumably it was because of IP issues with Irving and wanting a more direct approach between governments (speculation). On the matter of the subs, I do hope Canada decides to partner up with Australia if they are able to export their shortened Barracudas... I wish there was a will to increase our capability in partnership with an ally.

 

[John Fedup]

More than speculation concerning the IP issue with Irving IMO, it was a big concern and earlier protests had been raised. As for Australian subs, in the unlikely event Canada does continue with this capability, I think Australia will be a serious contender. There is the possibility that France would push a nuclear option which makes sense assuming there is still a polar ice cap by the time any decision is made. Again, given Canadian indifference towards defence, new subs will be a tough sell. With junior, there is zer chance

 

[ngatimozart]

They didn't baulk, they made an unsolicited offer which was rejected because it was outside the tendering rules.
The tragedy is that they could have saved the Canadian government a bucket load and had the ships online earlier, IMHO

Thanks. Now I remember. The tendering rules were quite extensive and included the IP being passed onto the Canuck shipbuilder assessing the tenders.

 

[stoney]

The French tried a similar tactic when bidding for the Belgian fighter contract and were similarly rejected. They have to learn to respect other county's rules for bidding and be more adaptable with equipment / weapons changes.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Defence minister confirms east coast submarines
No Cookies | Daily Telegraph
"The Federal Government has now confirmed some of the Royal Australian Navy’s new French-designed submarines will be based on the East Coast when they are built, reversing the policy that has had all submarines based off Perth for the past 20 years.

The first of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will also be arriving at RAAF Base Williamtown north of Newcastle this year and helicopter landing ships at Fleet Base East in Sydney have now be cleared for full service."

I think its more likely that there will be both a west and east coast submarine bases.The interesting question is where?

 

[spoz]

Well, Plats is probably still available, I don't think they've actually done much redevelopment there yet.......might be a bit crowded though. Or they could upgrade Penguin, back to the future!

If they have to go outside the Sydney basin, I think I'd pick Port Kembla; the outer harbour is quite decent, it's close to the EAXA and it's only about an hour from FHQ.

 

[alexsa]

Well, Plats is probably still available, I don't think they've actually done much redevelopment there yet.......might be a bit crowded though. Or they could upgrade Penguin, back to the future!

If they have to go outside the Sydney basin, I think I'd pick Port Kembla; the outer harbour is quite decent, it's close to the EAXA and it's only about an hour from FHQ.

Plats would be a bit shallow and tight ... and the moored yachties will be a bigger pain in the back side than the were with the O boats (and they were a pain).

I would suggest the GI would be logical noting the extensions going on and there is infrastructure already in place.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...subId=464370&usg=AOvVaw3nPNNGibU6gg-0CesTfiCZ

I think there was talk of a proposal to put a wharf on the seaward side where building 215 (HMAS Stalwart) used to moor. Not sure if this will happen but certainly add to the wharf capacity.

 

[vonnoobie]

Sydney will be drama which ever spot they choose.

Off hand HMAS Platypus is out as it was given away to the SHFT over a decade ago and I dont see them selling it or giving back to the RAN. Ownership aside physical limitations on the site and the civilian housing build up around it making it a security nightmare.

Even Garden Island would have it's own issues. So far from everything I see most if not all the ships seem to be docked on the Western side and all future proposed work is based around that however as it sits the site at present is already crammed with the larger RAN assets and the local cruise industry that also shares the site. If at all workable then any submarines would have to be located on the Eastern side of GI.

All things considered, What might be the cheapest one to get going and not interfere with local industry (At least not majorly) would be to reopen Cockatoo Island. With GI getting more and more cramped and the increase in asset sizes they need space, There is nothing of size along any of the shores so perhaps need to go back to Cockatoo, Island out of the way should be more amenable to the locals not to mention less costly to get started.

 

[alexsa]

Sydney will be drama which ever spot they choose.

Off hand HMAS Platypus is out as it was given away to the SHFT over a decade ago and I dont see them selling it or giving back to the RAN. Ownership aside physical limitations on the site and the civilian housing build up around it making it a security nightmare.

Even Garden Island would have it's own issues. So far from everything I see most if not all the ships seem to be docked on the Western side and all future proposed work is based around that however as it sits the site at present is already crammed with the larger RAN assets and the local cruise industry that also shares the site. If at all workable then any submarines would have to be located on the Eastern side of GI.

All things considered, What might be the cheapest one to get going and not interfere with local industry (At least not majorly) would be to reopen Cockatoo Island. With GI getting more and more cramped and the increase in asset sizes they need space, There is nothing of size along any of the shores so perhaps need to go back to Cockatoo, Island out of the way should be more amenable to the locals not to mention less costly to get started.

Not sure I agree that Sydney is a drama from a space sense. The cruise industry do not 'share the site' but are sometimes allowed to berth there. While the Sydney council may be agitating for this the land is not theirs and if local government had not be stupid enough to turn the Woolamaloo finger wharf into apartments or turn the bottom end of Darling harbour into apartments they would not be in this fix.

Submarines and frigates will be able to trot up outboard of each other at the new wharf (which is precisely what the Ob boats did at Platypus) with the draft restrictions being resolved. The alternative is a figure wharf on the other side. it should be noted the work on GI is phase 1 of the process.

I cannot see anybody allowing Co-dock to be reopened but agree it is a wasted resource of two graving docks.

In time someone will advise their intentions and I have realized it is never wish to thing the obvious solution is the one to be adopted

 

[Todjaeger]

Not sure I agree that Sydney is a drama from a space sense. The cruise industry do not 'share the site' but are sometimes allowed to berth there. While the Sydney council may be agitating for this the land is not theirs and if local government had not be stupid enough to turn the Woolamaloo finger wharf into apartments or turn the bottom end of Darling harbour into apartments they would not be in this fix.

The impression I had was that the drama-related space issue with Sydney Harbour and FBE was between the ears of various local pollies and NIMBY's.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Find via this link that COCKATOO ISLAND will be out of bounds until COUP takeover of NSW & Federal Government by NAVY!

Cockatoo Island Sydney Harbour NSW Australia - Google Search

 

[ASSAIL]

I think that the logic of including the east coast is obvious. ASW training in EAEXA, occaisional Pacific deployments including NZ, helping with crew retention and submarine teams closely integrated with shorebased tactical training.
However, from a strategic POV I'd suggest that the main base will continue to be in WA with only one or two boats in the East on any given occassion.
Given this I'd doubt if any major changes to base infrastructure or recommissioning a sole purpose facility will eventuate, the cost is not warranted. Cockatoo Island (Trust issues), Neutral Bay (residents)and Balmoral (too exposed) are all out of the question The boats would continue to work from FBE. I also think that the Eastern side of the GI, at building 215, is probably too shallow for their 7 odd mtr draft therefor the redeveloped oil and cruiser wharves are probably the answer.

 

[Flexson]

I mentioned on here about a month ago about Concept only drawings I have seen of how to more then double wharf spaces at FBE, FBW, Coonawarra and Cairns.

The drawing for FBE showed a large amount of reclaimed land and 3 x 300m angled finger wharfs on the east side of the island. The middle wharf being double story just like the sub wharf at FBW.