Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
There are some gaps in regards to ship building etc. A newer WP would be nice.
With things economically going the way they are I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some drive to roll the AOR/Sealift into a more local project to push GDP. I wonder if they could be looking at something like the Etna class, probably small enough (approx size of a frigate should fit on the Osborne ship lift) that it could be built locally at either WA or SA yards. Much smaller ship, might be useful for smaller deployments. Still same crewing requirements.
However, I am sure the Spanish would quote us a good price on another AOR or LHD. Another LHD could replace Choules and also perform some AOR capability (limited). Another AOR would have significant crew demands so that would gobble up any crew for basically anything else.
With things economically going the way they are I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some drive to roll the AOR/Sealift into a more local project to push GDP. I wonder if they could be looking at something like the Etna class, probably small enough (approx size of a frigate should fit on the Osborne ship lift) that it could be built locally at either WA or SA yards. Much smaller ship, might be useful for smaller deployments. Still same crewing requirements.
However, I am sure the Spanish would quote us a good price on another AOR or LHD. Another LHD could replace Choules and also perform some AOR capability (limited). Another AOR would have significant crew demands so that would gobble up any crew for basically anything else.
I agree that adding more work to Australian yards would be an excellent little boost to the economy.
And yet I struggle to see where such work would be able to be fitted in.
Those yards that can are all getting geared up for all the other projects coming up the pipe.
MB
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes I'm sure that the DIIP is updated twice a year, as it was when known as the DCP, but what I can't find anymore is a 'public' version of the document.
If you've got links to the public version of DIIPs since the 2016 version, I'd love to see them.
Cheers,
AOR + Choules crews would be about 300 odd.
Choules could be crewed at merchant levels or sold off.
Crewing is really the limiting factor.
WA will need more work after the opvs. It's also not clear if sub maintenance and Collins class upgrades will happen in WA or SA. Both are going to be pretty capable yards, there is some capacity spare.
Fortunately the naval continuous ship building plan already includes following the OPVs with replacements for the other small ships of the fleet before restarting the cycle with replacements for the OPVs. Very clever of them to divine that you'd think of this several years later, and put it in the plan in advance. Mind you, the former opposition spokesman was baffled in Senate Estimates when the CoN tried to explain that to him too.
oldsig
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I still feel it's a bit of a shame that NZ and Aust weren't able to settle on a common design and enjoy the savings and support efficiencies of a three-vessel order. I can only assume that the different design requirements were too far apart to be bridged.
Presumably that was primarily the NZ requirement for Antarctic supply capability (winterisation, bow strengthening) and Australia's preference to stick with the Spanish design principles and fit-out common to much of the RAN fleet. Hopefully there will be papers released at some future point that reveal how much effort went into looking at a common design.
Anyhow, both navies have got modern AORs entering service soon, which is the main thing. And this way, there will be plenty of scope for trans-Tasman debates over who has the better design, which is a key part of internet defence commentary.
Still looks a little vauge to me what exactly they will be building after the Cape class replacements, unless we are replacing the OPV's <10 years.
Naval Construction Programs—Mobilisation | Australian National Audit Office
So the Minor naval vessel program gets a bit vague around the late 2030's.
So this is where I imagine things like, a Pacific ship, a LCH's, a small AOR, some sort of amphibious/sealift ship, corvette, new small research ships, overseas builds etc would come into play. There is of course nothing wrong with building OPV replacements in <10 years, if we have willing buyers that want something secondhand but with lots of life to go. Or we might find someone that wants to order something right now from us. Also by the 2030's, I would expect the WA yard to be up to full speed, and they could certainly create more space on the continuous build program by quickening the minor vessels drum beats. Its also not like the Cape class are really old ships, with the youngest being launched in 2017 and the oldest has been in service since 2013, and I don't believe they are having a very arduous life.
Its not certain, or perhaps likely. But I think it is worth a bit of casual discussion. What type of ships we could build locally if we needed to do so. Its also in the vagueness that people talk about giving WA the Collins class life extension and upgrades. This is some quite far in advance future planning, so it isn't surprising that it isn't completely nailed down.
Which is of course, not what the charts show, which is about 10 years between finishing the last OPV, and starting to build the first new generation OPV. By then the first of the original OPVs will be twenty or more years old. They wil be replaced sequentially, not all at once. Like all of our naval vessels will, including the ANZACs
As for debating what else could be built, fill your boots, discuss until your heart is content. But include the cost of extra building facilities and workers, because the plan is already primed to use them continuosly.
oldsig
Would it ever be economical for Australia to build larger ships such as LHD, LPD, AOR and Logistic ships domestically?
The navy is operating a number larger vessels and with the planned additional logistics/AOR and Pacific HADR ships plus several medium to large sized vessels operated by other government organisations, there might be enough there to justify an ongoing build program.
The navy is operating a number larger vessels and with the planned additional logistics/AOR and Pacific HADR ships plus several medium to large sized vessels operated by other government organisations, there might be enough there to justify an ongoing build program.
Probably not, at least not in a way which is part of a continuous build process. You’re talking of a maximum of two or three ships of differing designs over the next 20 years in a facility which would effectively have to be bigger than any currently planned; that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Governments can always do “interesting” things, though, of course.
Facilities are there already. I don't think we aren't capacity limited or bottle necked by the worksite physical structures at the published drum beat rates and they are suitable for the 3 separate production lines we have. Ships can be in various stages of completion on the same site. Drumbeat pace can be changed (and is likely to be changed as is the realities of the project) without workforce number changes, although increasing the workforce size may be one way to quicken the drum beat. Most projects find efficiencies while the project progresses, new ships would be simply to soak up those new found efficiencies as continuous ship building takes place. We could take advantage of these efficiencies by firing workers, and cutting hiring, but this would have negative impact on the sustainability of the industry in Australia.
We are basically limited by facility capability now our big construction yards have closed and redeveloped in NSW and QLD. So the lift in South Australia is probably the best location for large ship construction, and the sealift is limited to 156m long and 34m wide and 9,300 tonnes. It could be expanded to 210m length and 20,000t.
Those potentially enlarged dimensions don't really allow the kind of LHD/LPD/AOR that we would normally acquire. We could build mini versions of these, but these typically take the same crewing requirement as the 30,000t versions, while being significantly less capable. These large ships also tend to have less structure and therefore less man hours in construction, sometimes they would have similar work hours as a OPV or small frigate. So after investing in all that infrastructure upgrades, the amount of extra local work that would become available would be quite slight. Also Australia has quite a small fleet so we wouldn't be building these in number.
But we could certainly build something like a Tender ELBE 404 or a LST120. It may be worthwhile to look at such designs, if we feel the need to add that sort of capacity and through production efficiency find our self with a workforce and facility capacity to do so. Such items might also be very welcome gifts of military aid in the region, being quite useful, noncombat, low crewing and low operational costs.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think that ship has sailed (pun intended), at least for a number of decades.
The two Canberra class LHDs won't likely be replaced until around 2050, the two yet to be delivered Supply class AORs won't need replacing until the mid 2050s.
That just leaves two possible large ships between now and then, the 3rd AOR or 2nd LPD (one or other, not both at this stage) and the replacement for Choules around 2030.
It is probably worth the Government of the day (in the earlish 2040s) to look at increasing the size of shiplift/floating docks to allow for the possible local build of LHD and AOR replacements around 2050, but in the next few years, don't think so.
If Government/Navy go ahead with a 3rd AOR, is it worth building facilities and producing a 'one off' design? I could imagine a fairly large premium would be paid, better off having our Spanish friends build that 3rd AOR.
If the decision is to go ahead with a possible 2nd LPD (and followed a Choules replacement), the build of a class of two identical ships could be worth considering, but I would also imagine that Spain, The Netherlands and UK may also be looking at replacing their Enforcer based ship designs around that time too. Our Spanish friends could potentially offer us a deal too good to pass up for those two potential LPDs.
As for the proposed Pacific HADR ship, until there is further info as to size, design and planned in service date, that's still a 'how long is a piece of string' question, if its to be under 10,000t (such as a Damen LPD 8000 for example) that could possibly be built using the existing lift capabilities (including the floating dock in WA).
Anyway, I'm not against building larger ships here, it just appears to me that the timing is not right is all.
Cheers,
No doubt it would be cheaper to build overseas but developing a healthy domestic shipbuilding industry might be worth the investment in the longer term. It could be possible to use the same hull design for the proposed HADR, Logistics and Choules replacement ships. If NZ could be enticed it might be suitable as a replacement for HMNZS Canterbury as well.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Anything is possible, but not necessarily probable.
I think we are seeing the start of a healthy domestic shipbuilding industry, the question is what have we got to feed it? feed it enough so it doesn't starve (valley of death springs to mind?). I'm more than happy to pay a 'reasonable' premium (dollars go around and around in the economy), but not a bottomless pit of dollars that has the potential to rob other projects.
Personally I don't see enough 'large' ships to feed the machine (not until around 2050), and you will see highs and lows in manpower required to build those few and far between large ships (again, valley of death springs to mind) alongside the manpower required for the ships currently planned.
Happy to be proved wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
Cheers,
We won't ever have a line dedicated to large ships. They would have to be built at the existing 3 facilities, with significant upgrade costs to do that. It might make sense to look at that again in 2050.
I also understand things are super sensitive about the Collins ongoing maintenance work and rumoured shifting to WA. I don't want to get involved in that. Either way there might be a need to offer a conciliatory project to either side, or something may become available due to wonderful positive things like work efficiencies.
Just thinking through possible options. Smaller ships could provide some small scale capability, but with smaller crew requirements. They could operate in support of smaller missions say in the Pacific or when there is only a small commitment afar (the Gulf?).
Damen LST120 - Crew 22.
Lurssen Elbe - Crew 38. Quite an old design, Lurssen has it in their catalog, but I would imagine it would need a fair bit or re-working, but it would be doable. We already have a relationship with Lurssen. I am curious how the Germans use this as submarine/OPV tender
On top of their main capabilities, they could at a pinch perform OPV type duties or other support roles. Perhaps two of each, one of each type for each coast would be useful. While that sounds fanciful, the crewing requirements would be fairly modest, and the purchase cost is effectively negated effectively being fruits produced by our continuous ship building trees. They are also the sort of ships others might be interested in who don't have any dedicated amphibious or AOR supply type capabilities but would like to acquire something like that.
We could build these type of ships at either WA or SA with our current facilities if space was found in the continuous build schedule.
I also understand things are super sensitive about the Collins ongoing maintenance work and rumoured shifting to WA. I don't want to get involved in that. Either way there might be a need to offer a conciliatory project to either side, or something may become available due to wonderful positive things like work efficiencies.
Just thinking through possible options. Smaller ships could provide some small scale capability, but with smaller crew requirements. They could operate in support of smaller missions say in the Pacific or when there is only a small commitment afar (the Gulf?).
Damen LST120 - Crew 22.
Lurssen Elbe - Crew 38. Quite an old design, Lurssen has it in their catalog, but I would imagine it would need a fair bit or re-working, but it would be doable. We already have a relationship with Lurssen. I am curious how the Germans use this as submarine/OPV tender
On top of their main capabilities, they could at a pinch perform OPV type duties or other support roles. Perhaps two of each, one of each type for each coast would be useful. While that sounds fanciful, the crewing requirements would be fairly modest, and the purchase cost is effectively negated effectively being fruits produced by our continuous ship building trees. They are also the sort of ships others might be interested in who don't have any dedicated amphibious or AOR supply type capabilities but would like to acquire something like that.
We could build these type of ships at either WA or SA with our current facilities if space was found in the continuous build schedule.
The Supply Class are listed as being 70cm longer than the HMNZS Aotearoa so they are obviously the better ship.
End of conversation
Regards S
As they say in the classics “length ain’t everything”The Supply Class are listed as being 70cm longer than the HMNZS Aotearoa so they are obviously the better ship.
End of conversation
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Are you referring to a domestic naval shipbuilding industry, or are you also including merchant/commercial and civilian shipping?
I believe that the current plans should provide for most of the RAN and AusGov shipbuilding needs, but apart from production of specialty ships, Australia is really not in a position to compete in the global large shipbuilding market. Significant resources (and likely subsidies) would need to be injected to really build such a capability, and given that the Australian shipbuilding industry would be competing a number of other nations' shipbuilding that either have significantly greater capacity AND lower costs/wages, or significantly greater capacity AND well established efficiencies/economies of scale, I just do not foresee Australia being able to accomplish that.
As it is, we have already seen some of the specialty Australian shipbuilding getting moved overseas. I am specifically referring to Austal moving their commercial aluminium cat/fast ferry production to the Philippines, although I suppose that should have been expected given how Austal had been bringing workers in from overseas on work visas to weld and fabricate the aluminium vessels in Austal yards in WA for some time as opposed to competing for or training Australians who could work aluminium.
- Status