Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[spoz]

I was involved in a study for an FBE relocation in the early 90s - the cost then was estimated at around $30 billion in then year dollars although that did include a replacement for the CCD. I doubt if it’s got any less since.

Both Port Kembla and Newcastle have been mentioned in the press as possible ECBs for s/ms. Port Kembla, at least, seems to have been lobbying quite hard for it at one point. The reasons for two ocean basing of the submarine fleet have always been both strategic and pragmatic- the latter being about where the majority of crews are originally drawn from (and therefore they and their partners have support structures), and where the majority of the current workforce now call home.

As previously discussed, the new Capes are apparently in lieu of upgrading Armidales (which are approaching the end of their designed lives) so as to provide adequate resources while the Arafuras, which are much more complex ships, are built; remembering that the last of those is probably not due for completion for some ten years. That is, it is about keeping numbers up, not adding to them. There may also be an element of keeping WA happy from a political standpoint for all I know. I very much doubt it has anything to do with the current situation - Government doesn’t work that fast; and in any case rumours about the purchase were around last year.

 

[hauritz]

I wonder if having a fleet of patrol bots right now might be in response to a possible flood of covid 19 refugees from our neighbour?
Remember that the Jakarta metro area has a population of close 33 million and no national healthcare system and no unemployment benefits. If Covid goes NYC , in Jakarta, then it will be a massive disaster and people will want to get out. Meanwhile here in the NT we had 27 cases and no new cases for 3 weeks....just a thought.

Yes, that would be a potential disaster in the making.
It might not be a simple as turning back the boats either.
My understanding is that if we were to intercept a boat full of Coronavirus refugees we would be required to provide some degree of medical assistance.
Australia may well find itself in the position of having to provide care for anyone that manages to enter our territorial waters or requests medical evacuation to the closest port of call.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I thought their patrol boats were already based out of Lombrunn? Iirc it was one of the early justifications/articles we had in regards to Manus Island, which surrounded upgrading facilities for the four new boats (before the news of a more major project).

They have and do base their patrol boats mostly out of Lombrum. But the existing facilities there were pretty terrible and in disrepair. But due to its location, other Pacific boat nations could conduct joint operations around that area. Without the upgrades its doubtful if PNG would have been able to conduct any meaningful missions out of Lombrum.

We are also helping Timor-Leste develop their naval base at Hera.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

When Cockatoo Island Dockyard was operational submarine basing options such as Waterhen and Platypus (Neutral Bay) we’re viable because all but the most basic maintenance could be done at CODOCK.
Both the above bases are very limited in land available to build new infrastructure so I’d consider Waterhen a non starter.
Now that the Commonwealth has handed Cockatoo Island over to Heritage I certainly can’t see any revival there either.

That leaves either a new base in Sydney harbour which would have to be away from residential areas as much as possible or further development of FBE.

IMO I think Waterhen might be considered as an interim base until something gets going.. I think eventually they will be based out of Sydney.

Newcastle has some advantages. Civmec I believe still owns the original foracs yards (now closed) there. So if we are talking about minor maintenance facilities then that probably strengthens that argument. Plenty of Traffic heading globally from Newcastle currently, India, China, Japan, Korea, lots of possible schedules. Both sites the Navy could take over significantly large sites, have room for large surface ships as well, visiting ships, onsite accommodation, and desirable locations. Both Port Kembla and Newcastle are close enough to Sydney to be able to draw recruitment from the 6+ million that live in that region, which includes a large number of the largest RAN bases.

 

[Volkodav]

Really not sure what to think about the Cape order, not really impressed with them, or the Armidales, to be honest I don't particularly like Austal or how they do things either. Perfectly happy to see cash go to additional OPVs, maybe even an extra hull each to ASC and Civmec with Civmecs build schedule being accelerated, especially as the government promised two MCMV roled OPV derivatives.

Looking outside the square, if saving Austal is so important, why not order Guardian Class PBs, cheaper to build, operate and maintain, steel hull, currently in production, and with the Arafuras coming online, do we need a second string PB to be as big as a Cape? Once the Arafuras are in service the Guardians could be assigned to training and support roles at Cerberus, Creswell and the main fleet bases.

Sorry but really not a fan of aluminium PBs or Austal, though my opinion is mild compared to what many in uniform have said.

 

[Hazdog]

Really not sure what to think about the Cape order, not really impressed with them, or the Armidales, to be honest I don't particularly like Austal or how they do things either. Perfectly happy to see cash go to additional OPVs, maybe even an extra hull each to ASC and Civmec with Civmecs build schedule being accelerated, especially as the government promised two MCMV roled OPV derivatives.

Looking outside the square, if saving Austal is so important, why not order Guardian Class PBs, cheaper to build, operate and maintain, steel hull, currently in production, and with the Arafuras coming online, do we need a second string PB to be as big as a Cape? Once the Arafuras are in service the Guardians could be assigned to training and support roles at Cerberus, Creswell and the main fleet bases.

Sorry but really not a fan of aluminium PBs or Austal, though my opinion is mild compared to what many in uniform have said.

Definitely some good points you've made, but I believe the reason for the purchase is both for economic stimulus and for a genuine stop-gap capability to jump in for some of the Armidale's, as I've heard from many they're about gone (I'm sure if anyone on here is up north, they may be able to shed more light onto just how much life is still in the Armidales).

I might also suggest that from publicly available sources, the Cape's are better suited to RAN operations relating to speed, range, etc.

 

[Volkodav]

The Capes are bigger, prettier Armidales with some nice features, including more spacious and easy to maintain machinery spaces, as well as thicker framing. Unfortunately they still have aluminium hulls, PVC pipe work and many of the same engineering issues shared with the Armidales, dare I mention stern tubes.

Don't know what they are doing at the moment, but back when they were building the first lot of Capes, they were bringing in their Pilipino work force on 457 visas to do a lot of the work, building them ahead of schedule then sending the workers home. What was being sold as job creation and skills training for WA, as the mining construction boom wound down, was really just profit creation, by Austal.

Been a few years since I've been to Henderson so can't say what is happening now, but the way they did things was definitely more SME than major project, which is why there have been so many quality, design and sustainment issues. There have been efforts to improve, i.e. them advertising for quality and systems engineering professionals, but were they hired and have they been allowed to make a difference?

 

[Volkodav]

Finally got around to reading the ABDR article on the Hobarts, had a false start and stopped after reading "John F Adams/Perth class DDGs", forced myself to pick it up again today.

Some of it is basically along the line of what happened but a lot of it is a case of the victors being allowed to write the history. Williamstown was a basket case having been completely run down by the shipbuilding black hole post ANZAC, most of their best and brightest had moved on to ASC Shipbuilding, or even other industries. It wasn't until BAE, incredibly embarrassed by the Hull Block debacle, beamed in a stack of people from the UK, as well as head hunting where they could, that they turned around and became very capable and proficient. They were miles ahead of Navantia in terms of competence and capability by the time Navantia were handed control of the DDG build.

Got a chuckle out of Peter Crossers quoted comment near the end that now they had "grey beards" with scars and experience from the lessons learned and were in a better place to go forward. There were grey beards on the project from day one but they weren't listened to, one in particular comes to mind, the projects first test director. Ex RAN WO who built the Survey Motor Launches, the last two FFGs, before retiring from RAN and joining test and certification on the Collins build. Trouble is he didn't have a degree and hadn't been an officer, so time and time again we would see him tell the powers that be, if you do this (or don't do) then this will happen and it will take …… to fix it, time and time again he was ignored, then proven right. Not a case of "I told you so" its please get this right because at the end of the day the ship may as well have ASC painted on the side, no matter who is actually at fault.

Navantias proposal the get things back on track consisted of ASCs proposal with a Navantia letter head. There was a need to force Navantia to have skin in the game, that was true, saying they were never approached or consulted is so wrong I call porkies! A recurring issue was how long it took to get answers from them on technical issues, and then, possibly due to the slash and burn redundancies they suffered during the GFC, the answer wasn't available or was wrong. There were even cases where we asked a question, their reply was they had never encountered that issue, and we must have done something wrong, then in another forum they admit they had seen the issue, fixed it and forgotten (covered it up). There were set in concrete requirements that the design was incapable of meeting that Navantia signed off as met, no deviation, no waiver, they just lied, we would encounter then and ask how they addressed the issue and there was no answer, or they hinted we should just lie too. It got worse after I left, oh and the grey beard test director, he was shunted sideways and replaced with someone from Navantia who was one of the hardest to get straight answers out of.

The irony is the G&C proposal was a warts and all assuming extensive detail design and capability building in Australia, the Existing option was a fairy land joke that assumed everything was going to be peachy, build to print using and existing supply chain. When the F-100 was selected the knowledgeable and experienced people from the Evolved proposal moved over to existing and began the work to actually build the ships and discovered that the assumptions behind the F-100 bid were basically over optimistic fiction.

 

[SteveR]

Finally got around to reading the ABDR article on the Hobarts, had a false start and stopped after reading "John F Adams/Perth class DDGs", forced myself to pick it up again today.

When the F-100 was selected the knowledgeable and experienced people from the Evolved proposal moved over to existing and began the work to actually build the ships and discovered that the assumptions behind the F-100 bid were basically over optimistic fiction.

The question must then be asked how come Tenix together with Blohm and Voss did so much better with the ANZAC class back in the 1990s. Perhaps if Tenix had been selected as the construction yard back in 2004/5 the AWDs may have built on time and cost - as Tenix had experience at building surface ships which ASC during the tender evaluation stage did not.

 

[Volkodav]

The question must then be asked how come Tenix together with Blohm and Voss did so much better with the ANZAC class back in the 1990s. Perhaps if Tenix had been selected as the construction yard back in 2004/5 the AWDs may have built on time and cost - as Tenix had experience at building surface ships which ASC during the tender evaluation stage did not.

Easy, the Australian Frigate Project to build the final pair of FFGs, preceded the ANZAC project and was restructured to prepare the yard for the new project. The yard was privatised, there were ten ships following two ships, no blackhole, no government ownership and associated micro management, predominantly local supply chain and a competent, engaged designer with extensive experience in technology transfers and supporting local builds.

 

[Stampede]

Really not sure what to think about the Cape order, not really impressed with them, or the Armidales, to be honest I don't particularly like Austal or how they do things either. Perfectly happy to see cash go to additional OPVs, maybe even an extra hull each to ASC and Civmec with Civmecs build schedule being accelerated, especially as the government promised two MCMV roled OPV derivatives.

Looking outside the square, if saving Austal is so important, why not order Guardian Class PBs, cheaper to build, operate and maintain, steel hull, currently in production, and with the Arafuras coming online, do we need a second string PB to be as big as a Cape? Once the Arafuras are in service the Guardians could be assigned to training and support roles at Cerberus, Creswell and the main fleet bases.

Sorry but really not a fan of aluminium PBs or Austal, though my opinion is mild compared to what many in uniform have said.

Volk I agree that an increase in numbers of OPV's would have been a better long term investment than additional CCPB's.
An extra pair of vessels from both ASC and Civmecs with an acceleration in time table would of provided a wise fiscal stimulus spend and also have accommodated the MCMV / Survey replacements.................. Yes four vessels not the three proposed.
Hopefully two happy states with federal investment.
If boarder force need an extra vessel or two than add that to the stimulus package.

With Boarder force and the RAN now to operate two like vessels, this strikes me as a rather clunky arrangement.
Maybe the Commonwealth may need to look at this situation.
Is Boarder force to become a true Coast Guard and how will this evolve?
Should they get all the Cape class vessels and maybe the OPV's as well, or should Navy operate all these vessels?
I have heard of the cost advantages of utilising the Marine Unit of Boarder force and also the leasing arrangement be Navy being cost effective, but maybe in a bigger picture the Commonwealth might be better served if they were all painted Haze Grey.

I would prefer to see the above vessels mix crewed by both Navy and Boarder Force.
The main running of the ships would belong to the Navy with Boarder Force personal carrying our the constabulary stuff.
Indeed I could envisage a small cadre of Boarder force personal on all our major fleet units when engaged in a constabulary role.
The mix from each department would be mission dependant, with the ships being predominately Navy crewed most of the time particularly when conducting major fleet activities.
The relationship between Defence and Boarder Force would be strengthened and opportunities within Navy would grow with a larger fleet and trust efficiencies of training and crewing gained by keeping all these vessels within one organisation.

Thoughts


Regards S
T

 

[hauritz]

Is Boarder force to become a true Coast Guard and how will this evolve?

I remember that Kim Beazley was pushing the idea of combining that various border protection forces into a coast guard. Combining the various constabulary forces under a single banner could be more efficient. It could also free up manpower for the navy.
The downside is that the extra money for this would have to come from somewhere and the ADF wouldn't want it coming out of their budget.

 

[spoz]

Don't believe all the propaganda. From somebody who was intimately associated with the early days of the ANZAC project - it wasn't all that different despite the "leg up" from the AF Project (which I also had a fair bit of involvement with, but that's another story). I've forgotten now how many times the schedule for the ANZAC project was rebaselined; at least two or three. Plus, we had issues with the quality of construction in a number of areas. Plus, in that Program there were early in service issues. And the list goes on.

 

[alexsa]

Volk I agree that an increase in numbers of OPV's would have been a better long term investment than additional CCPB's.
An extra pair of vessels from both ASC and Civmecs with an acceleration in time table would of provided a wise fiscal stimulus spend and also have accommodated the MCMV / Survey replacements.................. Yes four vessels not the three proposed.
Hopefully two happy states with federal investment.
If boarder force need an extra vessel or two than add that to the stimulus package.

With Boarder force and the RAN now to operate two like vessels, this strikes me as a rather clunky arrangement.
Maybe the Commonwealth may need to look at this situation.
Is Boarder force to become a true Coast Guard and how will this evolve?
Should they get all the Cape class vessels and maybe the OPV's as well, or should Navy operate all these vessels?
I have heard of the cost advantages of utilising the Marine Unit of Boarder force and also the leasing arrangement be Navy being cost effective, but maybe in a bigger picture the Commonwealth might be better served if they were all painted Haze Grey.

I would prefer to see the above vessels mix crewed by both Navy and Boarder Force.
The main running of the ships would belong to the Navy with Boarder Force personal carrying our the constabulary stuff.
Indeed I could envisage a small cadre of Boarder force personal on all our major fleet units when engaged in a constabulary role.
The mix from each department would be mission dependant, with the ships being predominately Navy crewed most of the time particularly when conducting major fleet activities.
The relationship between Defence and Boarder Force would be strengthened and opportunities within Navy would grow with a larger fleet and trust efficiencies of training and crewing gained by keeping all these vessels within one organisation.

Thoughts


Regards S
T

There seems to be an assumption that the Lussen hull can be all things to all requirements related to MCM and survey as well as being an OPV. There is no evidence this is the case and the intergrated investment plan does not suggest the OPV will also cover the MCM and survey role.

This does not mean it will not but there is no evidence to say it will be suitable .... and even if it was suitable it wouel need to be modified from the base design.

 

[Volkodav]

There seems to be an assumption that the Lussen hull can be all things to all requirements related to MCM and survey as well as being an OPV. There is no evidence this is the case and the intergrated investment plan does not suggest the OPV will also cover the MCM and survey role.

This does not mean it will not but there is no evidence to say it will be suitable .... and even if it was suitable it wouel need to be modified from the base design.

Hi Alex, I was referring to the election promise to acquire an additional two hulls (assumed to be modified OPVs) for the MCMV role. It will be interesting to see what roles the OPV can carry out efficiently and effectively as it provides the RAN with the potential to get useful life out of the platform even if a changing strategic situation forces the adoption of a more warfare orientated minor warfare vessel down the road. This is one of the reasons I have doubts about the economy and future utility of buying additional Capes, they are patrol vessels and can only be used as such, as well as training platforms, but how many of those do we needs. If circumstances change they will be useless.

 

[Volkodav]

Don't believe all the propaganda. From somebody who was intimately associated with the early days of the ANZAC project - it wasn't all that different despite the "leg up" from the AF Project (which I also had a fair bit of involvement with, but that's another story). I've forgotten now how many times the schedule for the ANZAC project was rebaselined; at least two or three. Plus, we had issues with the quality of construction in a number of areas. Plus, in that Program there were early in service issues. And the list goes on.

Very true and illustrates the rule of thumb that you need to build at least four hulls before you start seeing consistent economies of scale. When you only acquire ships in classes of two and three you never gain the benefit. Don't know how many time it has been mentioned on here, including by people such as yourself.

I have heard HMAS Perth being referred to as HMAS Rotable Parts Pool, the other extreme of a batch build. As each ship was constructed, any equipment that was faulty, damaged or not performing as required, it was replaced with the item intended for the next ship, eventually resulting in Perth, the last of the class, receiving a disproportionate amount of refurbished and not quite up to scratch equipment.

I actually asked the question about a decade ago, whether it would be worthwhile ordering additional DDGs to replace the earliest ANZACs, say an additional three, before moving onto the ANZAC replacement proper. The answer was, yes it makes sense in a shipbuilding and capability sense, but accountants and politicians don't think ike that, they believe ship building is easy and can just be switched on and off as required.

 

[spoz]

Indeed; that's why we need a continuous shipbuilding program. I may have mentioned this before, but I was talking to one of the real workers the other day (he was doing dimensional control on the hull join) and he said "after the AWDs and this lot, we can build anything". He's right; the skills he and the rest of the workforce learned they won't unlearn. The OPVs are smaller and simpler and naturally require a smaller workforce than the AWDs did but at least there is still an experienced core in the shipyard. The pity is that there wasn't a direct roll in from AWD to the Hunters as that would have kept more of the workforce immediately involved in shipbuilding rather than losing some of them to the mining or offshore industries; but at least they are still out there with the skills and a number who aren't into FIFO or who want security of employment may well return once SEA 5000 ramps up.

 

[Volkodav]

Indeed; that's why we need a continuous shipbuilding program. I may have mentioned this before, but I was talking to one of the real workers the other day (he was doing dimensional control on the hull join) and he said "after the AWDs and this lot, we can build anything". He's right; the skills he and the rest of the workforce learned they won't unlearn. The OPVs are smaller and simpler and naturally require a smaller workforce than the AWDs did but at least there is still an experienced core in the shipyard. The pity is that there wasn't a direct roll in from AWD to the Hunters as that would have kept more of the workforce immediately involved in shipbuilding rather than losing some of them to the mining or offshore industries; but at least they are still out there with the skills and a number who aren't into FIFO or who want security of employment may well return once SEA 5000 ramps up.

Initially, there wasn't meant to be a quality control function at all, trade supervisors were meant to sign off the work was done and send the OQE back to planning, including all the weld inspections, pressure and leak testing, electrical continuance etc. Not sure how they planned to do Weight Control, Dimensional Control, Survey etc. probably contract it in as required, but there was no expectation to have to do SQA at all, due to using Navantias existing supply chain, and relying on OQE provided from the suppliers on face value.

Anyway at CDR, Ed Kracunas the chief marine surveyor from ABS (who Raytheon had contracted in) basically told the head shed they were insane, pointing out that even BIW, who had been building Burkes for twenty years at that point, wouldn't try to do it without a quality control function, and even then they were overseen by NAVSEA SUPSHIPS. The disconnect seemed to be that Navantia didn't have a quality function, therefore we didn't need one either, completely over looking the fact that the Armadas equivalent to SUPSHIPS (ICOFA or similar if I recall correctly) filled the function for them. That was a recurring problem, the contract assumed a build to print on the design data and build strategy provided by Navantia, while Navantia either assumed we had the things they didn't cover in their deliverable, or didn't care. I recall the BIW personnel imbedded in the project were very uncomfortable with the build strategy and blasé attitude the Spanish had to many things they saw as critical.

Anyway, Eds input gave the Grey hairs the ammo they needed to get the Quality function up and running and they have done some outstanding work. There were still major issues, but mostly in areas where Quality and Certification weren't allowed to stick their noses in, i.e. Navantias supply chain and, initially, the block subcontractors.

 

[Wombat000]

Sorry for the one liner, quick Q:
Re: the OPV base design for MCM, does it matter that its a steel hull?

 

[spoz]

That would depend on the MCM concept that was to be implemented.

If it was to enter the suspected minefield with influence or mechanical sweeps attached to the ship to sweep, or to position RoVs or divers to hunt, then probably, yes. Deperming and degaussing are useful but don't reduce signatures to the level normally required for that. That's why current generation serious hunters and sweepers generally have glass fibre or wooden hulls (there is a low magnetic steel but I think the jury is out on that)

If, on the other hand, the concept is to stand off and utilise USVs or UUVs to do the hunting or sweeping, then it probably is fine to have a steel hull.

 

[Volkodav]

That would depend on the MCM concept that was to be implemented.

If it was to enter the suspected minefield with influence or mechanical sweeps attached to the ship to sweep, or to position RoVs or divers to hunt, then probably, yes. Deperming and degaussing are useful but don't reduce signatures to the level normally required for that. That's why current generation serious hunters and sweepers generally have glass fibre or wooden hulls (there is a low magnetic steel but I think the jury is out on that)

If, on the other hand, the concept is to stand off and utilise USVs or UUVs to do the hunting or sweeping, then it probably is fine to have a steel hull.

I'm pretty sure some of the Flight IIA Burkes have MCM ROVs in place of one of the RIBS, could well be an option for the Hunters with their quite spacious mission bays, as well as the OPVs. What could be interesting is if we do an LCH replacement with the capacity to carry and operate whatever mission modules we end up getting to the OPVs. MCM, survey, special forces insertion etc. could all be supported by what ever platform was deemed necessary the operational environment.