Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Newman]

Four and five were delayed and then completed side by side. Configuration wise they were twins, they were, as far as I know, the only boats in the class completed to the same baseline.

V, I don’t disagree with you that they were completed side by side, or completed to the same baseline, or commissioned at the same time

But they didn’t go down the ‘start’ of the production line side by side at the same time, there was a 12mth gap.

 

[spoz]

You probably could build Arafuras in Williamstown except that:

a. The contract is with Luerssen, subbed (with CoA endorsement) to Civmec in WA, and at CoA direction to ASC (not the bit now owned by BAE) at Osborne,

b. Williamstown is owned by BAE who have no involvement in Arafuras,

c. Arafuras 1 through 5 are already under construction with six about to start, ie half the order just about is already under construction,

d. By the time you ramped up Williamstown, you would probably have nine or maybe ten well underway,

e. Where would you find the expertise? BAE is already strung out supporting T26 builds in three different countries; neither they nor anybody else in this country has shipbuilding expertise to spare given that the SSN program is not that far away. I don’t mean blue collar, although that would be a challenge in itself, I mean people capable of managing the builds. (ASC’s Arafura workforce is due to roll on to Hunter.)

f. And in any case, there is no appetite in Government for anything of the sort. They are quite happy, well as happy as they can be anyway, with the present arrangements.

 

[Redlands18]

deleted John had already added the commissioning date

 

[Volkodav]

The only option to increase the number of combatants is to follow the Arafuras with something more capable than an OPV but no more complex than the upgraded ANZACs. CIVMEC and ASC can both bash steel, while BAE, CAE do the radars and their masts, SAAB do the combat system, ultra the ASW (and some sneaky bits). The actual weapons are GFE in service gear from the usual (i.e. FMS) sources.

 

[Stampede]

Yeah I was wondering do you reckon the arafuras could possibly be built there
Build handy stuff at the modern facilities
Please understand I believe we are gonna need alot of arafuras

Was I to die this moment, ‘Want of Frigates’ would be found stamped on my heart.

Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson

Nelson’s Lament: The Woes of Frigate Navies

Was I to die this moment, ‘Want of Frigates’ would be found stamped on my heart. Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson The above complaint is surprising coming from one of the primary arbiters of…

newwars.wordpress.com

Nelson knew the importance of a balanced fleet and what each class and size of vessel brought to the mission at hand.
In today's world nothing has changed, but for the technology.

The big ships get the attention. cool,sexy,whatever!

The small stuff can often get over looked.

We should of had an OPV sized vessel a generation ago. The same for logistics, LCH replacement where are you!

Suggest a lot of questions will be bouncing around the defence department in Canberra as we speak and into the future across all three services.

For this thread and the question of the Arafura numbers I'd say yes.
We do however have two yards building them as we speak.
As to Williamstown, that is still probably a major mobilization scenario.

But lets wait and see.

Regards S

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I’m a bit confused by your use of the term ‘parallel’, we never performed parallel construction of the Collins class, or never planned it for the Attack class or will perform it for the upcoming SSNs.

Yes it’s possible, and normal, to have multiple subs (or ships) under construction at the same time, but not in ‘parallel sync’, they will all be in vastly different stages of the production process, eg, the drumbeat.

Yes the Collins class had a nominal 12mth drumbeat at the start between all six boats, but there were also varying, and significant, delays for each boat resulting in all being delivered late, all six were never at the same stage of construction.

From memory the Attack class was to have a 24mth drumbeat, yes there would have been multiple boats in the new build hall under construction at the same time, but never parallel sync, and assuming there were no delays (which you would have expected to happen early), they would have been delivered at 24mth intervals.

The future SSN drumbeat? Well that is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ question, something we won’t know for at least another 12mths or so, but I’d assume it would be based on a 24mth drumbeat, but who knows?

If you look at both the current UK and French SSN programs, their drumbeats and deliveries have been all over the place (google their programs to see the details).

The US SSN drumbeat is far better (as is the Japanese SSG program), but that is because there are multiple shipyards involved in the production process alternating deliveries.

Getting back to here in Oz, it doesn’t matter how big the new build hall is, we are simply never going to have multiple duplicate workforce’s working on multiple boats at exactly the same time.

We would also require duplicate production equipment and suppliers being able to deliver multiple components at ‘exactly’ the same time too.

It’s just not going to happen.

The best that can be hoped for is once we are up to speed after the first few boats are completed, is to be able to ‘speed up’ the drumbeat, anything else is pure fantasy.

Getting back to Collins (and the existing ASC shed), the first boat is due to start LOTE in 2026, be delivered back in 2028, and be operational for another 10yrs, eg, until 2038.

This will be repeated every 24mths, with the last boat to retire in 2048.

People can wish and want all they like for a faster build process, but look at the UK and France, very experienced SSN builders, it’s just not that simple, it’s not simple for the US either, even with multiple yards.

John

Sorry my wording was clumsy and you have clarified the situation. By parallel I only meant that there would be sevearl boats at various stages of construction in the yard at the same time. I did not mean to imply or assume that we would start construction of two SSNs at the same time. So I understand that a two year drumbeat would mean if Australian SSNs started construction in years 1, 3, 5 etc, and had a ten year construction period, they would be completed in years 11, 13, 15 etc.

My real question was whether there was a practcal constraint on how many boats could be simultaneously in the ASC yard under construction, bearing in mind that Barrow is space constrained.

 

[alexsa]

The only option to increase the number of combatants is to follow the Arafuras with something more capable than an OPV but no more complex than the upgraded ANZACs. CIVMEC and ASC can both bash steel, while BAE, CAE do the radars and their masts, SAAB do the combat system, ultra the ASW (and some sneaky bits). The actual weapons are GFE in service gear from the usual (i.e. FMS) sources.

Sorry no IMHO.... The easiest option is to update and retain the ANZAC longer (and the Collins) and increase the drum beat of the Hunter and subsequent classes. The ANZAC updates are happening .... hopefully soon. The ANZAC ASMD is quite capable and the entire conversation appears to ignore this.

The ANZAC is a complex beast by virtue of the ASMD upgrade. The fact that this has to be an effective AAW capability well over an above a 'Hail Mary' CIWS should be the absolute minimum that any new ship expected to deploy in a non-permissive environment should be understood,

If we build 'corvettes' with a short range these are only useful in a non permissive environment where the vessels are within the coverage of the Australian main land and territories. There may be a place for these ships but not in extended and convoy operations (noting convoys may not start or end in Australian waters). Is the expenditure worth it for a sub par combatant?

If we are to build a light frigate it needs to be bigger than the Arafura if it is to operate beyond the environs of Australia. It will still be limited in where it can be deployed based on the environment it is to be engaged in.... and it needd range. Nine days range at 18 knots (and that is to empty) is not an option as the AOR support would need additional hulls in an active environment.

One should never ignore the logistics support ... and the impact of having that interrupted !!!!!

 

[John Newman]

John

Sorry my wording was clumsy and you have clarified the situation. By parallel I only meant that there would be sevearl boats at various stages of construction in the yard at the same time. I did not mean to imply or assume that we would start construction of two SSNs at the same time. So I understand that a two year drumbeat would mean if Australian SSNs started construction in years 1, 3, 5 etc, and had a ten year construction period, they would be completed in years 11, 13, 15 etc.

My real question was whether there was a practcal constraint on how many boats could be simultaneously in the ASC yard under construction, bearing in mind that Barrow is space constrained.

Scott,

At this stage there is far more we don’t know than do know.

We’re 5 mths into the 18 mth taskforce examination of the options and whatever else is required.

We don’t know if the new SSN fleet will be UK or US design, or which reactor with 100% certainty.

The Federal Govt has said they will be built in Adelaide, but we don’t know what percentage of Australian content, probably less early on in the project, increasing over time (which is fairly normal).

We are probably likely, whichever design, to receive the complete reactor section from either the UK or US, is that just the reactor section or the whole back half? Don’t know.

The drumbeat? Who knows again, but you would reasonably assume that 24 mths would be a likely target.

The new build halls will probably be rather substantial in size, which is good, but that doesn’t automatically equal a fast drumbeat.

Anyway, we can all speculate till the cows come home, and likely to be all wrong too.

Just have to wait and be patient until the investigation is complete.

 

[vonnoobie]

The drumbeat? Who knows again, but you would reasonably assume that 24 mths would be a likely target.

The problem with that drum beat is that at 24 month intervals to sustain a continuous production and sustainment capability we would need a fleet of 15-16 boats (30 - 33 year lifespan in the reactors) but at present the only number we have been given as a firm figure is there is to be at least 8 boats.

This is why I questioned earlier if it is possible to have reactors with shorter life spans (ie: 24 years rather then 30+) thus by extension reducing the drumbeat because at current firm numbers the drumbeat will be closer to 48 months at current reactor lifespans for HEU.

 

[John Newman]

The problem with that drum beat is that at 24 month intervals to sustain a continuous production and sustainment capability we would need a fleet of 15-16 boats (30 - 33 year lifespan in the reactors) but at present the only number we have been given as a firm figure is there is to be at least 8 boats.

This is why I questioned earlier if it is possible to have reactors with shorter life spans (ie: 24 years rather then 30+) thus by extension reducing the drumbeat because at current firm numbers the drumbeat will be closer to 48 months at current reactor lifespans for HEU.

But.....

You are making the assumption that ‘continuous’ is still on the table for submarines, my gut says that approach is history.

When the plan was for 12 x Attack class, continuous build was certainly the case, a nominal 24 mth drumbeat, evolving batches of three, maybe slightly larger gap between each evolved batch of three too.

Get to 12 and then start again, but I think the rules of that game have now changed.

And let’s not forget that the six Collins will retire at two yearly intervals starting in 2038 and end in 2048.

The ‘at least eight’ SSNs doesn’t allow that to happen.

So.....

A 24 mth drumbeat allows for the timely replacement of six Collins with six SSN on a one for one basis, stretching out the drumbeat screws that up.

Anyway, in just over 12 months from now we should have the answer, or an indication of the likely direction for the project.

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry no IMHO.... The easiest option is to update and retain the ANZAC longer (and the Collins) and increase the drum beat of the Hunter and subsequent classes. The ANZAC updates are happening .... hopefully soon. The ANZAC ASMD is quite capable and the entire conversation appears to ignore this.

The ANZAC is a complex beast by virtue of the ASMD upgrade. The fact that this has to be an effective AAW capability well over an above a 'Hail Mary' CIWS should be the absolute minimum that any new ship expected to deploy in a non-permissive environment should be understood,

If we build 'corvettes' with a short range these are only useful in a non permissive environment where the vessels are within the coverage of the Australian main land and territories. There may be a place for these ships but not in extended and convoy operations (noting convoys may not start or end in Australian waters). Is the expenditure worth it for a sub par combatant?

If we are to build a light frigate it needs to be bigger than the Arafura if it is to operate beyond the environs of Australia. It will still be limited in where it can be deployed based on the environment it is to be engaged in.... and it needd range. Nine days range at 18 knots (and that is to empty) is not an option as the AOR support would need additional hulls in an active environment.

One should never ignore the logistics support ... and the impact of having that interrupted !!!!!

I was trying to move away from the armed opv / small corvette idea, I didn't mention a specific platform type, but rather the types of systems required for a useful addition to the fleet, i.e. upgraded ANZAC being the minimum acceptable.

Logically this would need a superior hull design, but something that could still be built by ASC and CIVMEC. I still believe we need the hunters, and if required they should be stretched, but if there is a need to increase numbers above what can be achieved through life extending the ANZACs and trying to accelerate the hunters, the only option is to follow the arafuras with a combatant type using proven, in service, systems.

If it needs to be a oatrol frigate it needs to be a patrol frigate, if it need to be an FFG or even a modern day sloop, then that's what it needs to be.

 

[vonnoobie]

But.....

You are making the assumption that ‘continuous’ is still on the table for submarines, my gut says that approach is history.

When the plan was for 12 x Attack class, continuous build was certainly the case, a nominal 24 mth drumbeat, evolving batches of three, maybe slightly larger gap between each evolved batch of three too.

Get to 12 and then start again, but I think the rules of that game have now changed.

And let’s not forget that the six Collins will retire at two yearly intervals starting in 2038 and end in 2048.

The ‘at least eight’ SSNs doesn’t allow that to happen.

So.....

A 24 mth drumbeat allows for the timely replacement of six Collins with six SSN on a one for one basis, stretching out the drumbeat screws that up.

Anyway, in just over 12 months from now we should have the answer, or an indication of the likely direction for the project.

If it's off the table then we may as well scrap it now because it means we are not even slipping into a death valley for the work force and industry that will grow around the submarines but rather diving headfirst into it. This quite literally is taking every lesson learnt on what we shouldn't do and doing the opposite.

 

[south]

If it's off the table then we may as well scrap it now because it means we are not even slipping into a death valley for the work force and industry that will grow around the submarines but rather diving headfirst into it. This quite literally is taking every lesson learnt on what we shouldn't do and doing the opposite.

At some point this has to become a case of the RAN wanting to have their cake and eating it too. I get the argument for nuclear subs (even at the additional cost, workforce sizes and delay; and I get the argument for sustainment. While you can argue that lessons have been learnt etc re ship building the key is the fundamental assumptions have changed, which warrants the current re-plan.

 

[John Newman]

If it's off the table then we may as well scrap it now because it means we are not even slipping into a death valley for the work force and industry that will grow around the submarines but rather diving headfirst into it. This quite literally is taking every lesson learnt on what we shouldn't do and doing the opposite.

“Can you have your cake and eat it too?”

Under the previous plan for 12 Attack class, yes you can.

The RAN was to receive a new boat every two years, or 24mths, (possibly a slightly bigger gap between the batches of three), industry could easily be sustained, after the 12th boat, industry starts on the next batch, the 13th is delivered, 1st boat retires, and on it goes.

And it also prevented a capability gap (Collins class boats retire every two years as planned).

But....... that’s all changed now with the number of boats being reduced down to 8 from 12.

So who gets priority now? Industry or the RAN?

My opinion it should be the RAN, it should receive the appropriate number of boats at the appropriate intervals.

Going to a 36-48mth drumbeat night be great for industry, it would be like being on a paid ‘go slow’ only working half a week, only work 4-6 hours a day, not very good for the RAN.

We might as well call the new SSNs ‘The Leap Year’ class.

I’m all for having a sustainable submarine manufacturing industry, but NOT at the expense of the RAN receiving what it needs in sufficient numbers and within a reasonable timeframe too.

So what’s the solution?

* do we shorten the service lives of very very expensive submarines that would probably have a 30yr reactor life?
* do we have ridiculously long drumbeat? 36-48mths?
* do we go beyond the ‘at least eight’ to ‘at least ten’ or more?

Here’s one idea from left field...

We do a deal with either the UK or US (depending on which design is chosen), to become part of their supply chain.

They supply completed sections to us (eg, back half complete with reactor), to get the RANs fleet of SSNs operational in a shorter time.

And then in between our build/replacement cycles, we build non reactor sections for them.

Is that a possible compromise?

Anyway, we have another year or so ahead of us to speculate as to the path Government will take.

Even then I would imagine a lot of questions will remain unanswered.

 

[vonnoobie]

Not arguing for an industry go slow but rather a long term plan that would allow the skill base that would be built up to be retained.

A go slow approach likely wouldn't be any benefit to it because that sort of approach long term tends to breed either lazy workers or disanfranchised workers neither of which would be good for the RAN.

Potentially we could get into a joint build but that would be limited entirely to the UK as US law would prohibit such a move, they might not care about small components here and there but if Australia even under a fair agreement started suppling entire boat sections you can bet some stooge in Congress will jump up and down "their taking American jobs!" so the US joint build is already a non starter.

Yes I have made mention of if we could have boats with lifespans of less then that of the US or UK but that is based entirely around the matter of whether it is possible or not of having the Australian reactors built with a shorter lifespan. Global Knowledge has shown optimal submarine lifespan is in the 18-21 year range though was info acquired from conventional boats, is there any reason to assume the same doesn't apply to nuclear boats?

Something to consider however before jumping into any defined drumbeat is how fast would we be able to train up nuclear certified crews? Could we pump out a new crew every 2 years?

But agreed still another year to wait before any true speculation can take place.

 

[Volkodav]

We currently have more money than we can spend and less capability than we need.

This is across industry and the ADF, decades of cuts have undermined our ability to to manage projects effectively, even procurement projects, i.e. buying off the shelf stuff from elsewhere. Ironically we probably have more competent engineers, scientists, technicians, trades, technical officers etc. than contracts and finance people. The mining industry and automotive industry (when we had one), produced a lots of technically competent people over the last 30 years while the ADF and APS (public service) have suffered huge cuts and an even greater change of focus due to outsourcing, now relying on a diminishing pool of competent people and way too many seat warmers in middle (and sadly sometimes, senior management).

The only way forward is to ensure we rebuild the base through consistent planning, design, development and production, otherwise we will be doomed to repeat the past, paying more for less and then discovering the economies of the past have, not only increased costs today / in the future, but also reduced our capability to turn things around. If we aren't smart this cycle will repeat until it costs us everything and there's nothing left with which to repeat.

Crawl, walk, run. Building the OPVs develops shipbuilding skills in Perth and sort of maintains them in Adelaide. The OPVs upskill the RAN minor warfare people in operating larger more capable platforms, and increases the pool of people skilled in the operation and maintenance of the SAAB combat system and interfaces. Submarines, upgrade the Collins, including new, fully fitted out replacement hull sections. This make the next step, whatever it is, easier.

From this point, depending on the strategic need, we are better set up to accelerate Hunter and SSN, better setup to build an interim SSG or FFH based on the systems developed for the Collins and ANZACs. We need to increase our options, not narrow them.

 

[ADMk2]

The only option to increase the number of combatants is to follow the Arafuras with something more capable than an OPV but no more complex than the upgraded ANZACs. CIVMEC and ASC can both bash steel, while BAE, CAE do the radars and their masts, SAAB do the combat system, ultra the ASW (and some sneaky bits). The actual weapons are GFE in service gear from the usual (i.e. FMS) sources.

The only option IF the things ‘must’ be built in Australia…

Choules and the Supply Class both show that there is not some amazing reason WHY RAN ships ‘must’ be built in Australia, other than political convenience…

They also show there are a variety of ways to acquire vessels to improve RAN capability overall, quickly…

 

[Volkodav]

The only option IF the things ‘must’ be built in Australia…

Choules and the Supply Class both show that there is not some amazing reason WHY RAN ships ‘must’ be built in Australia, other than political convenience…

They also show there are a variety of ways to acquire vessels to improve RAN capability overall, quickly…

If the fear is we are about to enter a global war who is going to have spare ships to sell to us? You can't buy overseas if all the major players are building for themselves only.

1942 anyone?

 

[oldsig127]

If the fear is we are about to enter a global war who is going to have spare ships to sell to us? You can't buy overseas if all the major players are building for themselves only.

1942 anyone?

And this is the nuts and guts. If the pandemic has taught us anything about logistics, it's that globalisation is good, but have strong domestic alternatives.

oldsig

 

[ADMk2]

If the fear is we are about to enter a global war who is going to have spare ships to sell to us? You can't buy overseas if all the major players are building for themselves only.

1942 anyone?

Indeed, but I still think that a rather ‘out there’ scenario. If nukes start getting lobbed, I cannot see what difference another few hulls of ANY type will make for us…

In a more reasonable state of the world, but one in which a reasonably rapidly expanded RAN were required, if for example we were to look at an evolved F100 based hull, or even a ’clean sheet’ F110 based hull, I suspect Navantia could produce these hulls in Spain, far faster than we will get even the first Hunter into the water…

Final fitout done down here for AEGIS etc and all our desired combat systems / Australianisation, would go close to the magical ‘politically acceptable’ local build percentage requirement anyway, as the LHD’s did, as one such example. Buying hulls elsewhere might not be so politically unpalatable when our shipyards are maxx‘d out already, yet we clearly need more capability...