Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

I presume we would let the Hobart upgrade slip until after the delivery of the first new Hobart as well. This would avoid the capability gap entirely, balance out the work and let asc do its thing. The 3 Hobart's were constructed at ASC, so it is the obvious place to build them, even if some minor work got pushed over to civmec to make that happen. However as Volk points out, not a whole bunch of structural work is going on.

However, the government does need to shuffle some timeframes, but this is required anyway to avoid a capability gap. It would seem doable.

While the Hobarts aren't a submarine they can do land attack and ASW, so we would be gaining something while Collins LOTE occurs. We wouldn't be shrinking our navy, taking the hobarts and collins both out, with nothing going into the water.

The sail away cost of the 3rd Hobart was about $2 billion. Spain isn't promising to build them any cheaper than we were. They just have a state run yard backed by a government who believes they can do it. While its been since 2015 since we have laid down a Hobart, and 2 years since its commissioning, its been since 2007 laying in Spain and 10 years commissioning. In that time it is Australia who has invested in new yards, and invested in the f-105/hobart design making it digital and improving it.

Will be interesting.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Serious question for those who know - is there capacity in ASC to build both the Collins LOTE and more AWDs at the same time?

Follow on question - is there capacity to build both SSNs and Hunter Class frigates in ASC at the same time?

If not we need more capacity. Otherwise the naval shipbuilding program looks undeliverable In the time required.

 

[Volkodav]

The ideal would deliver one, upgrade one, deliver one. Each new ship gets the crew from the Hobart going into upgrade, each upgraded Hobart gets the crew from an ANZAC heading to upgrade, each upgraded ANZAC get the crew from one being retired.

The upgraded ANZACs are retired as the Hunters enter service, either one for one, or one for two as the fleet grows.

 

[Volkodav]

Serious question for those who know - is there capacity in ASC to build both the Collins LOTE and more AWDs at the same time?

Follow on question - is there capacity to build both SSNs and Hunter Class frigates in ASC at the same time?

If not we need more capacity. Otherwise the naval shipbuilding program looks undeliverable In the time required.

Completely different skill sets required by the two projects, and remember, WA was telling us less than a year ago that they are better than SA doing Sub work.

Blocks for the AWD were fabricated in Adelaide, Melbourne, Newcastle and Ferrol. Civmec in Henderson could easily do as well, I expect better, than Williamstowns initial efforts.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Volkodav

OK thanks. The reason I ask is that, looking at successive Defence White papers, and the age of the Anzacs and Collins, the 2010s were something of a “lost decade” with Defence failing to progress both the Collins and Frigate projects as quickly as required. The 3 AWDs completed were only half the number of hulls required to match the intended 2009 build rate. (This is a criticism of Defence procurement not ASC or the RAN.) So if we are to reach 2040 (never mind 2030 as originally intended) with an up to date fleet of the intended size, there is a need for some “catch-up” construction. I am trying to understand whether it is possible to achieve that by increasing the pace of local construction at ASC (or Perth) or ordering the difference from overseas such as by accepting the Navantia offer.

So considering the surface ships first, would it save any time over delivery of the Hunter frigates to build more AWDs locally first? If not we should proceed with the Hunters ASAP, but also accept the Navantia offer, because there does not seem any other way to get enough hulls in the water fast enough. Looking at Volkodavs reply it looks like a parallel build of 3 AWDs sharing work with Perth as well is possible. That seems desirable. NB apologies if this sounds like fantasy fleets; I am just trying to understand how we can get the planned capability or as close to it as possible in the water sooner than proposed at present.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Volkodov

Similarly with the subs, noting they are a very specialist skill, can the LOTE and SSN work proceed in parallel at ASC to recover some lost time to get earlier delivery? If not the SSN work would not begin until the LOTE work was completed, which would be a large delay. I assume this is not the case i.e. LOTE is a separate project.

i have a concern about the intended date of SSN construction being delayed. I would have expected that the ASC sub build facilities would need to be both expanded and upgraded to meet USN or RN nuclear engineering standards for safety. This would include containment structures, security etc. In the UK such upgrades are large tasks - £2 billion for Devonport dock 10 for the Dreadnought program - and take 2 to 3 years civil construction time. Yet I did not see any allowance for this work included in the last budget.

I acknowledge a bias in hoping that the RAN adopts the Astute design. Again looking at the delivery time, while local construction is desirable and ultimately necessary, there would be many advantages if the first 1 or 2 SSNs were built overseas in the country of origin, and the rest following in ASC. In terms of timely delivery, capability and skills development, such builds would provide an invaluable template for local crews and constructors to learn from.

Finally, I did not post this link a few weeks ago so as not to overstep the mark, but this UK news story suggests that Astutes might well be the planned SSNs for the RAN. It quotes a NSW trade official(?) referring to Rolls Royce being the likely reactor supplier for RAN SSNs under AUKUs. That would obviously imply adoption of Astues or a “Batch 2“ Astute successor

Rolls-Royce 'highly likely' to provide the engines for AUKUS

ROLLS-ROYCE is "highly likely" to supply the engines for AUKUS nuclear submarines, according to one Australian official.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Redlands18]

Volkodov

Similarly with the subs, noting they are a very specialist skill, can the LOTE and SSN work proceed in parallel at ASC to recover some lost time to get earlier delivery? If not the SSN work would not begin until the LOTE work was completed, which would be a large delay. I assume this is not the case i.e. LOTE is a separate project.

i have a concern about the intended date of SSN construction being delayed. I would have expected that the ASC sub build facilities would need to be both expanded and upgraded to meet USN or RN nuclear engineering standards for safety. This would include containment structures, security etc. In the UK such upgrades are large tasks - £2 billion for Devonport dock 10 for the Dreadnought program - and take 2 to 3 years civil construction time. Yet I did not see any allowance for this work included in the last budget.

I acknowledge a bias in hoping that the RAN adopts the Astute design. Again looking at the delivery time, while local construction is desirable and ultimately necessary, there would be many advantages if the first 1 or 2 SSNs were built overseas in the country of origin, and the rest following in ASC. In terms of timely delivery, capability and skills development, such builds would provide an invaluable template for local crews and constructors to learn from.

Finally, I did not post this link a few weeks ago so as not to overstep the mark, but this UK news story suggests that Astutes might well be the planned SSNs for the RAN. It quotes a NSW trade official(?) referring to Rolls Royce being the likely reactor supplier for RAN SSNs under AUKUs. That would obviously imply adoption of Astues or a “Batch 2“ Astute successor

Rolls-Royce 'highly likely' to provide the engines for AUKUS

ROLLS-ROYCE is "highly likely" to supply the engines for AUKUS nuclear submarines, according to one Australian official.

www.express.co.uk

The plan has always been to construct a new site for building Subs and that work is already underway(originally to build the 12 Attacks) and a further 45 Hectares was added a few months back. The Collins LOTE will be done in a separate area where Collins class work has always been done. Osborn will always need enough room to be able to both build Subs and Refit subs at the same time. Don't forget that by the time SSN-7 is being built SSN-1 will be in refit.

 

[hauritz]

I have never really understood why building lead ships or submarines overseas until we have the capacity to build them in Australia was such an issue. To start with no work is being taken away from the local industry because the capability to build these vessels does not yet exist.

Part of any overseas building arrangement could be work share and the provision of training for key personnel. In other words work and opportunities for local industry could happen sooner with lead vessels being built OS rather than having to wait until production can start in Australia.

Secondly it should be understood that the whole point of a continuous build program is just that, it is continuous. There will be follow on orders. Really the only discussion is on how soon that production can start and how does the navy deal with any capability gap until full local production commences.

 

[vonnoobie]

At the end of the day it all comes down to a risk analysis.

Dont build them?
- High chance of reduction in available fleet assets going forward between upgrades to the Hobarts and age of the Anzacs

Build in Spain?
- No guaratee the build will be any better or stay on budget
- Gap still exists between completion of prototype blocks, completion of ASC work on Arafura's and the start of work on Hunters
- Does nothing to benefit local industry, build up work force numbers etc
- Reduces risk of available asset reduction

Build in Australia?
- Fills in gap between work completed and work to be started
- Allows industry and workforce to be built up earlier potentially leading to positive effects when the Hunter build is started
- Most funds even at a premium would be spent locally creating flow on effects through extra jobs and all the taxes involved from GST, Corporate tax, Payroll tax and income tax which all those taxes alone once combined can just as easily eliminate if not vastly reduce the amount of the premium
- Reduces risk of available asset reduction
- No guarantee the build will be any better or stay on budget
- Chance that problems in the build could lead to greater slippage in start of the Hunter build (Though benefit does also apply here)
1. Chance of thise occuring is lessoned due to the greater emphasis placed on learning and avoiding such mistakes made in the Hobart build with the Hunter build, Those same lessons and policies will directly derisk a Hobart 2.0 build
2. Should such occure two positives could come about from it.
A. The stupid mistakes will be made and learnt much earlier benefiting th Hunter build allowing for that program to start with minimal to no risks in the production of them.
B. It will allow more time to safely finalise the Hunter design and derisk it as much as humanly possible.

At the end of the day not building them is a risk. Building them in Spain carry's the same risks as building them locally however a local build will directly benefit from lessons learnt and money spent flowing largely into the local economy.

In regards to space to do it all we have plenty. We are building an entire new facility for the submarines separate to area's used to build the surface vessels. If anything the only thing we could do to improve ASC beyond what they have already done or are planning to do is build a massive shiphall over the hard stand to guarantee work able to proceed year round regardless of the weather.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would have expected that the ASC sub build facilities would need to be both expanded and upgraded to meet USN or RN nuclear engineering standards for safety. This would include containment structures, security etc. In the UK such upgrades are large tasks - £2 billion for Devonport dock 10 for the Dreadnought program - and take 2 to 3 years civil construction time. Yet I did not see any allowance for this work included in the last budget.

The facilities in Australia would already meet or exceed USN or RN standards in every way. Osborne and Henderson are fiercely new yards. The facilities that were built for the attack program will meet the needs of a SSN program. There is over 100 hectares of naval yard at Osborne, its like triple the size. The hunter BAE yard is complete, can house two Hunters side by side, and the Sub yard has been under construction for 2 years already.

Excellence in maritime manufacturing - touring Osborne naval shipyard - Australian Manufacturing Forum

Kicking off @AuManufacturing’s editorial series Excellence in maritime manufacturing we visit the Osborne shipyard in Adelaide where nine Hunter class frigates are under construction. Covid-19 and defence concerns have kept journalists away from the shipyard, but here, Peter Roberts reports on...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

Plus there was an additional announcement regarding nuclear approval.

Osborne Shipyard SSN expansion plan unveiled

Next week’s federal budget is set to include a commitment to secure more space at Osborne Shipyard to support preparations for Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarine fleet. The Commonwealth

www.defenceconnect.com.au

"This would be aimed at assessing the overall feasibility of the site, while also ensuring the assessments required under the Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standards are completed.
The leasing arrangement would represent a more than tripling of Osborne North’s submarine construction yard, from approximately 20 hectares to 65 hectares."

Civmec new yard is also hugely sized. Like fit 2 x Hobarts and 4 x OPV under the roof at the same time. We could build QE blocks there if we wanted to. Civmev bough the Forgacs business.

Industry and the Australian Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel: The Role of CIVMEC - Second Line of Defense

By Robbin Laird The Australian Offshore Patrol Vessel or the Arafura Class OPV program is the launch program for the new Australian approach to shipbuilding. Termed a “continuous shipbuilding process,” the core point is to have an ongoing shipbuilding effort, rather than a start and stop...

sldinfo.com

All of these fantastic facilities were built under the coalition government, who I can only presume intended to build ships here.

Probably the missing piece is who is going to run the project? The AWD alliance is finished and was probably not the right way to run the project. I presume either BAE, Navantia Australia could run the project with Civmec and/or Navantia Spain contributing.

Finally, I did not post this link a few weeks ago so as not to overstep the mark, but this UK news story suggests that Astutes might well be the planned SSNs for the RAN. It quotes a NSW trade official(?) referring to Rolls Royce being the likely reactor supplier for RAN SSNs under AUKUs. That would obviously imply adoption of Astues or a “Batch 2“ Astute successor

I wouldn't put much stock into that claim. Where are they building the reactors for these boats? Astute may still be on the table, but RR reactors, particularly PWR2 would seem to be off the table. BAE and RR are likely to be involved even in a Virginia build.

If we want to see an example of the issues of some overseas build, take a look at our poor Antarctic ship.

Supply chain issues interfere with Nuyina's Antarctic shipping schedule - Daily Cargo News

Icebreaker RSV Nuyina needs replacement parts ahead of the next Antarctic season, but material shortages mean the ship is unlikely to be ready in time

www.thedcn.com.au

Brand-new icebreaker breaks, again

Australia's brand-new icebreaker, the RSV Nuyina, is out of action for the foreseeable future after checks revealed key mechanical parts need replacing.

www.abc.net.au

Australian icebreaker “Nuyina” with software problems

The maiden voyage of the new Australian icebreaker 'Nuyina' had to be postponed due to problems with the alarm and monitoring system.

polarjournal.ch

 

[Massive]

They just have a state run yard backed by a government who believes they can do it. While its been since 2015 since we have laid down a Hobart, and 2 years since its commissioning, its been since 2007 laying in Spain and 10 years commissioning. In that time it is Australia who has invested in new yards, and invested in the f-105/hobart design making it digital and improving it.

Is an "Off the shelf" (whatever this means in an MFU program) build of new AWDs is possible?

And is there an alternative option of accelerating the start of the Hunter program and the drumbeat?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

The facilities in Australia would already meet or exceed USN or RN standards in every way. Osborne and Henderson are fiercely new yards. The facilities that were built for the attack program will meet the needs of a SSN program. There is over 100 hectares of naval yard at Osborne, its like triple the size. The hunter BAE yard is complete, can house two Hunters side by side, and the Sub yard has been under construction for 2 years already.

Excellence in maritime manufacturing - touring Osborne naval shipyard - Australian Manufacturing Forum

Kicking off @AuManufacturing’s editorial series Excellence in maritime manufacturing we visit the Osborne shipyard in Adelaide where nine Hunter class frigates are under construction. Covid-19 and defence concerns have kept journalists away from the shipyard, but here, Peter Roberts reports on...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

Plus there was an additional announcement regarding nuclear approval.

Osborne Shipyard SSN expansion plan unveiled

Next week’s federal budget is set to include a commitment to secure more space at Osborne Shipyard to support preparations for Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarine fleet. The Commonwealth

www.defenceconnect.com.au

"This would be aimed at assessing the overall feasibility of the site, while also ensuring the assessments required under the Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standards are completed.
The leasing arrangement would represent a more than tripling of Osborne North’s submarine construction yard, from approximately 20 hectares to 65 hectares."

Civmec new yard is also hugely sized. Like fit 2 x Hobarts and 4 x OPV under the roof at the same time. We could build QE blocks there if we wanted to. Civmev bough the Forgacs business.

Industry and the Australian Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel: The Role of CIVMEC - Second Line of Defense

By Robbin Laird The Australian Offshore Patrol Vessel or the Arafura Class OPV program is the launch program for the new Australian approach to shipbuilding. Termed a “continuous shipbuilding process,” the core point is to have an ongoing shipbuilding effort, rather than a start and stop...

sldinfo.com

View attachment 49510

All of these fantastic facilities were built under the coalition government, who I can only presume intended to build ships here.

Probably the missing piece is who is going to run the project? The AWD alliance is finished and was probably not the right way to run the project. I presume either BAE, Navantia Australia could run the project with Civmec and/or Navantia Spain contributing.


I wouldn't put much stock into that claim. Where are they building the reactors for these boats? Astute may still be on the table, but RR reactors, particularly PWR2 would seem to be off the table. BAE and RR are likely to be involved even in a Virginia build.

If we want to see an example of the issues of some overseas build, take a look at our poor Antarctic ship.

Supply chain issues interfere with Nuyina's Antarctic shipping schedule - Daily Cargo News

Icebreaker RSV Nuyina needs replacement parts ahead of the next Antarctic season, but material shortages mean the ship is unlikely to be ready in time

www.thedcn.com.au

Brand-new icebreaker breaks, again

Australia's brand-new icebreaker, the RSV Nuyina, is out of action for the foreseeable future after checks revealed key mechanical parts need replacing.

www.abc.net.au

Australian icebreaker “Nuyina” with software problems

The maiden voyage of the new Australian icebreaker 'Nuyina' had to be postponed due to problems with the alarm and monitoring system.

polarjournal.ch

Impressive facility.

Nice to see an OPV along side in the picture.

Very few images of NUSHIP Arafura since her launch.

A shame as they are a nice looking vessel.

Cheers S

 

[Scott Elaurant]

StingrayOz

Thanks for explaining those details about the ASC shipyard and upgrade already completed. That is excellent news.

in light of your comments and vonnoobie’s, it sounds like a “catch-up“ build is possible. I hope it happens.

 

[Aardvark144]

Lot's of talk about the offer from Navantia and a mix of 6 Hobarts and 9 Hunters; however, given there will be no real increase in the Defence Budget, what is the funding line for this proposal?

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Lot's of talk about the offer from Navantia and a mix of 6 Hobarts and 9 Hunters; however, given there will be no real increase in the Defence Budget, what is the funding line for this proposal?

We'll have to wait until its first budget, but Labor has said it will continue the increases factored into the defence budget. In terms of this offer from Navantia, Labor specifically raised the prospect before the election of building more Hobarts.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Lot's of talk about the offer from Navantia and a mix of 6 Hobarts and 9 Hunters; however, given there will be no real increase in the Defence Budget, what is the funding line for this proposal?

Unclear. Its a unsolicited proposal. But one gaining huge weight to bring up PM to PM direct, in Europe.

With attack not happening spending that should be happening is not happening currently. The Hobarts also have a large and expensive upgrade of ~$5 billion already budgeted. 3 new ships with new systems might even fit within that budget. Maybe decrease the hobart upgrade to just a combat system upgrade until after the new hobarts are finished.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/melissa-price/media-releases/critical-role-industry-51-billion-support-hobart-class

However, the new government has been pretty clear about how it sees defence.

Defence Minister urges closer Australia-US ties to avoid 'catastrophic failure of deterrence' in Indo-Pacific - ABC News
He warned the alliance between Australia and the US could not afford to "stand still", adding that it would be operating in a much more challenging strategic environment in the years ahead.

"It will need to contribute to a more effective balance of military power, aimed at avoiding a catastrophic failure of deterrence," he said.

Going to the US, to Washington, to a security forum, and chastising them, the US, for underspending in defence is going to seem pretty hollow unless he intends for Australia to increase it defence spending.

Remembering the USN has tremendous issues at the moment, basically all of its cruisers (22) are knackered, life extension cancelled, its 27 oldest Burkes are also aging out, life extension cancelled, the other Burkes have an upgrade program (and US Life extension and upgrade programs have had big issues recently) and the Constellations, which isn't a replacement for either of them, is still in the early build phase.

In 5 years USN is going to be a shadow of itself even if existing build plans are fully funded and go ahead. They will struggle to escort their own carrier groups. IMO. 3 more Hobarts would be super valuable by 2030.

 

[Wombat000]

I’m wondering if;
The theory of the Spanish built ships being taken, but fit out conducted in Australia,
That would be a good compromise for Australian industry involvement, wouldn’t it?

Also, considering current Hobart’s are pending upgrade, perhaps that work might dovetail nicely with fit out of the new build hulls?

just food for thought.

 

[vonnoobie]

Well seeing that the Attack class isnt going forward just yet and money has been allocated for those years already and any SSN would be unlikely to start any time soon I think we might find a spare few billion already budgeted but now free to be used elsewhere.

In regards to shipyard size, I was able to track down an actual land size of ANI (Previously ASC) Osborne which is a very tidy 109 hectares which to put that into perspective if my googling is correct makes it roughly half the size of of Newport News shipbuilding where the US builds all of its nuclear aircraft carriers and half of its submarines and they dont even use all of their docks, So the size of Osborne is actually quite large even more so when you factor in the more efficient facility layout and advance and modern procedures being or have been implemented. If anything its a shipyard that is capable of doing far more then we could ever need it for.

I’m wondering if;
The theory of the Spanish built ships being taken, but fit out conducted in Australia,
That would be a good compromise for Australian industry involvement, wouldn’t it?

Also, considering current Hobart’s are pending upgrade, perhaps that work might dovetail nicely with fit out of the new build hulls?

just food for thought.

And what benefit would that give Australia at all? Get a few jobs ok... But does absolutely nothing to cancel out the gap between completion of work currently winding down and work to be started ... Quite simply if that is the compromise why even bother at all?If you wanted a compromise between a Spanish and Australian build then it would be more along the lines of Spain builds ie: 75% Ship 1, 50% ship 2 and 25% ship 3 with Australia doing 25%, 50% and 75% of those respective ships that would be a possibly effective compromise allowing us to gradually build our numbers up but those numbers would also depends on how quick we want to build them,

 

[Anthony_B_78]

And what benefit would that give Australia at all? Get a few jobs ok... But does absolutely nothing to cancel out the gap between completion of work currently winding down and work to be started ... Quite simply if that is the compromise why even bother at all?

So do you think we could domestically build three additional Hobarts in a similar timeframe and at a similar cost to what Navantia has reportedly offered? Obviously that would be the best outcome for the Labor government.

 

[Arclighy]

Lot's of talk about the offer from Navantia and a mix of 6 Hobarts and 9 Hunters; however, given there will be no real increase in the Defence Budget, what is the funding line for this proposal?

Australia's Defence Minister, Richard Marles has given a number of speeches in Washington this past week. In each of those speeches he hasn't held back in his belief that Australia is facing the most challenging set of strategic circumstances it has faced since the end of the second world war. In an interview with Sky News yesterday Marles wasn't drawn on a future GDP figure for defence spending, but interestingly stated,"...given the complexity of those circumstances, I think we inevitably are going to see more capability rather than less." (Link) There is obviously a lot going on in the background, defence wise, that none of us are party to. I guess we will have to wait and see what the upcoming budget in October, and the updated defence posture review, due for release early next year, have to say about things.