Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[hauritz]

Building additional Hobarts, particularly overseas is a no go in my opinion. Not even hinted at in the latest DSR.

If the government wants bigger missile carrying warships the obvious answer is to just accelerate construction of the Hunter class. Some of the world’s most advanced shipbuilding facilities are being built at great cost to the Australian tax payer in Adelaide. The whole point of building these facilities is to make ship production more efficient. Quickly setting up a successful, scalable warship production line is vitally important to Australia right now and should be one of the absolute priority programs.

 

[Stuart M]

Why? The UK like Australia is quite expensive to build in.

Indeed, they are very expensive, but my gut feel is that NZ will do a UK build for two reasons;

1.) Given the essentially unfettered access for NZ product that was agreed to within fifteen years, that FTA came with certain unwritten expectations; Because of any potential impact NZ agricultural exports have on their agricultural sector, and because of the political fallout from that, they want some quid pro quo. Given the small size of the NZ economy and its limited capacity to be beneficial to their economy, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

In short, the NZ/UK FTA wasn't just the altruistic kith and kin common history shared experiences nonsense that you see in government PR releases.

2.) To be blunt, NZ has a fairly long history of building its gear in Five Eyes nations, and for reasons of history, inertia, security of supply and presumably because of concerns around information 'leakage' and basic trust. So as a result of this NZ will want its non-auxiliary warship builds done in an English speaking nation that isn't the US (see the 1980s.).

For example, during the frigate upgrade "LMC felt that New Zealand would more likely award the Anzac project to LMC if the work would be carried out at a shipyard in another Commonwealth country." , Canadian defence contractors upgrading NZDF warships locked in legal battle - NZ Herald

Is 2.) a rational set of reasons to not do a warship build in, Korea, say? Probably not, but people are not always rational on these sorts of things.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Building or buying more F-100s now would be equivalent to buying additional new build Adams class in the late 80s. Technology has moved on, and the design was too small, too tight when ordered, it's even worse now.

Well they aren't likely to get any bigger. But then again, we want small combatants. To fight a large technological peer, like China. And do it from 5000km away.

Having served on 2 Australian built ships and the 4 Spanish built ones, every time someone suggest buying more Spanish builds a shiver runs down my spine "no, please no". I know a number of techo's who have discharged and count the Spanish builds as a contributing factor.

It would be even worse on a crash build like this, as there won't be any selection of equipment by the RAN, just getting what ever Spain is ordering, if that, and Spain has very tight finances, and is in Europe. So perhaps twice as bad as a current experience with Spanish built ships.

Forget building overseas, we should be building here, and blowing the trumpet about how good a job we do here. Brag about it and improve upon it, instead of shutting it down then starting from scratch again in a decade.

I don't think it is widely understood that the digital shipyard permits the introduction of different designs more easily than traditional yards. It would be possible to fabricate much larger and much smaller platforms than the Hunter, alongside the Hunter.

Commonality could be found in systems integrated to the platform, while the platform is tailored for the intended role.

I do think overseas builds are unlikely. Given the circumstances China may pressure individual countries, and there is loss of the build process, and as history has shown we spend so long rectifying overseas built ships any cost advantage quickly evaporates. But sovereignty in the upcoming geopolitical dynamics means something. There may also be internal turmoil in developed nations. Labor has never particularly favoured overseas builds either.

Maybe we just start a plethora of local builds. Henderson was built around being able to support a Hobart type build. ~6 MMPV90 would seem to fit into the governments statements about smaller combatants, and there is high levels of commonality with an existing builder, I think this seems like a likely outcome. Even if the RAN doesn't see a huge need for them, they could be quickly sold into a world at war if required.

But it doesn't address capability. I think 3 additional larger 5000-7000t, ships will be acquired. Most likely built at Henderson (or assembled at Henderson with blocks coming from elsewhere). These will be acquired urgently. But as pointed out its not clear what or how that would be. If not flight II hobarts? or something else?

Given the naval review will conclude September, I hope we see answers, and not another review.

Why? The UK like Australia is quite expensive to build in.

Maybe hard to get a build in South Korea, when they are being shelled 10,000 rounds an hour. Eastern europe is fighting directly against Russia.

At least the UK and AU have strategic distance and strategic commitment.

This is what the world is worried about. The collapse of the global trade and economy, and the world thrown into turmoil. It doesn't even have to be a high intensity war between the US and China, just breakdown in relations and grey zone conflict. Whom ever builds should be strong enough to resist pressure from China. China could cyber attack that countries health care system. Block exports. Dump produce on to the market. If they are within their military capabilities (ie Korea Japan) then they could directly threaten them. They could pay elements to cause trouble, or attempt mass corruption.

 

[Stampede]

An article in ASPI yesterday re the Corvette debate.

Corvettes and the RAN surface fleet debate | The Strategist

Last month, in my article ‘To corvette or to not corvette: the defence strategic review and the Tier 2 surface combatant’, I outlined some of the debates and one specific option for the independent analysis ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

What ever may all think about what we should and shouldn't do, this subject is certainly getting some media coverage.


Cheers S

 

[Morgo]

Maybe we just start a plethora of local builds. Henderson was built around being able to support a Hobart type build. ~6 MMPV90 would seem to fit into the governments statements about smaller combatants, and there is high levels of commonality with an existing builder, I think this seems like a likely outcome. Even if the RAN doesn't see a huge need for them, they could be quickly sold into a world at war if required.

But it doesn't address capability. I think 3 additional larger 5000-7000t, ships will be acquired. Most likely built at Henderson (or assembled at Henderson with blocks coming from elsewhere). These will be acquired urgently. But as pointed out its not clear what or how that would be. If not flight II hobarts? or something else?

I think the corvettes/MMPV/whatever are a red herring. Has the Government actually said anywhere that they are considering something of this size? All I've heard is "a greater number of something smaller than a Hunter." All the corvette talk is coming from vested interests like Peter Luerssen.

My guess is that the Hunters will be cut from 9 to 6, 6x something like an Arrowhead 140 built at Henderson (which satisfies the "larger number of smaller combatants" and your 5kt to 7kt requirement), and 3x DDG based on the Hunter hull to be built next decade to supplement the Hobarts.

This would be the best possible outcome as far as I can see, and wouldn't throw the long term viability of the shipbuilding industry into disarray either. But I am just a mug punter who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[StingrayOZ]

My guess is that the Hunters will be cut from 9 to 6, 6x something like an Arrowhead 140 built at Henderson (which satisfies the "larger number of smaller combatants" and your 5kt to 7kt requirement), and 3x DDG based on the Hunter hull to be built next decade to supplement the Hobarts.

Who builds it?

Lurrsen/NVL has Henderson and Civmec. While not quite the same arrangement as ASC/BAE, it is effectively locked in.

SEA 1180 Offshore Patrol Vessel Program - Civmec

www.civmec.com.au

The project includes the supply and processing of steel for 12 vessels. The first two vessels will be built in South Australia, while Civmec is undertaking the block fabrication for the following ten vessels at its manufacturing hall, and the consolidation will then occur at the company’s world-class assembly hall in Henderson, Western Australia.

Who would build the now Babcock design? Who in country specs the equipment lines up suppliers and support contracts for the build? Airbus? Jaycar? Raymarine? BCF? Because it won't be Civmec and NVL. I assume it also wouldn't be Navantia or BAE either.

With NVL, one assumes there is scope with in the contracts to vary the ship specification, and moving to a larger and more capable design, more expensive design, but with 70+% commonality, it would be at least doable how that could be selected, designed and built. Which mean 70% of what has already been ordered doesn't have to be thrown into the skip bin and without huge penalties for breaking contracts and burning all the SME in Australia.

To select the Arrowhead 140, we would have to have an entirely new selection process. That is 10 years and more than 3 billion (such as with the AWD where the design was previously suggested, we spent $3 billion before any steel was cut!). Then they need to setup in country capabilities, partner with a yard, perhaps build a yard, hire a workforce, train a work force, then get the RAN to spec equipment, then tender the equipment, but in orders for long leads etc etc.. Everything from steel, to power cabinets, to paint, to welding equipment, to wiring, propellers, to engines need to be ordered years in advance.

At least Navantia has its own shipyards with capacity to use as leverage. They also have a various contracts and MOU with BAE. While not exactly friendly, if directed by government, there is at least some sort of frame work there. BAE will be working with Navantia on upgrading the Hobarts. BAE is familiar with the Navantia design having worked on origionally building them.

BAE Systems to Upgrade Australia’s Hobart-Class Destroyers

Australia inked a $155-million contract with BAE Systems to enhance the defense capabilities of the Royal Navy’s Hobart-class destroyers.

www.thedefensepost.com

Babcock has a presence, but it is quite small. Maintenance and small upgrades, I cannot recall them building a ship in Australia.

The A140 IMO isn't wildly different from the Hobart. Its smaller, its more compact, it carries less, it currently isn't fitted with Aegis and Spy radar. Seems like less capability. There has been no forth coming offer from Babcock and no support from any yard in Australia. Certainly no plan to get anything built by 2030.

I am sure its a great ship, but I can't see how it comes into the RAN's possession. Short of invading and conquering either the UK and/or the Danish. Maybe we buy Denmark and relocate it.

And if we can't get anything by 2030 it might as well be on Mars. We need to start procuring like in January 2030 there is no northern hemisphere. It gets wiped out by an unmovable, undelayable event, like an asteroid.

 

[swerve]

Having served on 2 Australian built ships and the 4 Spanish built ones, every time someone suggest buying more Spanish builds a shiver runs down my spine "no, please no". I know a number of techo's who have discharged and count the Spanish builds as a contributing factor.

Navantia being the company that built a submarine which wouldn't come up again once it had submerged . . .

And the woes of the Ajax IFV have been blamed largely on poor build quality of the Spanish-made (by General Dynamics) hulls.

 

[Bob53]

Having served on 2 Australian built ships and the 4 Spanish built ones, every time someone suggest buying more Spanish builds a shiver runs down my spine "no, please no". I know a number of techo's who have discharged and count the Spanish builds as a contributing factor.

Really interesting comment. Care to elaborate?

 

[Morgo]

Who builds it?

Lurrsen/NVL has Henderson and Civmec. While not quite the same arrangement as ASC/BAE, it is effectively locked in.

SEA 1180 Offshore Patrol Vessel Program - Civmec

www.civmec.com.au

Who would build the now Babcock design? Who in country specs the equipment lines up suppliers and support contracts for the build? Airbus? Jaycar? Raymarine? BCF? Because it won't be Civmec and NVL. I assume it also wouldn't be Navantia or BAE either.

With NVL, one assumes there is scope with in the contracts to vary the ship specification, and moving to a larger and more capable design, more expensive design, but with 70+% commonality, it would be at least doable how that could be selected, designed and built. Which mean 70% of what has already been ordered doesn't have to be thrown into the skip bin and without huge penalties for breaking contracts and burning all the SME in Australia.

To select the Arrowhead 140, we would have to have an entirely new selection process. That is 10 years and more than 3 billion (such as with the AWD where the design was previously suggested, we spent $3 billion before any steel was cut!). Then they need to setup in country capabilities, partner with a yard, perhaps build a yard, hire a workforce, train a work force, then get the RAN to spec equipment, then tender the equipment, but in orders for long leads etc etc.. Everything from steel, to power cabinets, to paint, to welding equipment, to wiring, propellers, to engines need to be ordered years in advance.

At least Navantia has its own shipyards with capacity to use as leverage. They also have a various contracts and MOU with BAE. While not exactly friendly, if directed by government, there is at least some sort of frame work there. BAE will be working with Navantia on upgrading the Hobarts. BAE is familiar with the Navantia design having worked on origionally building them.

BAE Systems to Upgrade Australia’s Hobart-Class Destroyers

Australia inked a $155-million contract with BAE Systems to enhance the defense capabilities of the Royal Navy’s Hobart-class destroyers.

www.thedefensepost.com

Babcock has a presence, but it is quite small. Maintenance and small upgrades, I cannot recall them building a ship in Australia.

The A140 IMO isn't wildly different from the Hobart. Its smaller, its more compact, it carries less, it currently isn't fitted with Aegis and Spy radar. Seems like less capability. There has been no forth coming offer from Babcock and no support from any yard in Australia. Certainly no plan to get anything built by 2030.

I am sure its a great ship, but I can't see how it comes into the RAN's possession. Short of invading and conquering either the UK and/or the Danish. Maybe we buy Denmark and relocate it.

And if we can't get anything by 2030 it might as well be on Mars. We need to start procuring like in January 2030 there is no northern hemisphere. It gets wiped out by an unmovable, undelayable event, like an asteroid.

You raise a number of interesting points, although I expect they would be soluble.

Why would Civmec be inextricably tied to NVL though? Do NVL have a stake in Civmec? Perhaps they do.

What about Austal? What about BAE? What about ASC?

If it takes until 2030+ to get us on the path to the right fleet structure then so be it. That’s the legacy of the bad decisions we’ve made. Better that than investing in a platform that can’t do what we need and absorbs scarce resources.

 

[Bob53]

Building additional Hobarts, particularly overseas is a no go in my opinion. Not even hinted at in the latest DSR.

If the government wants bigger missile carrying warships the obvious answer is to just accelerate construction of the Hunter class. Some of the world’s most advanced shipbuilding facilities are being built at great cost to the Australian tax payer in Adelaide. The whole point of building these facilities is to make ship production more efficient. Quickly setting up a successful, scalable warship production line is vitally important to Australia right now and should be one of the absolute priority programs.

Can the Hunter build be accelerated? If yes by what drumbeat?

 

[Julian 82]

You raise a number of interesting points, although I expect they would be soluble.

Why would Civmec be inextricably tied to NVL though? Do NVL have a stake in Civmec? Perhaps they do.

What about Austal? What about BAE? What about ASC?

If it takes until 2030+ to get us on the path to the right fleet structure then so be it. That’s the legacy of the bad decisions we’ve made. Better that than investing in a platform that can’t do what we need and absorbs scarce resources.

Civmec is an engineering company dual listed on the ASX and Singapore stock exchange. I don’t believe NVL own any stake in the company. They entered into a joint venture with Luerssen for the OPV bid but Luerssen don’t own the facilities. I’m also pretty sure that Henderson is owned by the state government and the land is leased to various companies including Civmec. So we could certainly build Babcock designs from Henderson (including from Civmec’s facilities).

 

[hauritz]

Can the Hunter build be accelerated? If yes by what drumbeat?

Last year the BAE Systems Australia – Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart claimed that there was a strong possibility that the build schedule could be accelerated. Of course there has to be the political will to pay for this. Sounds more like the current plans might be to look at smaller ships instead so I am not expecting to see this happen

Hunter class frigate program could be accelerated - APDR

On August 26 there was good news during a media briefing in Adelaide by BAE Systems Australia - Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

 

[Bob53]

Last year the BAE Systems Australia – Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart claimed that there was a strong possibility that the build schedule could be accelerated. Of course there has to be the political will to pay for this. Sounds more like the current plans might be to look at smaller ships instead so I am not expecting to see this happen

Hunter class frigate program could be accelerated - APDR

On August 26 there was good news during a media briefing in Adelaide by BAE Systems Australia - Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Any further updates on progress of these first few blocks?

 

[Bob53]

A decade-long process to establish a nuclear waste facility near Kimba in South Australia has collapsed, with the government abandoning the plan in a decision that could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.

This might be a bit of a set back for AUKUS. I’m assuming we won’t need to store sub waste till well into the 40s but still a high volume of nuclear waste (+17000 cubic meters) sitting around the country looking for a home.

AUKUS alarm after nuclear dump in South Australia is axed — The Australian

The decision by the federal government over the SA site could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.

apple.news

 

[Anthony_B_78]

A decade-long process to establish a nuclear waste facility near Kimba in South Australia has collapsed, with the government abandoning the plan in a decision that could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.

This might be a bit of a set back for AUKUS. I’m assuming we won’t need to store sub waste till well into the 40s but still a high volume of nuclear waste (+17000 cubic meters) sitting around the country looking for a home.

AUKUS alarm after nuclear dump in South Australia is axed — The Australian

The decision by the federal government over the SA site could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.

apple.news

I would have thought that since the nuclear powerplants are to be provided to Australia as complete, sealed units, then they would be returned to the manufacturing country for disposal. Isn't that what has been discussed, or is that only speculation?

 

[hauritz]

I would have thought that since the nuclear powerplants are to be provided to Australia as complete, sealed units, then they would be returned to the manufacturing country for disposal. Isn't that what has been discussed, or is that only speculation?

Pretty sure we are stuck with disposing of the material ourselves. Although if we have a SSN with about 20 years of life left in it circa 2032 we have till the 2050s to do something about it. Decommissioning nuclear submarines is a complex job. Finding a place to permanently bury radioactive waste is just part of that process.

 

[Going Boeing]

Richard Marles stated that radioactive material from the dismantling of the SSN’s would be stored at a site on Defence land - not at the proposed Kimba site.

There’s a lot of Low Level & Medium Level nuclear waste from SSN dismantling which has to be stored here but, I suspect, the highly enriched core section will be returned to the US because of its potential to be used in weapons.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why would Civmec be inextricably tied to NVL though? Do NVL have a stake in Civmec? Perhaps they do.

AFAIK its not a stake as such. But some sort of agreement that NVL and CIVMEC are tied together and breaking that would be like trying to break naval group and ASC, which costs hundreds of millions.

Civmec spent big in Henderson for their massive digital yard. I assume they have significant leasing of that facility. They formed the Australian Maritime Ship building and Export Group (AMSEG). CIVMEC doesn't just build ships at Henderson, they also do oil and gas stuff. So you can't just kick them out. Its a multipurpose site for them. AFIK they put up the infrastructure money, not the government. Its their facility, with joint areas such as the lift.

CIVMEC are famous for shaping steel, not building ships. That Henderson facility is massive. It was designed to mass produce mid sized vessels. It can paint a whole OPV like a car factory paints a car, drive the whole thing through a spray booth.



That is showing a Hobart, a Anzac and two OPV being built in the assembly hall all at the same time. Its freaking massive and setup for mass production of medium sized ships, and could accomodate larger ship building, at least steel fabrication.

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

What about Austal? What about BAE? What about ASC?

Austal seems to have wound down operations and is finishing the patrol boat stuff.

WA company Austal cuts 300 ship-building jobs

Ship builder Austal is cutting 300 jobs as it winds down the building of Australian Customs vessels and two Navy vessels for Oman.

www.watoday.com.au

BAE basically owns the ASC staff until the end of the Hunter contract. Again, kicking BAE out of ASC would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, definitely very expensive, billions. BAE is also no doubt also going to be involved in the SSN AUKUS stuff.

If it takes until 2030+ to get us on the path to the right fleet structure then so be it. That’s the legacy of the bad decisions we’ve made. Better that than investing in a platform that can’t do what we need and absorbs scarce resources.

I'm not so sure. These days, cupboards are bare.. If we started to make stuff, I am pretty sure people would gladly take it. There is no rule saying Australia's ukraine/taiwan aid can't be in combat ships.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Speak of the devil and he shall appear!

Babcock throws their hat into the ring for a AU/NZ small frigate.

Australia-NZ could combine on deal for smaller, missile-laden frigates

British defence giant Babcock has pitched a light frigate design to Australia amid jockeying by shipbuilders ahead of a major navy review.

www.afr.com

German shipbuilder Luerssen is also building 12 patrol boats for the navy, but there is speculation that order could be halted at six. Luerssen has proposed building corvettes instead, which would be fitted with missiles.

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia has also offered corvettes, as well as additional air warfare destroyers, while another German shipbuilder, TKMS, has also signalled interest in bidding for corvettes.

But industry sources say Babcock’s light frigate is gaining traction with elements of the navy. Larger than a corvette at 5700 tonnes, this offers it a longer range – important for operations in the South China Sea or Indian and Pacific oceans – as well as the ability to carry more missiles.

One source said the Kiwi navy had told Australian officials that if the Albanese government went down the path of selecting a light frigate such as the Arrowhead, New Zealand would be keen to partner.

The idea seems to be to build them perhaps at ASC instead of the full compliment of Hunters.

I still think that is dumb.

Even if NVL builds 6 corvettes, that barely keeps Henderson busy. They need volume. They could build 4-6+ OPV at a time. So the time needed to build 4-6 ships is similar as to build 1 ship. By the time 2027 rolls around, Civmec's construction halls will be empty, and ships could be at Henderson, or Osborne, or captain cook, or Civmec/forgacs tomago site getting finished/fitted out/sea trials.

I think I could find someone to buy some armed OPVs very quickly.
Romania cancels 1.2 bln euro warships deal with France's Naval Group

Osborne is so busy. Osborne will also be busy with Hobart upgrades, collins upgrades and Anzac upgrades, Hunter builds (even if reduced) and building SSNs.. They have ~$15 billion in work over the next 5 years.

Once civmec and NVL have finished 12 ships, their deal is done and is free to look at other work. If we selected something like the Babcock A140, it would take until 2027 at least, to have a build design, equipment ordered, suppliers in place etc. We would barely have enough time to get that project ready to build before Civmec needs to be fed more.

Things like the amphib project also won't keep them busy. They could easily have 3 A140 in build within the hall and another outside at the same time.

These are full digital ship yards. Metal is cut by machine, shaped by machine, mostly welded by machine, machine bent pipe, wiring loom by machine, painted by machine. This isn't thousands of workers crawling over a site hammering in rivets and holding oxy torches.

Cost to build. Is somewhat meaningless. Australia has this huge automated super yards in Australia in Osborne and Henderson. The issue isn't build cost, its work. The yard is much faster and more efficient than our political system.

Henderson alone can fabricate something like 100,000t of steel per annum. While a bit of a meaningless metric, the message is that 2000t per year is nothing in terms of fabrication in these new automated mega facilities.

 

[seaspear]

Any further updates on progress of these first few blocks?

Hunter class frigate program could be accelerated - APDR (asiapacificdefencereporter.com)
This article claims 32 VLS for future Hunters, is this a guess ?