I wonder what the reality is for this decision.
Problem with XYZ on the NUSHIP Arafura
Defence politics.
Hagling for some other deal with Luerssen.
Something else.
Trust a suitable outcome is found asap
Cheers S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Problem with XYZ on the NUSHIP Arafura
Defence politics.
Hagling for some other deal with Luerssen.
Something else.
Trust a suitable outcome is found asap
Cheers S
I wonder about the proposed 2 ships to replace Choules and complement the phatships....
WA Big ships, lhds, JSS, aor etc, small ships, opvs, amphibs etc
SA Submarines, Destroyers/Cruisers post Hunter build
Somewhere on the East coast, Frigates/Corvettes
Good question
Not sure what sort of life expectancy the RAN have for Choules, but as it was launched 18 years ago it will be due for retirement sometime next decade.
If a replacement is sort in the early 30's, you'd want to get some planning happen pretty soon.
If you want two ships to replace one, do you want the first, or second ship to replace HNAS Choules?
Again this will affect the time table.
This is an important project that needs clarity.
The solution could be addressed in many ways.
Alternatively
Hold more reviews and kick the can down the road and make the decision not to make a decision.
Cheers S
I just wanted to add another point for framing.
My sense is that many posters don’t agree with the recommendations and direction of the DSR. That’s fine — I don’t agree with all of it either and it is totally appropriate for debate.
Posters also have objections to possible ship building programs based on what is practical and sensible and the approach RAN has taken In the past. Again those posters may be entirely correct (probably are) but they are not addressing the question that seems most relevant to me (again that’s fine).
The question is not what ship building program Australian government SHOULD start, or even what ship building program the government COULD successfully deliver, but what will the government ATTEMPT to deliver (perhaps to be cancelled by a future government)?
(remember 12 French submarines. Check back on DT for discussion before that). Apols for caps.
things like the folowing
DSR https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review
“ Defence must move away from processes based around project management risk rather than strategic risk management. It must be based on minimum viable capability in the shortest possible time.”
and
“Enhancing Navy’s capability in long-range strike (maritime and land), air defence and anti-submarine warfare requires the acquisition of a contemporary optimal mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 surface combatants, consistent with a strategy of a larger number of smaller surface vessels.”
and
“10.26 Henderson shipyard, near HMAS Stirling, faces some significant challenges to give it the requisite critical mass for shipbuilding. Under current plans there is simply not enough work to sustain the number of shipbuilders located at Henderson.”
Would not even be in the public report if the government did not want to see them. Same will be true for the surface fleet review (If the draft report says “ build 18 Flight III Burkes“ we will never see it).
balanced against that is:
10.27 Henderson currently plays a crucial role with regard to naval sustainment, maintenance and upgrade of our naval vessels, as well as the construction of smaller surface vessels. The completion of a Henderson-based large vessel dry-dock is a critical enabler for the construction and sustainment of our naval vessels. Henderson’s critical role in Australia’s naval shipbuilding and maintenance needs to continue, but Government intervention is required to consolidate activities.
Not sure if that leaves open a frigate build at Henderson or means amphibs.
My sense is that many posters don’t agree with the recommendations and direction of the DSR. That’s fine — I don’t agree with all of it either and it is totally appropriate for debate.
Posters also have objections to possible ship building programs based on what is practical and sensible and the approach RAN has taken In the past. Again those posters may be entirely correct (probably are) but they are not addressing the question that seems most relevant to me (again that’s fine).
The question is not what ship building program Australian government SHOULD start, or even what ship building program the government COULD successfully deliver, but what will the government ATTEMPT to deliver (perhaps to be cancelled by a future government)?
(remember 12 French submarines. Check back on DT for discussion before that). Apols for caps.
things like the folowing
DSR https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review
“ Defence must move away from processes based around project management risk rather than strategic risk management. It must be based on minimum viable capability in the shortest possible time.”
and
“Enhancing Navy’s capability in long-range strike (maritime and land), air defence and anti-submarine warfare requires the acquisition of a contemporary optimal mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 surface combatants, consistent with a strategy of a larger number of smaller surface vessels.”
and
“10.26 Henderson shipyard, near HMAS Stirling, faces some significant challenges to give it the requisite critical mass for shipbuilding. Under current plans there is simply not enough work to sustain the number of shipbuilders located at Henderson.”
Would not even be in the public report if the government did not want to see them. Same will be true for the surface fleet review (If the draft report says “ build 18 Flight III Burkes“ we will never see it).
balanced against that is:
10.27 Henderson currently plays a crucial role with regard to naval sustainment, maintenance and upgrade of our naval vessels, as well as the construction of smaller surface vessels. The completion of a Henderson-based large vessel dry-dock is a critical enabler for the construction and sustainment of our naval vessels. Henderson’s critical role in Australia’s naval shipbuilding and maintenance needs to continue, but Government intervention is required to consolidate activities.
Not sure if that leaves open a frigate build at Henderson or means amphibs.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Lets not forget that the DSR has also recommended bringing forward the LMV-H project, basically an LST up to 2000t (2020 Defence update). These are probably going to be built at Henderson as well, probably in the same buildings as the Arafura's.
LMV-M and LMV-H are both significant projects going forward.
Vessel size and numbers will be interesting.
For the LMV-M, we have some idea as to what that looks like given the tenders showing interest.
Total numbers still unsure.
Is it eight or sixteen of some other combination.... who knows!
The LMV-H could be in the 2000t class or something the size of the old Tobruk.
More of a smaller size or fewer of a larger class of vessel.
Again a mystery, take your pick.
Any updated info would be appreciated.
Cheers S
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Has Spain offered to sell Australia the youngest of their Alvaro de Bazan class (the design on which the Hobart class is based.), the SNS Cristobal Colon? To give the R.A.N. a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer.
It may be able to handle larger ships, up to ~200m, but as a very small run, of one or two ships. In the centre build hall areas. Which would lock out maintenance work. The side build areas are also 200m, so 2 x 80 or 2 x 90 would seem to be possible, but 2x~110m would not. You could fit one, but then your build speed halves and costs increase.
But yes, the original ship building plan has minor war vessels and things like smaller amphibious ships being built at Henderson. Ships grouped by not being overly complex or requiring extensive fitouts. Civmec likes to shape/weld steel.
Larger ships would also require upgrades such as to the lift and the yard to be at least temporarily reconfigured. Its a huge build hall, but it can't do everything all at once. Anything with more complex fitout should probably happen at Osborne.
They were also talking about consolidating Henderson, which means I think Civmec buying/merging out Austal OZ. But you have to give them a reason for that to happen.
Austal just delivered the 6th cape class. Two more to go..
AUSTAL AUSTRALIA DELIVERS 6TH EVOLVED CAPE-CLASS PATROL BOAT TO ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 13 OCTOBER 2023 AUSTAL AUSTRALIA DELIVERS 6TH EVOLVED CAPE-CLASS PATROL BOAT TO ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY Austal Limited (Austal) (ASX: ASB) is pleased to announce Austal Australia has delivered the sixth of eight Evolved Cape-class Patrol Boats (ECCPB’s) to the Royal Australian...
Austal Australia delivers 17th Guardian-class Patrol Boat
COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 4 OCTOBER 2023 AUSTAL AUSTRALIA DELIVERS 17TH GUARDIAN-CLASS PATROL BOAT Austal Limited (Austal) (ASX: ASB) is pleased to announce Austal Australia has delivered the 17th Guardian-class Patrol Boat (GCPB) to the Australian Department of Defence. The vessel, HMPNGS Gilbert...
I know no one talks about these. But they are also happening and a thing. They make a huge difference for regional partners doing EEZ work.
As complex and mess as ship building is, you can see how perhaps, Australia should have a derisked ready to go small armed platform for other nations in the region, who have a positive relationship for Australia. We can offer a turn key system, with training, support logistics, no bribes, commonwealth supported, decent performance, fast delivery.
Well it was meant to be built just a Henderson, then it was built at Henderson and Osborne with ASC through BAE(first 2) . Then it was to be a 40mm gun, then that got scrapped, then the upgunning and threat change started, and there are certification and other issues. Well its basically a Greenfields ship building site, and we selected a builder who hadn't really built anything in Australia before. Pretty much every defence project has been on the list at one point.
I don't believe so. But I wouldn't be surprised if they lease it for 1-3 years, perhaps with crew while Hobart upgrades are happening.
Spain will lend Australia its most modern frigate for six months
The Spanish Army will deploy its most modern frigate, the 'Cristóbal Colón', in Australia, during the first half of 2017.
thediplomatinspain.com
I had suggested this before. If it is no longer possible to build a ship in time, then Australia will be forced to see what's on the market. Man, we are really missing that 4th AWD.
That is a good point. The navy and army need a large number of vessels built over the next decade or so. If the Arafura builds continue, plus there is a need for a new class of frigates or corvettes, littoral transport vessels, MCMs, Survey vessels, and perhaps larger ships such as a couple of JSS then that represents a huge amount of work to be completed by the mid thirties.
Probably another reason we will probably see smaller corvette sized vessels rather than something the size of the Type 31. There simply won’t be enough space or trained workers to build another class of major warship. You may also see a number projects canned or delayed so other projects can be prioritised.
Should the end of that sentence be “…. at Henderson?”
From what I understand (second hand, from other posters on this thread) Osborne is a world class yard with excess capacity, and could be doing much more.
Suggest that the “Tier 2s” (assuming they GP frigate like in capability) get built at Osborne?
I would say as a rule of thumb anything with a VLS should be built at Osborne.
Now that’s an interesting proposition…. but presumably the mooted 6 ship “Tier 2” class won’t be enough to support an east coast yard indefinitely unless you’re producing one every 4 years or something?
I would presume this would kill Luerssen’s MMPV90 solution for the Tier 2 question?
The Opposition would have a field day attacking the Gov for awarding a significant new contract to a builder whose more basic vessel is a project of concern.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One question which would need answering is, what shipyard on the east coast still exists as a functioning yard? Williamstown is gone, Codock still exists as a physical site, but has been out of operation for over 30 years. IIRC Civmec still has a facility in Tomago NSW which did block work for the Hobart-class, but I have not been able to find any recent shipbuilding for the site, just block work, with the most recent ship I could find being the icebreaker Aurora Australis.
As a point of interest, if there is already concern about Australian yards having sufficient work to sustain themselves, as well as the problems raising and maintain a pool of skilled yard workers, why would Australia want to try adding a third facility, in yet another part of the country into the mix? Some of the early history of Australian shipyards and shipbuilding does explain why there were major (at the time) facilities in multiple states at the same time. In many cases, the facilities had been sponsored the individual colonial gov'ts pre-Federation, in some cases by decades. Cockatoo Island started operating in 1857. Williamstown was started as a slipway for ship repairs in 1856 and over time more facilities were built and capabilities added.
Now however, with a national gov't and an unfortunate history of ordering too little, too late, I have doubts that there would sufficient work to support three yards. In point of fact, I am uncertain whether gov't could be relied upon to place enough orders in a timely fashion to support two yards.
It might kill it on technical grounds but it is the govt that gets the field day in political terms.
Electorally there are lots of seats in play in Perth (more than anywhere else really). One seat (unlikely to be in play but not totally safe as Curtin and Tangney show in 2022) is held by the Opposition Defence Spokesperson. Hard to oppose WA ship building. As the previous government (prominently featuring the Opposition Leader who was Defence Minister for a time) selected Luerssen it can be framed as “fixing Dutton’s mess”.
Not saying any of that is good or bad. Just stuff.
And the DSR which the govt accepted says two yards (Osborne and Henderson) with continuous builds. I share the uncertainty about there being enough work ordered.
I believe Cockatoo Island had the largest slipway (?) in the world in the 1890s. Don’t have a source - read it on a plaque when we launched kayaks from it.
Project management risk does my head in as it only factors in technical risk that has an easily articulated project risk component.
This means technical risk tends to be dealt with piecemeal, deconstructed to the point that it is dealt with at the lowest level, without factoring the impacts of the mitigation on integration or implementation.
Defence projects, in particular brownfields projects (updates, upgrades, life extensions, major capability increases) always have "wicked" (as opposed to "kind") problems. That is there are multiple, interrelated factors, often extending well beyond the platform, or even the capability it contribute to, that are all to easily screwed up. Screw ups happen far more often when you are focusing on the details, without looking at the whole.
Defence needs more experienced, technically competent, project managers, not less. They need to come from ADF operators, technicians and engineers, as well as defence industry, technicians and engineers, and from complex, high risk, non defence industries as well, i.e. oil and gas, energy, nuclear, automotive design and manufacture, aviation design and manufacture. So basically, the people we most need in project management, come from sources that have shrunk, or been killed off, by the policies of successive governments, over the last three decades.
I have joked that a possible solution could involve having onsite nursing homes, palliative care, and necromancers. That way we will retain the old and bolds long enough to mentor the new generation.
Drumbeat with a new yard?
Osborne North - Subs, 1 every 3-4 years? - 7-10 / 30 years
Osborne South - Destroyers(Around 180m Type 83 or DDGX size), 1 every 3 years? - 10 / 30 years
Henderson - LHD, JSS, AOR or bigger, 1 every 4-5 years?, OPV or smaller, 0.5-1 per year?
East coast yard? - Frigates(Around 120-140m, Arrowhead 140, Mogami etc size), 1 every 2-3 years? - 10-15 / 30 years
assuming some of those produced would go to nz..
Osborne North - Subs, 1 every 3-4 years? - 7-10 / 30 years
Osborne South - Destroyers(Around 180m Type 83 or DDGX size), 1 every 3 years? - 10 / 30 years
Henderson - LHD, JSS, AOR or bigger, 1 every 4-5 years?, OPV or smaller, 0.5-1 per year?
East coast yard? - Frigates(Around 120-140m, Arrowhead 140, Mogami etc size), 1 every 2-3 years? - 10-15 / 30 years
assuming some of those produced would go to nz..
Understood. Presumably strategic risk management still needs competent program managers.
in
“Defence must move away from processes based around project management risk rather than strategic risk management. It must be based on minimum viable capability in the shortest possible time.”
Do you have a view on what the second sentence might mean for Tier 2/ new warships?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
What East Coast Yard? You would basically need to build a new East Coast shipyard from scratch and the ADF could not keep 3 shipyards running. Only with careful and sustained forward planning over decades could we keep 2 open. Highly unlikely that NZ would buy Australian built Frigates, too expensive and NZ has gone down a different path with weapons, CMS and sensors so would require major re-design work.