What are we going to do with 15 AH140, and 60 OPVs?
Edit: whoops hows my maths! 30 OPVs!
Last edited:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Edit: whoops hows my maths! 30 OPVs!
protoplasm
Active Member
No, a thousand times NO!!!! Don't invent new manufacturing capacity that then will not have enough work to sustain it. It's just pissing away more money that we don't have. Osbourne South is a digital yard which has the capacity to pump out the destroyers listed and the frigates listed above and more.
We don't need more yards to get the RAN we need. We need decisions to be made to have continuous ship-building at the yards we have, and then to to not change it everytime a new government/minister has a brain fart.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Another potential negative of attempting to establish a third yard in another state is that not only would there be yet another facility fighting for a slice of the 'pie' but the real potential for politics to enter into decision making.
protoplasm
Active Member
Absolutely agree, we've already seen too many examples of politics entering decision making.
The Diplomat article is dated 2016.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 has also delivered the 17th guardian.
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...www.austal.com
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.
Is there a more recent link to suggest getting a Spanish ship to cover AWD upgrades in the mid 20's?
Cheers S
Chinese spies ‘targeting Britain’s nuclear submarine secrets’
Concerning but not surprising.
I guess this means we’re on the right track?
Concerning but not surprising.
I guess this means we’re on the right track?
The south yard was designed around a budget, it cannot pump out a destroyer or frigate of hunter size at a faster rate than 1 every 2 years. The fab hall has no future proofing, you cannot simply double the plate Cutters, welders, forming and presses + workers and speed up the rate of production but you can slow the drumbeat. The south yard has work far into the future...potentially 6 hunters and 3 destroyers gets you to 2048, another 3, 2054.
henderson beyond 2030s is still a question mark. You would think the focus should be on building larger ships and sustainment.
sa workforce already stretched, reduce drumbeat at the southern yard, overflow of workforce would head the north.
east coast yard say at Newcastle where other industries are winding down... Another government owned yard maybe half the size of Osborne south. 1 frigate every 2 years or 3 years, does not matter…
Thanks, but it was the head of Luerssen who debunked that one. I just para-phrased him.
It all came from journalistic mis-interpretation of what reduced aviation capacity meant in terms of the class.
Bluey 006
Active Member
What isn't on the projects of concern list these days? Why is that?
I have heard similar arguments. The construction hall is only so big, can only hold so many workers and so much machinary. Even superpowers like the US struggle to increase the production rate of their shipyards. The government might have to pick and choose what projects go ahead and which don't. Regardless of the content of the Navy surface review a number of these ship building programs have already been locked in.
I have long thought that once the Pacific Patrol Boat program winds up there should be a Pacific Landing Ship program to replace itAustal just delivered the 6th cape class. Two more to go..
Austal has also delivered the 17th guardian.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.
The addition of one or more 50/60m landings ships will greatly improve the capability of these local navy in regional support and HADR.
.
It shouldn't be like that. It's normally a problem when project managers have come from non-technical backgrounds and don't understand the risk that comes from technical unknowns - but a risk certainly doesn't need to have a well understood impact (i.e. it mainly just needs a likelihood + impact at a high level).
Both defence but also APS generally are quite guilty of recruiting primarily from within - and not necessarily intentionally. Essential criteria of "must have experience with system x or legislation y" is basically limiting your talent pool. My experience from within non-defence areas of government are that so many PDs are written by people with a lack of experience themselves of having to rapidly acquire new skills or familiarise with new technologies, and think that years of experience with a particular field are required.
Defence contractors can be even worse for it - basically take the above, and then also add their desire to only recruit people already with the appropriate clearance level. It's almost like they only want to recruit from the people in the same role already working in defence...
I think CIVMEC keeps the site mostly for civilian infrastructure builds. AFAIK they haven't upgraded the shipyard, for any new work. Their facilities are more for rectification, repairs, maintenance. They can also float out large precast concrete panels and sections.
There are other yards in Newcastle, they do similar work. Thales has a yard. Carrington which was the older Forgacs site they left in 72. But its based around ~1000t ships and smaller. They do military work, but more like upgrades, repairs and scrapings. There are other yards, ones that specialize in Aluminium or steel or fiberglass.
The east coast has a huge ship based industry. Think about all the ferries, recreational ships (for the ~15m that live on the coast), tourist boats, massive fishing fleet government boats and ships. But no one is particularly interested in chasing new military builds. Or new builds in general. They won't bid on it. In fact the land in most cases is worth more than the businesses. Redevelopment of the coal loading areas is going to be a shit fight, because its worth billions today.
We only need two major yards. And each should have a different focus and not cut each others lunch, but with the ability to support the other if required.
The days of ship building involving tens of thousands of steel workers are long gone. Since 2000 we have seen ship yards dramatically change how they build ships. The process has undergone as much change in the last 20 years as the automotive sector did between the 1890's and 1980.
Think just about propellers. How did the make the propellers for ships before 6-7 axis milling machines. Think about material science. Think about design. Think about old ships and lack of intergration.
If a project gets onto the concerned list and we didn't go through with it, nothing would ever be acquired.
- E7 Wedgetail
- Anzcac ASMD
- FFG
- M113
- Collins class
- JASSM
- AP3C upgrades
- Hobart class
- SATCOM
- Air traffic control
- MH-90
Its part of a project management, not a naughty note indicating immediate failure. I don't think anyone is really happy with SEA1180. That project has had significant government interference for starters. It should have gone on the list as soon as the 40mm gun fuck up. Then when there were certification issues. Really it probably should have been on the list when they split the build between Osborne and Henderson to ensure that political decision didn't completely derail the project.
I would imagine the old salts wouldn't be too happy to be reanimated to deal with modern management. Imagine coming back from the dead because some goofy underling 40 years later has fucked things up. There is a lack of mentorship. Sometimes project managers seem to have been raised in some sort of clone farm, with no idea of cases and history for the last ~5000 years. Succession planning also went out of the window with "everyone is replaceable, you aren't anything special, there is a limitless labor pool and all people are interchangeable".
A lot of young people haven't had to manage complicated project or manage people before. There is this bipolar between micromanagement and things are too hard Laissez-faire. As if they are the only two solutions to manage a situation. Most younger people haven't been part of a big project before in a key junior leadership position.
Projects always fail in planning. If you have a project struggle or fail, its due to planning. Blaming people when it comes to execution is almost pointless, because 99% the only time to avoid problems is in planning. Either not enough contingency, not enough training and skill, not clear enough tracking point, gates, milestones, etc. Even if someone is deliberately sabotaging a project, there should have been clear checkpoints to pick up on that and systems that can hold people to account. People generally don't usually deliberately break things, but a whole heck of them bring bad habits and bad management to fuck it up.
But its not unheard of for people to fuck up, particularly if they are losing money on a project. Think of Jurassic park. Classic lowest bidder issue. Spared no expense except when it came to the IT guy who the whole project was dependent on.
No, that isn't a current official mumbling. I and others have aired it previously as a option. I'm not aware of any evidence on it.
However we have leased Spanish ships before, a destroyer and AOR. The Spanish government is happy to entertain any such options with Australia, and they have also done so with other countries.
The Australian government clearly has a problem regarding ship and ship availability over the 2024-2034 period.
If we can't build ships in time, then there are other options. Including buying or leasing ships. Spain is currently building F-110, it decided to sell Australia F-105, it could replace that lost capability with building a new ship domestically based off the F-110.
Spain would love that, we are buying ships from them and new work can happen for them. They would probably love that even more than a new build Hobart, because there wouldn't be any need to have Australian content or Australian specs or equipment. That would be the RAN problems. Spain gets more newer, more advanced ships, and their old crud gets sold to Australia. With their 20 year old aegis that needs updating. I am sure Spain would gladly sell all of their older frigates. Probably for a rock low price of $200m each.
If those in the RAN don't love the new build Navantia ships, built to Australian specs, all new and shiny, imagine how they will feel about 25+ year old clapped out Navantia ships built to Spanish specs, on older problematic designs, they the Spanish are trying to offload.. We would need to spend $2b and 5+ years just to refit them, but they wouldn't be new builds!
It should be understand that those are the options. The idea that Australia is going to start another production line of A140 or FREMM or something else is not going to happen. There is no mechanism for that to happen. The cost and the risk profile is through the roof. There is not even a deal on the table, backed by a sovereign nation on those ships.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It has been several days since I was able to allude to the concerns I have about this, so I guess it might be worth me mentioning what those missile-specific concerns are now that I have some time.
First, lets touch on the Tomahawk family of missiles themselves and in particular their history. The missile first entered US service in 1983 having started manufacture initially by General Dynamics in the 1970's to serve as a medium/long-ranged low altitude missile. Numerous variants have been developed since, to enable different types of warheads to be fitted, as well as for deployment from different types of platforms (aircraft, ships, subs, land vehicles, etc.) as well as to fit improved motors and fuel for longer range and more advanced guidance systems for greater accuracy and strike options.
However, the overall airframe size and shaping has not, AFAIK at least, changed significantly with the missile still being a length of ~5.56 m w/o booster, or ~6.25 m w/booster, an overall diameter of ~0.5 m, and a wingspan of ~2.67 m and the airframe is at its heart, still a 1970's era airframe. that has now been in service of 40 years.
One of the significances of this is that technology has moved on. Not only are there newer missiles which are themselves LO, but the potential capabilities of a hostile IADS have also improved, which means there is a greater chance inbound missiles would be detected and intercepted. Heck, I remember reading in the news during Gulf Wars: Episode II The Clone of the Attack, that Iraqi GBAD had managed to down "aircraft" which were later found to actually be cruise missiles and this was over Iraq back in 2003. I would expect that now, 20 years later, Tomahawk strike packages would be detected more easily given the advances in radar and E/O systems, as well as the networking integration to relay radar return data. This should be particularly true if the potential adversary has advanced their respective capabilities beyond what Iraq was capable of two decades ago. Furthermore, I expect that this trend will only continue as time marches further on.
Now, whilst I fully expect that the modern guidance systems of RGM-109E Tomahawk Block V AUR (200) and RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV AUR (20) missiles to be able to hit fixed targets fired at from max range, as well as expect the propulsion system to actually get the missiles those ~1,600 km from max launch range to the target, provided of course the missiles are not intercepted. However, I see some significant issues with attempting a strike at such range vs. non-fixed targets, simply due to the distance and how long it would take a missile fired at such range to get to the target. Given the reported data on range and the high subsonic flight speed of a Tomahawk, a warshot taken at max range is likely to have a flight time of 1hr 45 min +/- which is plenty of time for a non-stationary target to move on. Onboard sensor packages might enable the missiles to re-acquire the intended target, depending on where it relocates to, or they might detect acceptable alternate targets. Otherwise, Australia would need some sort of spotter capability with eyes on acceptable targets to relay updated targeting data whilst the missiles are en route.
One should then ask where does this leave Australia and the RAN in terms of capabilities, both now and a decade from now, as well as what capabilities would not be available whilst the RGM-109E is loaded aboard a warship.
True, but it is available and it's launch systems are compatable with other weapons. They will fill a gap in what we have, out until something better can be acquired.
In particular, if we are talking land based systems, their launchers and control systems will be suitable for many other loadouts.
Not a short term solution and yet another case of someone putting forward random items of equipment, but here I go.
Would various versions of Damens Crossover design fill the need for a lighter GP frigate (XO 139 FC) and an armed LPD (XO 131 A) such as suggested by Volk?
Would the commonalities reduce cost and time during production and have benefits in reduced cost and time in both logistics and training while in service?
Would various versions of Damens Crossover design fill the need for a lighter GP frigate (XO 139 FC) and an armed LPD (XO 131 A) such as suggested by Volk?
Would the commonalities reduce cost and time during production and have benefits in reduced cost and time in both logistics and training while in service?
peterAustralia
Member
It is almost as though you are suggesting that we need a ship borne long range reconnaissance platform. Global hawk and Orion are nice, but expensive.. satellites might be good option also.. that sea guardian thing starting to look attractive
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
In March 2023, the Government indicated a Tomahawk purchase in the numbers that you quoted but, in August 2023, numerous media reports said that a contract has been awarded for the 200 Block V’s with no mention of the planned 20 Block IV’s. I have my suspicions as to why they have been omitted but no evidence to back it up.
Last edited:
In line with some previous suggestions here…this makes great sense. So it won’t happen. Japan, South Korea and the US should mirror AUKUS for destroyers