Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

Really? T45 contract signed 1999, first ship operational 2009. Seems like 10 years to me.

Horizon’s contractual history is complex, but the construction (not design) contracts were signed in 2000 with the first ships in late 2007/early 2008. Design, though, had started many years earlier.

FREMM also has a complex history; but construction (again, not design) contracts were signed in 2005 with the first ships in 2012/3.

And those first ship dates are commissioning dates, not operational dates. Operational may well be 12 months plus beyond that.

 

[Armchair]

I’m with @old faithful here. The closest comparable sized hull (Type 45 / Horizon) took 4 years 3 months to build, from 1st steel cut to start of sea trials.

4 years. Not 10 years.

3 different yards in 3 different countries all managed to build their first of class within that timeframe. That’s the benchmark I would set for Osborne. Sure that doesn’t include acceptance & shakedown trials which can take 18mo+ for a complex new combat system (like PAAMS), but even then I would want to see a Hunter in the water with a crew working up well before 2030.

The question of interest is probably which equivalent overseas programs, at an equivalent stage (early block production) have brought forward ship 1 for delivery ahead of schedule. If the 10 year timetable includes slippage based on Hobart experience (with very different circumstances) perhaps there is room for optimism.

 

[Volkodav]

I’m with @old faithful here. The closest comparable sized hull (Type 45 / Horizon) took 4 years 3 months to build, from 1st steel cut to start of sea trials.

4 years. Not 10 years.

3 different yards in 3 different countries all managed to build their first of class within that timeframe. That’s the benchmark I would set for Osborne. Sure that doesn’t include acceptance & shakedown trials which can take 18mo+ for a complex new combat system (like PAAMS), but even then I would want to see a Hunter in the water with a crew working up well before 2030.

Tell you what guys, there's a 30-50% vacancy rate in engineering technical and project management across major projects, why don't you sign up and help out?

Doesn't matter if you have no knowledge skills or experience, they will take you and likely make you a manager before sending you off to learn the job. I mean, sure, you will likely have to accept a pay cut, most of those roles pay less than $100k, many less then $80k, but you will be serving your country.

If you are already qualified and don't currently work for the ADF or APF you could come in as a contractor on two to three times more and do the same job as the current serving APS and ADF people who are doing the work and can't be reemployed as contractors.

How did we get in this situation?

Easy, three decades of rating dumb f'k sole trader tradies, finance paper shufflers, lawyers, accountants, farmers and miners higher that proper technical trades, technical and engineers. Three decades of off shoring, three decades of killing industry.

You know you have a problem when the technical soldier earnt more as a barrista before joining and they earn more than their civilian APS manager. Then again, the higher qualified civilian APS manager is on the same money as the unqualified APS clerk, and gas less chance of being promoted.

So guys, you all going to join up and fix everything for us?

 

[hauritz]

Let me preface this by saying that I have absolutely no idea how ship construction works. For example I don’t know how many shifts are involved in ship construction.

Do they work three shifts a day 7 days a week?

I am pretty sure they don’t do it now but will they be doing it when construction gets into full swing?

It is worth remembering that the original plan was to have a continuous build program that was to support a fleet of around 12 surface combatants. If you have just one yard building these ships you may now have to lift that production rate by around 50% to support a fleet of 16 to 20 ships.

I imagine accelerating production will not be a quick process. All those extra workers would need to be found and trained.

I guess the other possibility is to start a second frigate construction yard at Henderson or somewhere else.

All this of course doesn’t address the other elephant in the room which is that the RAN is struggling to find enough sailors to crew the ships it already has.

Massive challenges ahead.

 

[Systems Adict]

I’m with @old faithful here. The closest comparable sized hull (Type 45 / Horizon) took 4 years 3 months to build, from 1st steel cut to start of sea trials.

4 years. Not 10 years.

??? ???

I HATE to be the bearer of BAD NEWS, but...

Type 45 - HOW did that class of ships come about ?

Ever heard of the Common New Generation Frigate (AKA - CNGF ?)

Go google that & THEN come back & tell me & all the other listeners, when the design work for THAT project actually started, what happened to it & WHY it doesn't actually exist?

Then go see when steel was actually cut for HMS Daring, the 1st of Class of Type 45.

Once you have that date, I can personally confirm that she left the shipbuilders yard in 2009, was Commissioned into the Royal Navy, but never completed her ' Part 4 ' trials until 2011 (THAT is when a warship becomes a warship). I spent years contracting on that programme, so can speak from experience.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

I think really the answer is not so much how long it should be taking, but when it should have started. That is, in hindsight, we should have been where we are now six years ago. We'd be building a different design, yes, but that seems less the issue. The Anzacs having to serve through the '30s to maintain our rather small number of destroyers/frigates is poor planning. The fault lies with past governments. I don't think any of us are really blaming the people working on these programs. It does seem a reasonable question to ask if progress can be made faster; that's not an attack on those involved.

 

[old faithful]

Tell you what guys, there's a 30-50% vacancy rate in engineering technical and project management across major projects, why don't you sign up and help out?

Doesn't matter if you have no knowledge skills or experience, they will take you and likely make you a manager before sending you off to learn the job. I mean, sure, you will likely have to accept a pay cut, most of those roles pay less than $100k, many less then $80k, but you will be serving your country.

If you are already qualified and don't currently work for the ADF or APF you could come in as a contractor on two to three times more and do the same job as the current serving APS and ADF people who are doing the work and can't be reemployed as contractors.

How did we get in this situation?

Easy, three decades of rating dumb f'k sole trader tradies, finance paper shufflers, lawyers, accountants, farmers and miners higher that proper technical trades, technical and engineers. Three decades of off shoring, three decades of killing industry.

You know you have a problem when the technical soldier earnt more as a barrista before joining and they earn more than their civilian APS manager. Then again, the higher qualified civilian APS manager is on the same money as the unqualified APS clerk, and gas less chance of being promoted.

So guys, you all going to join up and fix everything for us?

I get what you are saying, but need to add to the "how did we get here?"

Free trade agreements, and moving manufacturing offshore in line with the UNs plan to bring 3rd World out of poverty.
As a result, we have a lack of trades people. Also add the cost of living in Australia, which = high wages. Unions hold the big companies to ransom, which in turn, shut down their operations in Australia and move offshore. There are plenty of factors as to how we got here, left blame the right, right blame the left, when really its OUR fault for accepting their decisions without protest.

 

[H_K]

Type 45 - HOW did that class of ships come about ?

Ever heard of the Common New Generation Frigate (AKA - CNGF ?)

Go google that & THEN come back & tell me & all the other listeners, when the design work for THAT project actually started, what happened to it & WHY it doesn't actually exist?

Then go see when steel was actually cut for HMS Daring, the 1st of Class of Type 45.

Once you have that date, I can personally confirm that she left the shipbuilders yard in 2009, was Commissioned into the Royal Navy, but never completed her ' Part 4 ' trials until 2011 (THAT is when a warship becomes a warship). I spent years contracting on that programme, so can speak from experience.

Yes to all the above. Doesn’t invalidate my point though that the “build” part of the program should actually be fairly fast.

Hunter has been in the making for 5 years (since contract signing), and T26 5 years before that so 10 years in the making... not uncommon as you pointed out with CGNF/T45. With 1st steel cutting in May 2023, by international benchmarks one would expect the first Hunter sea trials to start in late 2027, followed by delivery sometime in 2029 and operational capability around 2030/31.

 

[mickm]

Hauritz's post has got me interested. As a person with no military or shipbuilding experience, just a lurker for most of the time and interested in the defence of Australia, I too, wonder if the building process can be expedited. If our strategic situation worsened rapidly and there was a genuine worry that a shooting war was about to start what could be done to get the Hunters and other ships into the water faster.
Could we work a 24 hour roster or are we already doing that?
Do we have a big enough work force for ship building or could it be built up in a time of emergency from other non essential or less essential industries?
Are there any things in the building process, such as red tape, govt regs. etc. that could be skipped without causing a dangerous situation?
Is there a possibility of building a more "austere" Hunter Class that would otherwise be built in peace time. I read somewhere that in WW2 the USN and others built ships that were only meant to last for the duration of the war or a bit longer to get more ships into the water faster.
On another note I love reading the opinions of the DPs on this site and their opinions are very informative especially to an amatuer like me.

 

[devo99]

I can't help but think we're approaching on-shoring shipbuilding capability in a non-functional way.
The model of having ASC contracted out to a new shipbuilder for every new build isn't really conducive with establishing a strong fully domestic design and building industry.
Perhaps it would be better if we instead let a shipbuilder put down proper roots and have full ownership of the yard and then over time the local subsidiary develops into a wholly domestic outfit under that larger multinational company.

 

[Systems Adict]

Yes to all the above. Doesn’t invalidate my point though that the “build” part of the program should actually be fairly fast.

Hunter has been in the making for 5 years (since contract signing), and T26 5 years before that so 10 years in the making... not uncommon as you pointed out with CGNF/T45. With 1st steel cutting in May 2023, by international benchmarks one would expect the first Hunter sea trials to start in late 2027, followed by delivery sometime in 2029 and operational capability around 2030/31.

I've been involved in shipbuilding for 30 years & when we're talking about vessels the size of a Type 45 / Hunter, they are usually Big, Very Complex & take a lot to get right. Yes I get where the thought of 5 years might come from (2.5 to put the steel together, while fitting out & then 2 years to test & commission it (with a bit of float to address issues).

However, in the real world that only happens under PERFECT circumstances & usually only on a programme where you are building multiple vessels of the same configuration & to say that HUNTER can be built like that now (from this second) is a fallacy !

Let me remind you that the DESIGN hasn't been finalised, the shipyard isn't fully manned up & the 1st Hunter will be 1st of Type, 1st of Class, as she'll be about 70% DIFFERENT from a Type 26. You are expecting the impossible & throwing numbers out there with impunity shows that you haven't grasped the complexity of shipbuilding. Consumer goods are built to a price, designed to fail / have a short lifespan & are built in the 100's of 1,000's, if not more, that is why they can be churned out. Large warships are not the same, so WILL take longer - it is that simple.

 

[Systems Adict]

Hauritz's post has got me interested. As a person with no military or shipbuilding experience, just a lurker for most of the time and interested in the defence of Australia, I too, wonder if the building process can be expedited. If our strategic situation worsened rapidly and there was a genuine worry that a shooting war was about to start what could be done to get the Hunters and other ships into the water faster.
Could we work a 24 hour roster or are we already doing that?
Do we have a big enough work force for ship building or could it be built up in a time of emergency from other non essential or less essential industries?
Are there any things in the building process, such as red tape, govt regs. etc. that could be skipped without causing a dangerous situation?
Is there a possibility of building a more "austere" Hunter Class that would otherwise be built in peace time. I read somewhere that in WW2 the USN and others built ships that were only meant to last for the duration of the war or a bit longer to get more ships into the water faster.
On another note I love reading the opinions of the DPs on this site and their opinions are very informative especially to an amatuer like me.

If the need is there & the workforce is willing, ANYTHING can be done. WW2 proved that, with the ability to turn out the Liberty class ships in 24hrs.

However at this time, there is likely to be a fixed budget & an agreed time line / set of delivery constraints. YES, the programme will build the ships faster & leaner, at less cost, with less staff, but it's gonna take time to get there.

As stated previously by myself & other posters, the biggest constraint is the resource pool for trained engineers. The whole of the western world is feeling it & it isn't gonna get better. Hell, once it hits 2050, (assuming that we don't have world war 3), the whole planet will notice it, as the global population will start contracting by 2100 they reckon the global population may well be back to the figures pre world war 2. For Oz, THAT will be something like 10 million people or less.

Technology may be the way forward, but only if we can afford to pay for it now...

 

[Morgo]

I can't help but think we're approaching on-shoring shipbuilding capability in a non-functional way.
The model of having ASC contracted out to a new shipbuilder for every new build isn't really conducive with establishing a strong fully domestic design and building industry.
Perhaps it would be better if we instead let a shipbuilder put down proper roots and have full ownership of the yard and then over time the local subsidiary develops into a wholly domestic outfit under that larger multinational company.

Granting a private sector player exclusive access to / ownership of a monopoly infrastructure asset doesn't typically end well.

What happens if we put out a tender for a new class, and we don't like that shipbuilder's designs or price?

 

[CJR]

As stated previously by myself & other posters, the biggest constraint is the resource pool for trained engineers. The whole of the western world is feeling it & it isn't gonna get better. Hell, once it hits 2050, (assuming that we don't have world war 3), the whole planet will notice it, as the global population will start contracting by 2100 they reckon the global population may well be back to the figures pre world war 2. For Oz, THAT will be something like 10 million people or less.

Sorry to be an annoying pedant, but while global population is expected to have stopped growing or even started shrinking (red dashed lines in linked figure show 80% and 95% confidence intervals) by 2100, we're still talking a 2100 population somewhere over 8B (95% lower confidence interval) vs a 1950 population of about 2.5B. Even an extreme low projection (lower dashed blue line, 1.6 children per woman) would put global population north of 6B by 2100.

 

[devo99]

Granting a private sector player exclusive access to / ownership of a monopoly infrastructure asset doesn't typically end well.

What happens if we put out a tender for a new class, and we don't like that shipbuilder's designs or price?

In this case we essentially need to abandon the goal of having a fully domestic shipbuilding industry since we'll never get the expertise to stick around. That might well be something that the government is willing to do but it's counterproductive to continue saying we're pursuing one thing but using an outdated model to do so.

 

[Morgo]

In this case we essentially need to abandon the goal of having a fully domestic shipbuilding industry since we'll never get the expertise to stick around. That might well be something that the government is willing to do but it's counterproductive to continue saying we're pursuing one thing but using an outdated model to do so.

Why is it outdated? I actually think it's quite clever.

Government owns ASC, which owns the site / infrastructure and employs a skilled workforce.

Government makes sure sufficient work is being awarded (and sequenced) to keep the infrastructure and workforce utilised.

Primes when bidding for work do so on the understanding that they need to lease the infrastructure and use the workforce (or use ASC as a subbie).

Why won't we get the expertise to stick around if ASC gets to work with the best primes in the world, and people know that a job at ASC is essentially a job for life? I think the exact opposite - it will encourage people to commit themselves to shipbuilding as a long term career as long as the work keeps flowing smoothly.

 

[devo99]

Why is it outdated? I actually think it's quite clever.

Government owns ASC, which owns the site / infrastructure and employs a skilled workforce.

Government makes sure sufficient work is being awarded (and sequenced) to keep the infrastructure and workforce utilised.

Primes when bidding for work do so on the understanding that they need to lease the infrastructure and use the workforce (or use ASC as a subbie).

Why won't we get the expertise to stick around if ASC gets to work with the best primes in the world, and people know that a job at ASC is essentially a job for life? I think the exact opposite - it will encourage people to commit themselves to shipbuilding as a long term career as long as the work keeps flowing smoothly.

I'm bringing this up primarily as I was discussing it with an American earlier today who has effectively lost faith in Australia making sensible (in his view) procurements. He has very poor opinions of both Navantia and BAE and explained his belief that Australia should follow a similar strategy to Brazil who had Naval Group set up a yard for submarine construction and now they're undertaking their own domestic SSN program with it.

I shared his views here because they were ones I hadn't really heard discussed before and also my personal view that we need some level of prime consistency with our shipbuilding strategy. So I brought them here to see how it would be responded to by people with more experience on the matters of shipbuilding and program management. More playing devils advocate than pushing points of my own.

From his US point of view it would make more sense as their maintenance yards and build yards are seperate with the former being government owned and the latter being privately owned as opposed to ours being a mix because we don't have the luxury of being able to seperate the two in the same way.

 

[Morgo]

I'm bringing this up primarily as I was discussing it with an American earlier today who has effectively lost faith in Australia making sensible (in his view) procurements. He has very poor opinions of both Navantia and BAE and explained his belief that Australia should follow a similar strategy to Brazil who had Naval Group set up a yard for submarine construction and now they're undertaking their own domestic SSN program with it.

I shared his views here because they were ones I hadn't really heard discussed before and also my personal view that we need some level of prime consistency with our shipbuilding strategy. So I brought them here to see how it would be responded to by people with more experience on the matters of shipbuilding and program management. More playing devils advocate than pushing points of my own.

From his US point of view it would make more sense as their maintenance yards and build yards are seperate with the former being government owned and the latter being privately owned as opposed to ours being a mix because we don't have the luxury of being able to seperate the two in the same way.

It's a good question but I think your friend is missing a key point. The Yanks have the luxury of scale.

Not only do they have multiple primes with multiple yards, they have multiple primes per type. As a result there's no shortage of competition for Virginia orders between Electric Boat and Newport News, or Arleigh Burke orders between Bath Iron Works and Ingalls.

Sadly we don't, and for the foreseeable future won't, be able to do this. Can you imagine the carnage and cost blow outs if we had BAE building half the Hunters and Navantia the other?

 

[Redlands18]

I'm bringing this up primarily as I was discussing it with an American earlier today who has effectively lost faith in Australia making sensible (in his view) procurements. He has very poor opinions of both Navantia and BAE and explained his belief that Australia should follow a similar strategy to Brazil who had Naval Group set up a yard for submarine construction and now they're undertaking their own domestic SSN program with it.

I shared his views here because they were ones I hadn't really heard discussed before and also my personal view that we need some level of prime consistency with our shipbuilding strategy. So I brought them here to see how it would be responded to by people with more experience on the matters of shipbuilding and program management. More playing devils advocate than pushing points of my own.

From his US point of view it would make more sense as their maintenance yards and build yards are seperate with the former being government owned and the latter being privately owned as opposed to ours being a mix because we don't have the luxury of being able to seperate the two in the same way.

Brazilian SSN project? They are putting an unproven domestic reactor into an SSK design that has been tripled in size. Good luck to Brazil but why on Earth they are using a modified Scorpene instead of using the Suffren design as baseline is beyond me. Australia can't follow that plan because we don't use nuclear reactors for power generation, let alone design and build our own, where Brazil does.

 

[Systems Adict]

In this case we essentially need to abandon the goal of having a fully domestic shipbuilding industry since we'll never get the expertise to stick around. That might well be something that the government is willing to do but it's counterproductive to continue saying we're pursuing one thing but using an outdated model to do so.

I've just read thru this article, directly from the BAE website :

Let's set the record straight: We will never turn our backs on SA workers

It seems obvious that there are some unnamed influential voices of dissent in Southern Australia. I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist, but some people simply don't like BAE, as they likely see them as outsiders, or are possibly trying to perpetuate issues, so that 'other actors' can come in.

However, in the true stylings of a Scotsman who is living & breathing the day-today drudge of fighting off nay-sayer's within Australia, while trying to do the day job, I have to applaud Craig's comments.

This 'argument' shouldn't be about BAE, but how BAE can help Australia develop the equipment & processes it needs to defend itself & protect those 'things' that IT holds dear.

SA