I think (maybe) the submarine docks will probably end up between the future finger wharf and the BAE shiplift. Looks like enough room for two or three.The BAE and ASC facilities are set up for maintenance. BAE does all the out of water work for the ANZACs and it is an open air hard stand, so weather exposed. ASC does the mid cycle dockings for the Collins in an enclosed shed. There is a lift at each yard (BAEs is 8,000 tonne and the AMC common use one is 12,000 tonne). Both teams are repairers, not builders.
Austal has a series of smaller sheds designed for small ferry and patrol boat builds. Note these are far too small for anything bigger. It has the best ship building crew and competence on the strip, but is hamstrung by its small facilities (note it has bigger yards overseas). Austal has been given a strategic partnership with the Federal Government, which provides it a monopoly for all WA small ship projects (patrol boats and landing craft at the moment). Most importantly, Austal's design team are located here, including for the LCS program. Consider it the brains on the strip.
Civmec has the biggest sheds and the best heavy industrial facility. Their main shed on the south can fit two AWD sized vessels in the mid bay side by side, and the Arafuras would easily fit in the side bays. It's massive and fully digital. Of note, Civmec caters predominantly for the offshore oil and gas, and mining sectors, so Defence is a smaller part of their portfolio. They have very good fabrication/welding capabilities, but limited design. They have access to the CUF ship lift, but note that the CUF wheeled carriers limit movements to 4,500 tonnes. If Austal is the brains, then Civmec is the muscle.
There is also what is known as the Common User Facility, which is owned by the state government. It covers most of the wharf and laydown areas on the southern end. The above 12,000 tonne ship lift is part of it, and a future graving dock would likely form part of this facility. A decision on the graving dock has not yet been made, but there is plenty of discussion. Extending the above metaphore, the CUF is the torso, linking all the individual areas together and providing essential shared services.
With the advent of the eventual Virginia and AUKUS submarines, including the home basing of US and UK vessels in the near future, it is expected that Huntington Ingalls and Babcock will need some space, either in Henderson or on Garden Island (or both). The two have announced a partnership, and the WA Government has released some MOUs, but there are few details at the moment. I would view that any graving dock will be considered as part of what they need.
A graving dock would also allow all the big ships to be maintained (Hunters, oilers etc), as well as American ships such as Burkes.
In regards to consolidation, I would suggest the following is likely to happen:
- Austal will be the lead builder for any future GP frigate and LOCSV and would work with the winning designer.
- Austal will either upgrade their own facilities with new large sheds (less likely), or subcontract Civmec (more likely) for the construction in conjunction with their own workers.
- BAE will remain as is and will continue with all WA ship docking maintenance. It is sized to maintain GP frigates and LOCSV's but Hunters (if any are WA based) will go to the proposed dry dock.
- The CUF will continue to expand and encompas the future graving dock.
- ASC will continue through until the end of the Colins. I am not sure this facility works for nuclear boats (too small and probably lacks the nuclear support infrastructure). I think that will transfer to a graving dock, with the existing facility demobilised.
- Huntington, Babcock and ASC will need to work out their respective roles for subs.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I think (maybe) the submarine docks will probably end up between the future finger wharf and the BAE shiplift. Looks like enough room for two or three.
The RAN have seven ships from Navantia
Spain and eights ships from Germany in the ANZAC Class Meko 200s.
So certainly some history there, but as to production going forward; can we see the Europeans meeting our ambitious build timeframe?
We have some defence work with S Korea and they can certainly build a ship.
Will their offering be what we want?
Production wise, I feel we would be in safe hands.
Britain and Norway I understand are reasonably happy with their Korean supply ships for both price and time to build.
As to Frigates for the RAN, it's unchartered waters.
As to the Mogami from Japan, I agree it looks like what is suggested for a Tier two option.
Like the Koreans , the Japanese are good at building "stuff", including naval ships.
Many decades of successful construction for the JMSDF, but they are not a great exporter of defence equipment relative to what they produce.
I feel they are an interesting (scary) option going forward.
A calculated risk that may that like the Korean option have long term benefits both politically and from a manufacturing vantage point.
Could a North Asian build and long term relationship work and all it represents!
Mogami frigates for Indonesia will be an interesting one to follow.
So where are we placed.
Well according to the Naval review this is our best path forward and that involves 7 to 11 Tier 2 ships.
It will be a complicated formula of time to build , aided by keeping the ship offerings some what standard, yet at the same time wanting existing weapons and sensors employed which are currently in RAN service.
"Can this be done?"
Regards S
The review gave them 12 months to decide what we needed. They also had enough time to decide which frigate they want. They talk about urgency, but I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is them buying only 1 thing. Time. Another couple of years before they need to spend any real $. 12 months to decide on 1 of the 4 designs short listed, and another 12 months or so kick the contract can, and probably another 12 months after before any work begins....3 years of twiddling fingers.
In the mean time plenty of distractions, the SPGs might start up. An announcement about the start of the IFVs maybe. A delivery of a few choppers and the last of the F35s as well as some missiles...
In the mean time plenty of distractions, the SPGs might start up. An announcement about the start of the IFVs maybe. A delivery of a few choppers and the last of the F35s as well as some missiles...
Aiming for that budget surplus it would seem…
I
I have a feeling that if they put together a small committee of naval personnel and told them what the budget was they would probably nut it out in a week.
Absolutely, they are a bunch of bureaucrats who just can’t help themselves. In the DSR they in fact complained about how bureaucracy slowed down the process of acquiring new capability and yet here we are grinding through yet another selection process.
I have a feeling that if they put together a small committee of naval personnel and told them what the budget was they would probably nut it out in a week.
Yes, investment in the RAAF.
Fair enough.
I would be interested to hear the alternatives in the appropriate forum if you have time (and don’t involve banned topics!)
TheBoomerangKid
New Member
I agree with your assessment. I think we are seeing tight timelines as a reflection of the DSR guidance - the minimum viable capability language. Not sure what that means.
Way down the back of the DSR, Paras 12.5 guides:
12.5 When capability is readily available there should be an emphasis on getting it
into service without delay and achieving value for money. Defence must, where
possible, acquire more platforms and capabilities via sole source or off-the-shelf
procurement, and limit or eliminate design changes and modifications. When
subsequent design changes or enhancements to capabilities are proposed, we
recommend these be independently tested by sceptical and trusted advisers.
Time will tell how many changes are possible.
protoplasm
Active Member
It would be very easy to end up with very different systems between different classes or even tranches of ships, with all of the maintenance and logistical challenges that come with it. Naval assets are different in that they are small numbers of vessels with enormous amounts of different systems within them. The only way to save some money in training, maintenance and supply is to have commonality where possible between different ships in the systems they use. I can see this becoming a mess of different sensors and effectors, each with their own unique demands, and then future bureaucrats/politicians asking why this costs so much.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The review was for surface combatants only, so they would not have looked at AORs, but Australia is going to have to seriously look at how this fleet is going to be supported and two AORs is barely enough for the current fleet let alone an expanded fleet. There was a plan for two JSS ships, who knows where that plan currently sits?
What would an "Australianised" Mogami (for sake of example) look like?
- 9LV. Probably the biggest one? A botched systems integration would be a great way to blow out the timetable, reduce the benefits of automation in the original design and destroy the budget.
- CEAFAR. Solving power and top weight problems obviously key.
- ESSM / NSM / MU90 - Should be relatively straightforward replacements. NSM seems to be about 40% lighter than the Japanese Type 17 so could help with CEAFAR.
- Nixie & Nulka.
What else would we have (as opposed to like) to do to make it fit for RAN Service? If it's the above I'd say this is probably solvable (although not trying to say simple or without risk).
Could the Japanese (or Koreans, or Germans, or Spaniards) turn out the first three to their specs but without a radar / combat system and we can finish the fitout here? Or is that also inviting a tremendous amount of miscommunication and blame shifting?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
CEAFAR radars are scalable, currently being fitted or planned for the Hunter, Anzac classes as well as HX77 trucks for the Army's NASAMS.
Australia is very experienced at fitting the 9LV to ships, Anzacs, Canberra's, Supply's and Arafura's have been fitted, Hobarts and Hunters are getting the SAAB interface to work with Aegis.
Sounds like it should be very doable then?
As others have said I wish we'd just get on with it and place the orders....
240 volt domestic power supply with Australian GPOs; compatible SATCOM and other comms gear if not already fitted; proof of compliance with a whole bunch of Australian unique standards to comply with WHS law (and appropriate modification if they don’t comply); fitting of common equipage - everything from firefighting and lifesaving gear via galley equipment to knives and forks; stowage for Australian issue small arms; a platform management system in English not Japanese; many more. The list is long……..(as it is for every foreign design adapted for use by the RAN)
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH it gets me how often people overlook so many of the little things which have to be included in a warship's design and seem to just assume that everything is equivalent and swappable. Take the firefighting kit for instance. Australia I believe would have a set of standards for firefighting, firefighting kit and likely fireproofing/fire resistance aboard a modern warship. I would also expect that RAN personnel would be trained to operate said RAN firefighting kit as well as the appropriate firefighting procedures and firefighting tactics.
Now if the RAN were suddenly have to adopt a warship design from another nation (like Japan, Spain, Italy, Germany, or another nation entirely...) then either the design would likely need to be modified to accommodate RAN firefighting kit so that personnel can use what is already in service and they know, or the RAN is going to need to bring new firefighting kit into service. This means not only getting the new kit, but getting personnel trained to maintain and utilize it, establish whatever parts supply is needed to keep the kit in good working order, and also possibly develop new tactics and procedures appropriate for the warship design as well as the capabilities of the firefighting kit.
Details like this, whilst not major and certainly not significant in normal situations could prove catastrophically problematic under the wrong set of circumstances. The same could likely be said about a number of the minor shipboard systems which most people likely overlook.
As mentioned before the extra VLS in the "new FFM"comes at the cost of ASW capability. I have also noted all mention of mine warfare capability has been dropped from spec sheets.
So it may come down to what do we want more.
Lolcake
Active Member
Untrue. The FFM has improved ASW over the original Mogami. This was announced by JMOD
Japan aims for expansion of frigate capabilities with New FFM - Asian Military Review
Japan’s ATLA has selected MHI and JMUC to develop a new and improved variant of the Mogami-class frigate currently used by the JMSDF.
www.asianmilitaryreview.com
FFM with its high automation makes it extremely desirable and suited to our trouble of crewing the fleet. I am hoping this decision is made sooner rather than later. These reviews upon reviews are rather tiresome and now another year will be wasted making a selection all for the sake of kicking the $ down the road to allow them to scream "SURPLUS".
There was no reason why the selection of the next GP frigate could not have been made concurrent to the release of naval review, disgraceful and not at all in line with the environment where they keep mentioning is the "most high stakes environment since WW2". We can only pray and hope nil action is taken by our adverseries before we can conjure up a reasonable force in the next decade or so, but when you are relying on thoughts and prayers to get by, you know there is a bureaucratic mess that needs attention and remedy. That being said, witnessing the degradation of our armed forces over the last 20 years it still does not suprise me.
Last edited:
With the naval review stating the Arafura class to be deployed in maritime security roles in regional South western pacific and the Asian archipelago conducting regional presence duties.. does this mean offshore stationing for the 6 Arafura vessels? Lombrum and Fiji naval base upgrades with dili upgrade’s possible to berth the Arafura?