Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting, the above photo.
So, doe's anyone know if the R.A.N need to seek permission from the Chinese land lords, or is there some clause in the lease agreement that national security overides them?
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It is at Larrakeyah Barracks and i believe we still own that one :cool: . Army hosting a Naval dock.
Actually, it’s in HMAS Coonawarra, which while accessed through Larrakeyah is not part of it.

That’s north west of Darwin’s CBD; the Chinese have leased the East Arm facilities which, as the name suggests, are east of the city, and quite a distance away. And there is some reasonably high ground between the two which wouldn’t do much for line of sight sensors. Admittedly, though, ships proceeding to East Arm have to pass Coonawarra quite closely.

There was, and may still be, a plan to build another wharf there as well; along the breakwater from memory, remembering the original plan, around which the infrastructure works were designed, was for 6 Arafuras to be based there.
 
Last edited:

SammyC

Well-Known Member
I would view that Adelaide already has its hands full with the Hunter and sub programs. I would be concerned that additional builds would distract them from what is already a difficult requirement. And they have their own cost pressures.

Adelaide would I believe need more facilities as the existing ones are sized for the existing activities. So an upgrade would be required regardless. Why Austal? Well a lot of the infrastructure and skill base is already there. I suspect it is a cheaper option than building a new yard and team from scratch. Is it a perfect solution? Not even close, but it is what we have, and beggars can't be choosers.

I would also proposition that the naval architects and other engineering disciplines located in Perth with Austal have no desire to move interstate. If Austal folded or another yard opened on the east coast, the majority would seek other employment locally.

For what its worth, Melbourne's Williamstown shipyard would have been the perfect solution, but this is no longer available.

Added to that I don't think BAE is well known for sharing with other competitors. I suspect BAE working alongside Mitsubishi or Hanwa for instance would lead to problems (aka fist fight).

In the broader picture, I don't see this is about cost. A second ship production facility provides future options as well as the capacity to do the current workload. If the world gets worse, then we have more levers to pull.

I don't see it as much different from the desire to have a missile factory in Australia, or an AI drone plant with Boeing, or for that matter a boxer/redback/hunter production line. None of them are the cheap option. All of them are about self sufficiency (and possibly electoral votes).
 
Last edited:

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
That’s north west of Darwin’s CBD; the Chinese have leased the East Arm facilities which, as the name suggests, are east of the city, and quite a distance away. And there is some reasonably high ground between the two which wouldn’t do much for line of sight sensors. Admittedly, though, ships proceeding to East Arm have to pass Coonawarra quite closely.
Are you sure that East Arm is leased to the Chinese? The ABF HQ & main fuel storage is there along with the recently installed US military fuel farm - I don’t think they would have built it on leased property. My recall of the statement announcing the lease was that it was for the commercial port, which includes the wharf where cruise ships berth (Stokes Hill Wharf).
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Looking at Landbridge's website, Marine Supply Base, Fort Hill and East Arm are all part of their lease and operational control. I believe Stokes Hill is still under the territory government's control.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
I would view that Adelaide already has its hands full with the Hunter and sub programs. I would be concerned that additional builds would distract them from what is already a difficult requirement. And they have their own cost pressures.

Adelaide would I believe need more facilities as the existing ones are sized for the existing activities. So an upgrade would be required regardless. Why Austal? Well a lot of the infrastructure and skill base is already there. I suspect it is a cheaper option than building a new yard and team from scratch. Is it a perfect solution? Not even close, but it is what we have, and beggars can't be choosers.

I would also proposition that the naval architects and other engineering disciplines located in Perth with Austal have no desire to move interstate. If Austal folded or another yard opened on the east coast, the majority would seek other employment locally.

For what its worth, Melbourne's Williamstown shipyard would have been the perfect solution, but this is no longer available.

Added to that I don't think BAE is well known for sharing with other competitors. I suspect BAE working alongside Mitsubishi or Hanwa for instance would lead to problems (aka fist fight).

In the broader picture, I don't see this is about cost. A second ship production facility provides future options as well as the capacity to do the current workload. If the world gets worse, then we have more levers to pull.

I don't see it as much different from the desire to have a missile factory in Australia, or an AI drone plant with Boeing, or for that matter a boxer/redback/hunter production line. None of them are the cheap option. All of them are about self sufficiency (and possibly electoral votes).
Economies of scale and network effects are real things. We are a small nation that struggles to make onshore builds economical. We make things worse for ourselves by not concentrating production.

The only reason why we are splitting the activities between two cities / states is political.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I would view that Adelaide already has its hands full with the Hunter and sub programs. I would be concerned that additional builds would distract them from what is already a difficult requirement. And they have their own cost pressures.

Adelaide would I believe need more facilities as the existing ones are sized for the existing activities. So an upgrade would be required regardless. Why Austal? Well a lot of the infrastructure and skill base is already there. I suspect it is a cheaper option than building a new yard and team from scratch. Is it a perfect solution? Not even close, but it is what we have, and beggars can't be choosers.

I would also proposition that the naval architects and other engineering disciplines located in Perth with Austal have no desire to move interstate. If Austal folded or another yard opened on the east coast, the majority would seek other employment locally.

For what its worth, Melbourne's Williamstown shipyard would have been the perfect solution, but this is no longer available.

Added to that I don't think BAE is well known for sharing with other competitors. I suspect BAE working alongside Mitsubishi or Hanwa for instance would lead to problems (aka fist fight).

In the broader picture, I don't see this is about cost. A second ship production facility provides future options as well as the capacity to do the current workload. If the world gets worse, then we have more levers to pull.

I don't see it as much different from the desire to have a missile factory in Australia, or an AI drone plant with Boeing, or for that matter a boxer/redback/hunter production line. None of them are the cheap option. All of them are about self sufficiency (and possibly electoral votes).
The sub facilities are to be in it's area of Osborne and I believe it will also have it's own workforce, so that people assigned to work on surface vessels will not also be tasked to work on the subs, as some of the required skillsets are I believe slightly different.

As I understand the surface shipbuilding activities at ASC, I believe there is space two have two hulls under construction at the same time, and that the original Hunter-class build plan had the 2nd hull getting started before the lead ship was completed and in the water. Now that the order number has been reduced by a third, this means that the ASC yard will run out of surface vessel work several years earlier than expected, unless/until gov't places more/new orders with them.

My take on the whole build a warship in WA thing is that as a matter or reality, one is talking about establishing a new yard and workforce in WA to carry out such work, regardless of which company might end up getting awarded the contract. I believe this because none of the facilities in WA currently have built proper warships and similarly, neither have the existing workforces. Now I readily admit I am uncertain just how much input the Austal engineering staff in WA might have had in the Austal USA build of the Independence-class LCS as opposed to engineering staff with General Dynamics, I would certainly not count any of that experience as something worth using towards building steel mono-hulled warships. TBH given how poorly the LCS programme has turned out, I would probably be inclined to exclude that experience as either being irrelevant, or evidence that what/how the design processes were ill-used.

One of the things which I am concerned about is the longer-term implications of Australia building up a 2nd yard for warship production and workforce. Specifically what happens when the order which the yard was established for is completed. Is Australia going to be able to guarantee sufficient orders get placed in a timely fashion so that both yards are able to keep going? Given past history, I suspect the answer would be, "no."
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
I agree and understand the economies of scale argument. I'm also not naive to the political aspect. That happens to the benefit of Adelaide as well. They won out over Williamstown some time ago in a not too dissimilar situation.

I don't see the Hanwa Redback/Huntsman plant in Avalon as any different either. It is choice of location was just as political. It could have been consolidated in Redbank next door to the boxers, or even in Bendigo (who are screaming for replacement work). My point is every defence acquisition is political, and the Austal one is little different to any of the others.

Todjaeger, my understanding is that the Hunter production would generally have two hulls in construction at any one time (one beginning, one finishing), to maintain an 18-24 month cadence and that concept has not changed with the reduction in orders. Hence the Adelaide facility would not have existing room for another ship class construction while the Hunters are in progress. I could be wrong.

Morgo, I just don't see this as an economic or efficiency decision. In times of uncertainty (which I suggest it is), a mitigating strategy is to pay for a future option. Investment in a second ship builder is simply that. Maybe we will use it, maybe not.

Perhaps Todjaeger you are right, the world calms down and a second peace dividend results in the Navy shrinking and the Henderson facility shutting. It would be a hell of a waste of money, and people would be right to say the decision was poor.

In another reality however our 2030s neighbourhood resembles a teenager's bedroom and we want more ships more quickly. We want nine Hunters at double time and a fleet of 60 LOCSVs rather than six. Or a lot more landing craft. Or some replacement frigates for the ones that get destroyed. Or some freighters because no foreign flags will risk coming to us. In this context our future selves would look back favourably on the decision to have a second yard.

For the record I'm not an Austal fanboy. They stuff a lot of projects up, have limited steel building experience, and to be honest not a very good executive management. The best outcome is they are bought by one of the international shipbuilders like Hanwa or Mitsubishi and they bring in a new leadership team.

In a perfect world, I would like to see Austal's Henderson business nationalised, its facilities managed by Australian Naval Infrastructure (with new halls), and the engineering and construction team transferred to an ASC Shipbuilding like entity (and then managed by whom ever is the current constructor). I can live in hope.
 

Armchair

Active Member
In another reality however our 2030s neighbourhood resembles a teenager's bedroom and we want more ships more quickly. We want nine Hunters at double time and a fleet of 60 LOCSVs rather than six. Or a lot more landing craft. Or some replacement frigates for the ones that get destroyed. Or some freighters because no foreign flags will risk coming to us. In this context our future selves would look back favourably on the decision to have a second yard.
In that (extremely grim) world the Henderson yard will be fairly close to a USN SSN base. In a conventional war it would be extremely well protected by virtue of that proximity.
 

iambuzzard

Active Member
Fingers crossed the Hunter FFG/DDG is developed as a matter of urgency and follows the Hunter without a gap.

Possibly at this point an additional three could be ordered for a total of six.
I hope you're right, Volks. The planning is already in place for a DDG version of the Hunter, the yard is there, the workforce is already in place, and it's low risk. All it takes is the the political will and common sense to make the decision. The jury is out on that one. We need to start planning for the Hobart class replacement now! Time will tell. And you are right. We need six DDGs.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That story is behind a paywall. One does wonders about a story which starts off by saying a company has Ben “appointed” to build submarines. It might be an obvious assumption, but it is not yet a fact.
 
It seems that China's "greyzone" approach to RAN is continuing. We seem to be more frequent targets (other than the Philippines) than most other nations.

What exactly is the next notch? Or does it just become more frequent and we don't respond?
Are they looking for us to go away or looking to trigger a response that they can then use as justification for something else?

Clearly up against HMAS Hobart and not an Anzac frigate or P-8A feels like a ratchet in itself knowing that Hobart has much more capability to defend herself.

J-10 dropped flares just ahead of (300m ahead, 60m above) RAN MH-60R operating off HMAS Hobart.
Ref: Australian helicopter in near miss with Chinese fighter jet
 

knightrider4

Active Member
It seems that China's "greyzone" approach to RAN is continuing. We seem to be more frequent targets (other than the Philippines) than most other nations.

What exactly is the next notch? Or does it just become more frequent and we don't respond?
Are they looking for us to go away or looking to trigger a response that they can then use as justification for something else?

Clearly up against HMAS Hobart and not an Anzac frigate or P-8A feels like a ratchet in itself knowing that Hobart has much more capability to defend herself.

J-10 dropped flares just ahead of (300m ahead, 60m above) RAN MH-60R operating off HMAS Hobart.
Ref: Australian helicopter in near miss with Chinese fighter jet
[/QUOTE
Well next time light him up with a blast from the SPG 62 for a few seconds that should spoil his day.
 
Top