Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The Mogami has the same gas turbine (RR MT-30) as the Hunter class so that gives commonality in the supply & maintenance process. The diesel generators are different though.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Might depend on who/where the alternate naval construction were to take place. If the people in place in WA are either very solidly for, or very solidly against a particular side, and there is an alternative seat which might be swayed, particularly if a gov't or potential future gov't were to 'promise' to send billions first developing the appropriate infrastructure and then for the actual build, it might make more sense, at least from a political perspective.
From an economic sense, it might depend on just how much more it will cost (in time as well as funding) to get the infrastructure and work forces in WA up to where they need to be to actually engage in naval construction. Depending on the numbers, it might still end up being less expensive and/or faster to expand ASC's footprint and/or workforce.
As I have mentioned previously (and repeatedly) I do have significant reservations about Australia attempting to establish a second yard for warship production. I could easily foresee a scenario occurring where one of the ongoing projects gets cancelled and/or the yard gets closed due to either political or budgetary pressure (if not both), and then the resulting loss and wastage of all the time and resources which went into building the facility and establishing the skilled workforce.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Really don’t know enough about the politics in relationship to warship shipyards wrt Australia. In Canada, politics is certainly an issue. When our National Ship Building was started, two yards were tasked, Irving for shooting vessels and SeaSpan for support vessels. The latter has coast guard contracts as well. Later, the bankrupt Quebec based Davie restarted and needless to say Quebec demanded a piece of the action. So far, no actual combat ships. I guess the key issue is how fast can SeaSpan build combat ships if Irving screws up or vice versa. Can or should Canada or Australia depend on a single shipyard? Realistically Canada can’t support the RCN without facilities on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and that includes actual ship construction IMO. I will leave it to our OZ colleagues to give their opinions. Two production shipyards for warships will require government support and it won’t be cheap. Losing all production for whatever reason will be hugely expensive and perhaps fatal.
The current plans do seem to ignore the fact that the major population centres are around Sydney and Melbourne.
I don’t really have an issue with a second major yard. At the moment there seems to be more than enough work for the next 30 years.
SA has its hands full with major surface combatants and submarines. WA has plenty of work building minor warships. Whether either state has the additional capacity to take on construction of 8 GPF and 6 LOCVs is questionable.
The politics make the economics of the move from WA to SA irrelevant though. If there is not enough money, or the program fails, then any program may be cancelled but there is zero chance that a promised ship building program will be moved from a state with about 8 seats in play (including that of Hastie who will be hoping to either be the next Defence Minister or Opposition Leader) to one with about 2 seats in play (and where both states have ALP governments that have viable chances of winning another term). All of the politicians involved would be very familiar with the political ramifications for Tony Abbott of mooting off-shore builds of the promised Collins replacement.
Depends.
CIVMEC have a huge build hall and huge capacity to shape steel. That is what CIVMEC wants to do, However, WA doesn't have a huge population, and the ground isn't thick with a lot of services that are required for fitout for a frigate or destroyer. You need more than just an any old electrician or a pipefitter.
Growing workforces in WA has proven hard in all industries all the time, with the requirement being huge salaries to uproot and relocate already highly paid and in demand skills. SA itself has similar problems (not as bad because of its proximity to Melb and east coast), ultimately if you want people to work there, most~80-90% of the workforce will need to be grown locally. You can move some people in, but not every single position from apprentice to senior director. Housing prices in WA and SA have also shot up, so the idea that cheap cost of living and cheap housing will draw them in is no longer a thing. Its as expensive as Melb and Brisb but with less housing stock than either.
They do have other yards, with a workforce, including Tomago on the east coast. Not sure if it big enough to handle a 6,200t ship. Or it could be towed to Japan.
Most major companies have offices there (including the Japanese), there is workforce capacity of over 20 times that on the west coast.
I wouldn't rule out WA welding ships together, then towing them to a different locate for fitout, at least for part of the project. The advantage of that is that the build hall is busy doing build hall stuff, and not tied up with ships really doing other types of work. Ship can then be tied up, or on hardstands being finished off. While the WA build hall is huge, it isn't designed to build multiple 6,200 ships at the same time. At that point having it outside on hardstands or in the water at WA or the east coast doesn't really matter.
No. We need two major sites for construction. Our countries are big enough to support that. Single site has historically for everyone has been problematic, because its not generally sustainable (no matter how much work is given - the work force tends to implode due to age, lack of opportunity, a short period of bad management etc) and is itself a single point of failure.
I don't see this impacting Hunter in any negative way. It is still the only aegis ship we are building. It has the biggest radars, the most combat capacity, the most warfighting capability.
While anything can be cancelled. Hunter is very far along, Arguably too late to be cancelled. Killing it would kill the workforce and the sub programs as well.
I think this concept is very promising. The Japanese seem fully committed, and the Koreans are a legitimate fall-back and benchmarking partner (but only with Australia).
Mogami class 1 is costed at ~$800m AUD. I imagine the improved class will be more expensive, perhaps 50%+. That would still be a very attractive price. Costing the whole project is much harder to calculate, but I imagine it will be pretty attractive for the capability.
But the project doesn't exist in a vacuum. We are talking about a wider alliance, sovereign weapons capabilities, supply contracts in other areas with Japan. Japan has a massive navy, and there are many opportunities for future defence collaborations much beyond the lowest sticker price we often chase with defence acquisitions. The Japanese want this to happen. They want and need Australia to be a capable defence partner.
- The Mogami isn't replacing the Kongo or/and Atago class. They really serve different functions, have different capabilities, have different weapons, have different load outs, different crew models, different systems, different everything.
- The Mogami is replacing a 2,500t frigate. A early 80s ship with a crew of ~120. (so this isn't a lean ship cut down of a bigger ship, its a small ship concept scaled up)
- The Mogami is competitive against the Type054a frigate. (or the Russian Gorshkov)
Again Australia's short sightedness has come back to bite us.
When BHP Newcastle, moved offshore, and when the car manufacturing was shipped overseas, we lost the ability to continuously train industrial workers. Now they want to cull more with closure of the coal mining industry and related mining.
Those are just a few examples of how we score own goals, petrol refining etc etc etc.
When I was kid growing up on the NSW mid north coast, BHP recruited in much the same way the ADF did, school visits etc.
So instead of school leavers becoming fitters, boiler makers, sparkys etc, they now become tour guides, surfboard shapers and baristas.....
When BHP Newcastle, moved offshore, and when the car manufacturing was shipped overseas, we lost the ability to continuously train industrial workers. Now they want to cull more with closure of the coal mining industry and related mining.
Those are just a few examples of how we score own goals, petrol refining etc etc etc.
When I was kid growing up on the NSW mid north coast, BHP recruited in much the same way the ADF did, school visits etc.
So instead of school leavers becoming fitters, boiler makers, sparkys etc, they now become tour guides, surfboard shapers and baristas.....
A little over a decade ago Adelaide had two automotive plants producing export quality products, a thriving automotive components industry, mining and farming equipment industries. Not much further back there were aircraft components, medical equipment, etc.
Adelaide has since WWII with the munitions factories that popped up all through the city, had probably a higher percentage of its population working in skilled trades, technical, production, and engineering. Probably a greater number of artisans, and scientists as well.
Post WWII there was also Weopons Research Establishment (WRE) that became DTSO then just DST. They trained huge numbers of trades and technical people. There was BHP in Whyalla not just training trades and technical but running engineering cadetships.
SA also had the largest and most capable geographic organisation in the country, actually three of the largest.
Almost every technical and engineering graduate was guaranteed a local job as well as being sort by interstate and overseas interests.
This was all in my lifetime, many of these people are still alive, just doing shit jobs for sweet FA salaries. The only thing missing is the opportunities and managers smart enough to recruit and retain talent.
I'm one of these people, and it shits me to tears when we hear about skills shortages then we see qualified experienced technical people being paid less than they were a decade ago, trades and technical being paid 17% less than people they trained are getting in the west.
We get people who didn't even finish highschool, didn't do a trade, didn't go to uni, get admin jobs, smile, suck up, please the boss, and wham bam they are a project manager telling technical people what to do.
Adelaide has since WWII with the munitions factories that popped up all through the city, had probably a higher percentage of its population working in skilled trades, technical, production, and engineering. Probably a greater number of artisans, and scientists as well.
Post WWII there was also Weopons Research Establishment (WRE) that became DTSO then just DST. They trained huge numbers of trades and technical people. There was BHP in Whyalla not just training trades and technical but running engineering cadetships.
SA also had the largest and most capable geographic organisation in the country, actually three of the largest.
Almost every technical and engineering graduate was guaranteed a local job as well as being sort by interstate and overseas interests.
This was all in my lifetime, many of these people are still alive, just doing shit jobs for sweet FA salaries. The only thing missing is the opportunities and managers smart enough to recruit and retain talent.
I'm one of these people, and it shits me to tears when we hear about skills shortages then we see qualified experienced technical people being paid less than they were a decade ago, trades and technical being paid 17% less than people they trained are getting in the west.
We get people who didn't even finish highschool, didn't do a trade, didn't go to uni, get admin jobs, smile, suck up, please the boss, and wham bam they are a project manager telling technical people what to do.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Two major yards are needed for refit work at least. Its a long slow trip to take a broken ship from Perth to Sydney.
I think for shipbuilding WA is limited by population much more then a Victorian (Melbourne) or NSW (Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong) yard, or even Adelaide.
Mogami is replacing the 2500 ton Abukuma, yes - but there are only six Abukuma. Six Mogami have already been commissioned, three are building, & three more are on order, & they're going to be followed by 10 or more enlarged & more heavily armed ones. Between them, those 22+ ships will also replace eight Asagiri class (5000 tons, 220 crew) & probably at least some of the nine Murasame (6000 tons, 165 crew).
All tonnages full load.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
What about major hull construction in one yard, then fitting out in another one.
Standing up for my fellow regional city dwellers.
I get that Sydney and Melbourne are the two big population centres, however Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane all have million plus citizens (Bris and Perth are both over 2 million). That does provide critical mass for engineering and trade skills. None are regional villages any more. They all have their own universities (Perth has four producing engineers) and trade schools. The people in these locations in general don't want to have to move to Sydney or Melbourne. They have their family roots and like the lifestyle.
I would suggest that a distributed defence network is appropriate both from a strategic point of view (bit silly if a single strike on Sydney could destroy the entire military infrastructure) and geographic perspective (its a bit hard to shoe horn every defence facility into Sydney harbour).
Sydney has FBE and a range of other military establishments and industries comensurate with its population, and about what it can sustainably support itself.
In regards to Perth and its ability to support a ship building facility. Perth does have a very big technical workforce, just one that is currently orientated to chemical manufacture, mining and gas exploration. This includes more engineering consultancies than just about anywhere else, and is also one of the bigger apprenticeship providers. For instance the team I lead in Kwinana runs about 25% apprentices in our trade team (fitter and electrical/instrumentation). Our engineering team runs a similar number of cadet (undergraduate) and graduate (less than 3 yrs) engineers.
WA is comming off a construction boom, with both iron ore and gas moving into sustainment rather than expansion. Lithium and nickel are both in the dog house and will be for some time. Petroleum has already moved out, and alimunium is shutting down its older plants. Big portions of the above technical workforce are about to become surplus (aka unemployed) in the next few years, and the state government knows this.
The proposed Henderson/FBW ship construction and maintenance program fills this upcoming gap and takes advantage of a transitioning workforce. $8 billion in infrastructure plus $11 billion in GPFs, and $3-5 billion in landing craft, LOCSVs and patrol boats totals about $20-25 Billion over the next 10 years. For size comparison this is about equivalent to a medium sized LNG development. Or one big ore mine. Of which WA has completed several over the last two decards.
Companies like CIVMEC already have a reducing future order book from both mining and gas. Their current projects are more road and rail based as they seek out alternative work. I think their view on life is changing and they see the above naval work as their upcoming bread and butter (and survival). Hence they have recently jumped into bed with Austal for the LCH project.
Hull construction can be done in the CIVMEC main halls, all four can be employed for various stages (smaller hull sections can be joined in the two outer halls, with superstructure installation in the centre halls). Fitout can be done alongside at one of the new wharves once floated. 2-4 ships can easily be in simultaneous (but different staged) construction under this model. Much the same as the plan in Adelaide
The one caveat I will add is that Austal is going to need a management change. I would suggest there will be more execs departing from the recent US yard fraud. I would also hope a technical contingent of either Hanwa or Mitsubishi are embedded to run the workshops and technical teams. Many of their sub contractors are already in Perth.
I get that Sydney and Melbourne are the two big population centres, however Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane all have million plus citizens (Bris and Perth are both over 2 million). That does provide critical mass for engineering and trade skills. None are regional villages any more. They all have their own universities (Perth has four producing engineers) and trade schools. The people in these locations in general don't want to have to move to Sydney or Melbourne. They have their family roots and like the lifestyle.
I would suggest that a distributed defence network is appropriate both from a strategic point of view (bit silly if a single strike on Sydney could destroy the entire military infrastructure) and geographic perspective (its a bit hard to shoe horn every defence facility into Sydney harbour).
Sydney has FBE and a range of other military establishments and industries comensurate with its population, and about what it can sustainably support itself.
In regards to Perth and its ability to support a ship building facility. Perth does have a very big technical workforce, just one that is currently orientated to chemical manufacture, mining and gas exploration. This includes more engineering consultancies than just about anywhere else, and is also one of the bigger apprenticeship providers. For instance the team I lead in Kwinana runs about 25% apprentices in our trade team (fitter and electrical/instrumentation). Our engineering team runs a similar number of cadet (undergraduate) and graduate (less than 3 yrs) engineers.
WA is comming off a construction boom, with both iron ore and gas moving into sustainment rather than expansion. Lithium and nickel are both in the dog house and will be for some time. Petroleum has already moved out, and alimunium is shutting down its older plants. Big portions of the above technical workforce are about to become surplus (aka unemployed) in the next few years, and the state government knows this.
The proposed Henderson/FBW ship construction and maintenance program fills this upcoming gap and takes advantage of a transitioning workforce. $8 billion in infrastructure plus $11 billion in GPFs, and $3-5 billion in landing craft, LOCSVs and patrol boats totals about $20-25 Billion over the next 10 years. For size comparison this is about equivalent to a medium sized LNG development. Or one big ore mine. Of which WA has completed several over the last two decards.
Companies like CIVMEC already have a reducing future order book from both mining and gas. Their current projects are more road and rail based as they seek out alternative work. I think their view on life is changing and they see the above naval work as their upcoming bread and butter (and survival). Hence they have recently jumped into bed with Austal for the LCH project.
Hull construction can be done in the CIVMEC main halls, all four can be employed for various stages (smaller hull sections can be joined in the two outer halls, with superstructure installation in the centre halls). Fitout can be done alongside at one of the new wharves once floated. 2-4 ships can easily be in simultaneous (but different staged) construction under this model. Much the same as the plan in Adelaide
The one caveat I will add is that Austal is going to need a management change. I would suggest there will be more execs departing from the recent US yard fraud. I would also hope a technical contingent of either Hanwa or Mitsubishi are embedded to run the workshops and technical teams. Many of their sub contractors are already in Perth.
A lot of the discussion seems to anticipate combat between PLAN and RAN (or in this case JMSDF) surface ships. While that is possible (and must be prepared for), it seems to miss the point that the primary adversaries for GP frigates in a peer level conflict will be submarines (because of the strenuous efforts of both sides to build the capability to create areas where they can deny access to surface ships). Broadly speaking, if a Mogami (or a future RAN GPF) needs to be competitive with a Type 054a then one, or the other, of them is in the wrong place. The peer threat for a Mogami is a PLAN submarine and it needs to be able to operate, (if needs be) on its own, against that threat. The same is true for whatever GPF is selected for the RAN. Sure it needs to contribute to strike and force protection too, but sinking ships in a major conflict will be a job for RAN submarines (not least because the targets will be in places within the first island chain that will be unacceptably dangerous for RAN surface ships).
AndyinOz
Member
There could be a few issues with an approach where you are building hulls in one place and finishing fitout in another (that was of course the approach we took with the LHD's). The major one I think of first is there is any sort of delay in processes for each yard be it supply chain for each aspect to the project. Some sort of industrial action for whatever reason. Some sort of act of God that stops work etc etc. If there is an issue at either yard the risk is the whole thing falling in a heap. At least for a period of time until the situation is rectified. That puts timelines for specific projects at a bigger risk adding a point of failure. I am not sure the efficiencies would be there either with an approach like that. Either way in an increasingly competitive world (and not in a cuddly Olympics kind of competitive way) efficiency and completing at scale is becoming more important.
Prior to the decision to build the Hunters exclusively in Adelaide I speculated that a specialist yard system could be evolved.
That is one yard specialises in keel blocks, one on complex superstructure / CIC etc. and one on efficient production of simpler hull and superstructure blocks. The required blocks would be shipped to the most suitable yard for consolidation and completion.
Simpler ships not requiring high end combat system integration could have their completion dolled out on a competitive basis between the three yards.
Every yard has enough work to keep going in lean times, there is incentive to perform well and getting extra work, and there are three operating yards to ramp up to full capacity in an emergency.
That is one yard specialises in keel blocks, one on complex superstructure / CIC etc. and one on efficient production of simpler hull and superstructure blocks. The required blocks would be shipped to the most suitable yard for consolidation and completion.
Simpler ships not requiring high end combat system integration could have their completion dolled out on a competitive basis between the three yards.
Every yard has enough work to keep going in lean times, there is incentive to perform well and getting extra work, and there are three operating yards to ramp up to full capacity in an emergency.
On this topic, there's an article mentioned way back in this forum on the Arab spring and I think in the first week the UK ran out of missiles used on it's ships and had to borrow from it's allies. That's an easy example
Another example is that the US supposedly has an inventory of about 8000 missiles. If they outfitted every frigate/destroyer/cruiser, that's enough for a single battle only.
As for Aust being to only build 100 NSM/JSM per year, I reckon that's enough to keep foreign power's from our shores, after everyone's initial inventory is used up in the first few weeks and then everyone slowly rebuilds missile numbers.
The UK has a grand total of 6 platforms capable of employing Tomahawk. They seem to find their capability effective…
We will have substantially more than that in time.
I think it is a common mistake that many make that the only militarily effective use of cruise missiles, is to employ them the same fashion US forces have done…
France, Russia, UK and arguably even Israel have done so with vastly lower volume of fires and seem to find such means, effective to achieve their missions.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
UGM-109 and RGM-109, whilst both Tomahawks are still quite different in terms of strike applications, since the launching RN platform for UGM-109 is really not going to be 'seen' prior to launch.
IMO Israel's strike situation is in some respects a bit different, in that I their area of interest (and concentration of intel resources) is going to be much shorter/closer and concentrated. Having said that though, Israel keeps a sizable warstock of ordnance and receives further ordnance deliveries from the US. I forget how many Israel has received since the 7 October 2023 attacks, but there have been several that I recall.
Lastly, I tend to disagree about assertions made regarding ordnance usage by various nations, particularly if/when those nations are engaged in large scale conflict. Israel during various conflicts, as well as NATO members involved in the 2011 intervention in/over Libya all used significant volumes of ordnance in relatively short periods of time, and again depended upon the US to replenish their respective warstocks so that they could continue strike missions over Libya. Here is a WaPo article published back in 2011 about the issue.
IMO people need to consider the number of strike and other combat sorties which they believe forces will be sent on, and what the sortie rate might be, and then figure from that how much ordnance would be needed to meet those mission needs. Again referring back to Libya in 2011, in less than a month of the NATO air campaign over Libya there were over 800 strike missions with only three flown by the US. Given that targets were hit on those missions, that would suggest over 800 pieces of ordnance (and possibly significantly more than that) were used. This all points to the potential reality that in actual sustained combat ops, ordnance expenditure could be significantly higher than believed/planned for.
These are two separate arguments with respect to volumes of fires and sustainability of warstock. The inventory of warstock of Tomahawk we are acquiring is not worse than any other long ranged strike weapon we are acquiring and is substantially better than some (than JASSM-ER by a factor of 3x for example). Tomahawk is and will always remain an exquisite strike weapon that is not maintained in huge numbers by anyone. It has been used (too many times IMHO) lavishly by (primarily) US politicians who have been more than happy to be seen to throw lots at “problems” with little concern to cost (or even militarily effective outcomes I’d argue) so as to appear “strong” on an issue, while seemingly achieving little in reality. I'm not sure anyone else who ever deploys them is ever going to use them that way.
I agree few nations are maintaining sufficiently deep inventories of weapons, that has been a long term problem but we are one of the few at least that manufacture our own Mk.80 series bomb bodies, which make up the bulk of our strike weapon inventories. As a consequence I’d like to see Paveway and / more likely JDAM kits added to the GWEO enterprise, fairly rapidly to continue to properly address these concerns…