It was updated to be a 4/2 split, 4 in Darwin with the upgraded wharf and 2 in Cairns while its wharf gets upgraded.
But these plans change while each vessel enters (or doesnt) and Capes continue to be utilised
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
But these plans change while each vessel enters (or doesnt) and Capes continue to be utilised
Thousands of jobs set to be created at new Perth defence shipbuilding and submarine maintenance precinct
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...ing-and-nuclear-powered-submarine-maintenance
Some information from todays announcement regarding the Henderson ship building and maintenance facilitiy in the above links. Not as much as I was hoping unfortunately, however key points as follows:
- The Commonwealth will procure and own a dedicated and consolidated defence facility (so not shared or privately owned).
- It will include an extension of the breakwater.
- All non defence operations to be moved out, with an area to the north identified for relocation.
- It will be at the southern end of the precinct (so the Civmec end).
- They are looking at up to four docks.
- All SSN depot level maintenance will be conducted in the facility.
- It will include the frigate construction area.
- It will cost $12-20 billion over 20 years. This in addition to the $8 billion allocated to FBW.
- The next three years will be spent on detailed design, costing $127 million. So no construction prior to 2028.
The substantial number of docks indicates they are intending to support USN/UK SSNs, in addition to our own, as a major regional hub.
I assume the BAE facility and new wharfs will remain for ship maintenance.
Last edited:
WA is actively creating more jobs which sounds great.
Here is a thought though. Maybe WA just hasn't got the capacity to handle all of this. It is no secret that WA is short of skilled workers in just about every area. It is actively trying to encourage more skilled migrants into the state. Personally I would like to see more investment in shipbuilding in some of the Eastern states.
Here is a thought though. Maybe WA just hasn't got the capacity to handle all of this. It is no secret that WA is short of skilled workers in just about every area. It is actively trying to encourage more skilled migrants into the state. Personally I would like to see more investment in shipbuilding in some of the Eastern states.
Something like…
Green = Government Owned Shipbuilding and Sustainment Yard
Blue = ASC
Red = Nuke sub long term maintenance
Black = Docks
Yellow = Pier 1 Berth
Attachments
I would agree. Nice overlay.
Maybe.
Mind you by the time this is fully built we will have completely dug up all the iron ore in the state and will be impoverished again.
Large vessel dry dock?
Also hard to say if civmec relocates north of Austal, south of Austal or takes over the BAE lot.
I recall reading an article about the Iver Huitfeldt class, where the Danes said that they were happy with their survivability, & that criticism for not having X or Y feature of another ship was misplaced. In those cases they'd aimed at, & thought they'd succeeded in, achieving the same aims by different means. The RN has changed some parts of the ship for Type 31, & has said some of that's to do with survivability, but it's been at a small fraction of the cost of the redesign the USN's done on FREMM to make it fit US standards, which suggests to me the possibility that the RN may have been more willing to accept different routes to the same destination.
I'm thinking that the contingency dock would be big enough for SSNs and large surface ships such as the oilers that can't use the synchrolift. I can't see it used for just SSNs.
I'm thinking that the end outcome might be the full southern harbour becomes defence (so from BAE down), with the northern harbour converted to non defence.
They are entirely segregated that way, with their own access points, and security can be more easily implemented. It might mean that Civmec get some of the empty plots in the northern harbour. Maybe they even get to the Austal yards and money to redevelop it.
In regards to the proposed SSN depot level maintenance facility. A Virginia goes through an EDSRA (extended docking selected restricted availability) every six years, and this takes in the order of 400 days to complete (some have taken upwards of 700-800 days). So budget every SSN coming out of service every six years for about 15 months. More for older vessels, and even more for decommissioning.
If you multiply that by 8 hulls, you get about 1.5-2 in EDSRA at any one point in time. Now the EDSRA does not involve docking for the full period, but it is a substantial component, call it half the time. I would suggest the Americans will want to use any available capacity we have (their own SSN maintenance backlog is horendous), perhaps looking to support an additional 4-8 hulls through the depot facility.
The end outcome is that the two docks (and the nearby wharves) would probably be in near continuous use. So I get why it has been sized as such.
Interestingly the government's released Henderson plan did not include the strategy for ship maintenance, just ship construction and SSN (plus Collins) maintenance.
With three Hunters and five GPFs operating out of FBW in the future, you can expect two-three in alongside maintenance and one-two up on the hard stand.I could see the existing Australian Marine Complex becomming part of the defence facility and no longer shared with non defence activities.
So the end outcome is that southern harbour is completely defence, with the BAE/AMC sections allocated for surface ship maintenance, and the ASC/Civmec section allocated to subs and ship construction.
Last edited:
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
SammyC may be able to advise if there is any land available for CivMec to relocate adjacent to the Luerssen facilities? As Civmec has just bought the Luerssen Australia facilities, having its main assembly building adjacent to its design team would provide better access & efficiencies.
I just saw Sammy’s post, beat me by a minute.
Luerrssen rent space from Civmec and have an office about a block away. So they don't have much of their own footprint.
Civmec bought more its people and contract for the OPVs, rather than any physical assets (bar the unfinished hulls).
Last edited:
Do you think Austal might be relocated to the Silveryachts facility and common user area?
The contingency dock is probably a docklift, allowing ships of 180m or less to enter the water straight from the main hall or for unscheduled sub maintenance if the other 2 docks are occupied.
A future large vessel dry dock (maintenance or build -200m+) may be constructed south of pier 1 or at the BAE lot.
Wild thinking here, with no grounding or inside goss at all.
The recent announcements allude to the federal government purchasing the common area facilities (wharves and laydown locations) from the state government, and also purchasing the private facilities, being Silveryachts and Civmec.
So they end up with the large Civmec building, the Silveryachts building and ASC complex, which convieniently are all closely located, plus all the wharves and laydowns surrounding them.
I suspect the buildings would be progressively combined into one shipbuilding facility, the Silverlakes shed, just being an additional construction or assembly hall, and in time the ASC building would follow suit. I would not be surprised if Australian Naval Infrastructure (the Osborne shipyard landlord) is given the responsibility for the combined facility as the asset owner.
Austal have been anointed as the shipbuilder, so my assumption is they move into the combined facility. It would be leased from ANI to Austal for the specific ship projects. Three projects would be done under this model, being the heavy landing craft, GPFs and then the LOCSVs. Some of these projects would likely be concurrent or at least overlap, so the additional sheds would provide capacity.
I have a feeling Austal and Civmec will likely agree to some form of JV to build ships. Austal being the lead and Civmec the labour resourcing.
Civmec get funding to build a new shed in the northern harbour to support the mining and gas industries.
I could be totally wrong.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Even though Marles appeared to cut the Joint Support Ships (& any additional AOR’s) in his National Defence Strategy 2024, wiser heads than mine on this forum have indicated that the planned fleet (as well as upgrades being introduced in the Army) will require additional support vessels. Obviously, it would be ideal for these to be built locally in a large vessel dry dock as you suggested but, even if they are built overseas, they will need to be maintained here.
Of course, if there is a conflict, we would need a facility to repair & maintain allied vessels in the area.
Maritime capabilities take lion’s share of Australia’s future defence investment - Naval News
Will be interesting to see how they go about it, I assume…
Green = Steel Fab, Piping and Block construction
Blue = Paint
Red = Block assembly or fit out. (4 bays, 2x30m high, 2x60-65m high) -187m long
Yellow = Block assembly or fit out. (2 bays) -possibly 160-200m long
Purple = who knows…
Attachments
That’s right, if you had a large vessel in the dry dock, emergency submarine maintenance would not be possible.
Something like the supply class might be syncrolifted and transported into the hall but anything larger requires a very large dock where maintenance could go on for months and months or years with construction.
US congress asked to consider alternative AUKUS plan…here we go again?
The US congress has been handed an alternative AUKUS planwhereby it would not sell nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra and instead build up to eight new Virginia-class boats that could be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia.
The eight extra Virginia-class submarinescould be used for both US and Australian missions while freeing up funds for Canberra to invest in other capabilities such as long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other strike aircraft.
The idea is canvassed by Ronald O’Rourke, a highly regarded specialist who has worked as a naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress since 1984, who labels the alternative model a US/Australian “military division of labour”.
It has won the backing of one of Australia’s leading strategic experts, Michael Shoebridge, who said Mr O’Rourke sought to present a “better plan that achieves the deterrence outcomes of AUKUS but does so in a faster and more cost-effective way”.
The alternative force Ronald O’Rourke sketches out with the B-21 bombers and new generation weapons and autonomous systems would be a more sovereign force than the current plan.”
By contrast, former home affairs secretary and leading strategic thinker Mike Pezzullo rejected Mr O’Rourke’s “model of keeping all of the SSNs for the US navy” and proposed a major lift in defence spending to boost submarine production rates.
The alternative AUKUS proposal from Mr O’Rourke, contained in an updated October 10 paper for members and committees of congress, would appear to clash with longstanding assurances from successive Australian governments that submarines provided by the US would remain under the sovereign control of the government of Australia.
Under the alternative model, Mr O’Rourke says that “up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built, and instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the five US and UK SSNs that are already planned to be operated out of Australia under Pillar 1 as SRF-West (Submarine Rotational Force-West)”.
Mr O’Rourke links the case for the alternative model to concerns over whether the US industrial base can meet the target of producing 2.33 Virginia-class submarines per year – the rate needed to replace the boats sold to Australia.
The US Navy’s goal, set out in June 2023, called for maintaining a fleet of 66 SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines), but Mr O’Rourke notes there were only 48 in service in 2023.
He says the number of SSNs is projected to experience a “valley or trough from the mid-2020s through the early 2030s”.
Under the US Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan, the SSN force is forecast to decline to 47 boats in 2030, marking the bottom of the “valley”. It would then increase to 50 boats by 2032 and up to 66 boats by 2054.
Mr O’Rourke says these projected force levels do not account for the impact of selling three to five Virginia-class boats to Australia under AUKUS.
for the rest of the article go to Apple News or the Australian Or ABC.
apple.news
www.abc.net.au
The US congress has been handed an alternative AUKUS planwhereby it would not sell nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra and instead build up to eight new Virginia-class boats that could be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia.
The eight extra Virginia-class submarinescould be used for both US and Australian missions while freeing up funds for Canberra to invest in other capabilities such as long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other strike aircraft.
The idea is canvassed by Ronald O’Rourke, a highly regarded specialist who has worked as a naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress since 1984, who labels the alternative model a US/Australian “military division of labour”.
It has won the backing of one of Australia’s leading strategic experts, Michael Shoebridge, who said Mr O’Rourke sought to present a “better plan that achieves the deterrence outcomes of AUKUS but does so in a faster and more cost-effective way”.
The alternative force Ronald O’Rourke sketches out with the B-21 bombers and new generation weapons and autonomous systems would be a more sovereign force than the current plan.”
By contrast, former home affairs secretary and leading strategic thinker Mike Pezzullo rejected Mr O’Rourke’s “model of keeping all of the SSNs for the US navy” and proposed a major lift in defence spending to boost submarine production rates.
The alternative AUKUS proposal from Mr O’Rourke, contained in an updated October 10 paper for members and committees of congress, would appear to clash with longstanding assurances from successive Australian governments that submarines provided by the US would remain under the sovereign control of the government of Australia.
Under the alternative model, Mr O’Rourke says that “up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built, and instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the five US and UK SSNs that are already planned to be operated out of Australia under Pillar 1 as SRF-West (Submarine Rotational Force-West)”.
Mr O’Rourke links the case for the alternative model to concerns over whether the US industrial base can meet the target of producing 2.33 Virginia-class submarines per year – the rate needed to replace the boats sold to Australia.
The US Navy’s goal, set out in June 2023, called for maintaining a fleet of 66 SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines), but Mr O’Rourke notes there were only 48 in service in 2023.
He says the number of SSNs is projected to experience a “valley or trough from the mid-2020s through the early 2030s”.
Under the US Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan, the SSN force is forecast to decline to 47 boats in 2030, marking the bottom of the “valley”. It would then increase to 50 boats by 2032 and up to 66 boats by 2054.
Mr O’Rourke says these projected force levels do not account for the impact of selling three to five Virginia-class boats to Australia under AUKUS.
for the rest of the article go to Apple News or the Australian Or ABC.
US congress asked to consider alternative AUKUS plan — The Australian
A leading US naval analyst has proposed to the US congress an AUKUS ‘alternative’ whereby the Americans would operate eight nuclear subs from Australia, but retain full control over them.
apple.news
Congressional report suggests Australia could dump plans to acquire AUKUS nuclear submarines
Research prepared for the United States Congress argues Australia could abandon its $368 billion AUKUS push to buy nuclear-powered submarines.
www.abc.net.au
Last edited:
On the other hand this paper suggests that due to the development risks Australia pull out of the UK AUKUS subs and just run a fleet of virginias And ride along on their development plane for the next 30 years.to be fair this seems like the lowest risk move if politically possible and the US allows us to construct or assemble going forward.
www.ussc.edu.au
The Debate Papers: Is Australia’s AUKUS submarine pathway really ‘optimal’?
In this instalment of The Debate Papers, Dr Elizabeth Buchanan and Dr Richard Dunley assess whether the AUKUS Optimal Pathway is the best way forward to realise Australia’s strategic interests.
www.ussc.edu.au
Last edited:
And while we're at it we can pay for a squadron of British cruisers to patrol our waters and not trouble our silly little heads at all with such complex issues as national defence.
It's a joke and not a funny one.
Have they even read a history book?
Soooo.....unsure about subs...
GPF still not selected, let alone ordered.
OCV still a napkin concept.
126 IFVs instead of 400ish
30SPGs instead of 60....
7RAR to be relinked to 5 RAR, dropping a an Inf Bn from the orbit....
A recruitment crisis (because of privatisation)
Hmmmm.....ADF is starting to become a banana Republic like defence force. Thank God for the RAAF.
GPF still not selected, let alone ordered.
OCV still a napkin concept.
126 IFVs instead of 400ish
30SPGs instead of 60....
7RAR to be relinked to 5 RAR, dropping a an Inf Bn from the orbit....
A recruitment crisis (because of privatisation)
Hmmmm.....ADF is starting to become a banana Republic like defence force. Thank God for the RAAF.