Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I’m not an expert on the subject but, my understanding is that the torpedo tube launched Tomahawks are encapsulated whereas ones launched vertically from submarines are not.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Probably
Current AUSTAL facility - Building 58m Capes(13), 70m est LOSV(6) >2024-2034<
Previous Austal/Recently sold AME sheds - Building 50m LCM(18) >2024-2032
Current CIVMEC facility - Building 80m Arafura(4), 100m est LCH(8) >2024-2034<
Future large shed AUSTAL (Ex Silveryachts site)- 130m est GPF(8) >2029-2034<
Assume…
10 (8 ABF-2 RAN) First Gen Capes are to be replaced from 2033-2037, 20 year service life.
21 Evolved Capes in service by 2031 (As far as we know - 10 RAN, 11 ABF).
2040, we might see a new design starting to replace Evolved Capes?
Last edited:
Asian shipyards battle for lucrative Australian naval contract
South Korea and Japan are emerging as the early favourites in a multi-billion-dollar competition to build Australia's new fleet of light frigates.
www.abc.net.au
‘A down select decision on designs for Australia's multi-billion-dollar general purpose frigate fleet is expected to be made in coming days.
Many industry and defence figures believe warship designs from South Korea and Japan are favoured over other rival options from Spain and Germany.’
Using the highly trustworthy google maps ruler, I get the following shed measurements:
- Austal 93-100 metres long (matches their website specs which say four sheds of between 93-99 metres long, 22-35 metres wide and 15-22 metres high.
- Silveryachts. 85 metres long, 45 metres wide in two divided bays. About 20-25 metres high.
- Civmec 208 metres. Some of of this is office/storage, so the actual working hall is 187 metres long, with a centre high bay of 130 metres long, a hight of 70 metres and a width of 50 metres according to their website.
Just for context, small vessels get built from the keel up, which is how Austal and Silveryachts currently work. Assembly and construction are done concurrently in the same area (small sections of steel/aliminium at a time). The hulls are built upside down and then flipped, with the superstructure then added. Works fine for small vessels like patrol boats, where the infrastructure (cranes and the like) can be smaller. Large ships get built in modules and then welded together. Assembly and construction are generally done separately in different facilities. The Arafuras were built like this and it is how Civmec was designed.
So if you are building in modules, you need a hall that is the length of the ship, plus at least the length of the modules (10-30 metres). This way you wheel the modules into the front of the hall, pick them up with the overhead crane, and then set them in position. So for say a Mogami of 135 metres, you would need a shed of at least 150-160 metres. And a crane that can lift several hundred tonnes.
Perhaps an extension could be on the cards for the Silveryachts hall, their shed could be extended to about 170 metres to the east. craneage would need to be significantly upgraded.
I'm thinking the GPFs will go through the Civmec building, two could be assembled concurrently in the middle halls with ample space. The other halls are all too short and it needs high capacity cranes to lift modules (the Civmec ones are 400 tonners).
Patrol boats (capes and guardians) and LCMs through Austal's current facility, or in the two outside wings of the Civmec hall if facilities are amalgamated.
LCHs initially in the Civmec hall (hence the JV with Austal) and then in an extended and upgraded Silveryachts hall once the GPFs come online. LOCSVs could follow in the same facility.
I should note, these are just the assembly halls. The real work is done constructing modules in the fabrication areas. In the Civmec facility, this is the other big shed to the north. All of the fancy laser cutters, welding machines and the like are in this facility, so all of the construction goes through here. I suspect this will be the bottle neck regardless of the assembly hall.
Last edited:
In addition to the drydock, the plan back in 2020 was to move Silveryachts to the North and build a brand new shed at the current site, it was to be rebuilt up to the car park and wider making it around 160m-180m long and about 70m wide.
Attachments
Last edited:
That would work, could assemble two larger ships in that sized facility. Combined with Civmec that would provide four frigate/destroyer sized undercover assembly halls and two small boat assembly halls plus several fitout wharves. Starts look like it might become one of the largest undercover yards in SE Asia.
Silveryachts have a new facility in China, and from what I've read they are planning to move all their construction there, and vacate their Australian manufacturing presence. So they may not be looking for an new northern residence, just a payout.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I think any expansion of current facilities would be extremely short sighted if they are only made big enough to accommodate the next generation to be constructed.
History shows that generation on generation, these ships are getting bigger.
Compare the Perth Class to the Hobart, or the FFG’s to the Hunters.
For overseas examples look at the Frigate halls at Devonport, which are now too small to fit the next generation of frigates. Or even the Barrow submarine facility (RIP??) that has been expanded by 50% over the last 10-15 years despite the much lower build rate then the facility was originally designed to support.
History shows that generation on generation, these ships are getting bigger.
Compare the Perth Class to the Hobart, or the FFG’s to the Hunters.
For overseas examples look at the Frigate halls at Devonport, which are now too small to fit the next generation of frigates. Or even the Barrow submarine facility (RIP??) that has been expanded by 50% over the last 10-15 years despite the much lower build rate then the facility was originally designed to support.
It's just a shareholder presentation promoting potential future work not actual contracts. Nothing like a bit of speculation to get investors excited..
Valid point.
I know the Civmec hall could hold a vessel the size of a Hobart, Hunter or even an Arleigh-Burke. The ship lift and self propelled movers however are limited, so hopefully this gear gets an upgrade in the future modernisation.
The SA Osborne facility is however certainly sized for this capacity, with a 13,000 tonne ship lift.
I would view the ultimate problem with a shed style assembly, irrespective of Henderson or Osborne, is that what ever is built in the shed eventually has to be moved to the water. So there becomes a maximum size that can be reasonably transported. There are some syncrolifts in the world that exceed 20,000 tonnes but they are few and far between.
I should point out that ships don't need to be built in sheds. Most are built in the open.
Let me know if I'm wrong, but I think the Arafuras were the first plus 60m ship that was shed built for the Navy.
Last edited:
True. But they do need to be careful about misleading investors.
Always the possibility of a Second stage to link to Dock 1?
The Floating dock (Dock 1 - 99m x 53m) can be linked with another, (Dock 2 - 132m x 53m). Lift capacity approx 25,000ton, transfer weight??
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
But building them in a shed, whether situated over a hard stand or over a dry dock has a huge advantage by taking the weather out of the equation.
You don't have to worry about rain, plus you can control light levels, humidity and temperature to increase the efficiency of the workforce and also to allow 3 shifts a day to be run if this is a requirement.
Edit: I forgot one last advantage. If you are building in a shed, nobody outside that shed knows exactly where in the build program you are at....unless you tell them...
Last edited:
All valid.
It's not that I don't like sheds. Welding in 40 deg heat really stinks. And I've spent my fair share of time in heavy wet weather gear. The control over construction is so much better in an enclosed environment.
It was just to point out it is not essential. We could build ships down in the BAE maintenance complex on the dirt if push came to shove.
I've never had the luxury of working in a shed in my entire career. It's a different era.
Just some generic comments.
Undercover construction is where its at. You will get far greater productivity from an undercover yard. Exposing things to rain, snow, massive temperature flucuations, sunlight, bird shit, causes all sorts of problems. Surfaces are never clean, water gets in everywhere, blocks can be different temperatures and therefore different sizes and it can be problematic to get them the same temperature if they are painted differently/ or have different geometries reflecting light differently. Problems and delays. Worker comfort is a real thing, working in modern PPE makes it even harder. But that isn't the only things
We could build in the dirt, but we would be far less efficient, far slower, far more expensive, far less quality. Submarines for example are only built in build halls. Designs are pretty optimized for certain construction methods, as we have found out, going backwards in production techniques can cause problems. Things we built int the dirt would be pretty shit.
Anyone who has had to spend ages to clean up a rusty bit of steel to get a weld know how much more time can be wasted prepping than actual welding.
Thermal expansion will mean on 25m steel (width of a type 26) at a delta of 40C you will have 6.5mm of length difference. Even if you weld it, when they do get to the same temperature you setup internal stresses to ensure failure. Chinese yards where they are scaling up to larger vessels are finding this problem, lots of hull cracking. When dealing with huge blocks of steel in the open, it can take days/weeks for temperatures to balance, and some structures, you will never get it, as one side of the same block will be a different temperature than the other side. This was less of an issue with earlier designs and methods back in the 40's and 50's, but now with blocks or super/grand block construction this just doesn't work, tolerances are tighter, structures more rigid, there is less fat/margin in the design.
Civil construction has this problem all the time, and in many cases, you have to plan construction around the seasons or plan long delays into the construction process or apply many costly small measures to assist. In the northern hemisphere, there are times of the year they can't pour concrete, and basically some parts of construction cannot occur, same in tropical areas in wet seasons. Sometimes the design has to be changed to give extra strength to mitigate weakness due to weather in construction, you pay for it in the end.
The facilities are also better for productivity, so much more support is built in, access, toilets, fire fighting, first aid, welding gear, power, tools etc. You can rebuild a car engine in the dirt, but its a hell of a lot better in a workshop with a hoist. Monitoring productivity is also easier. We are talking gains not of a few % but of hundreds of %. Frame and truss plants make housing frames 30-40 times the productivity of a team of carpenters on site. Two workers can build the housing frames for 20 houses in a day, and those workers would be happier and the quality arguably better.
One of the things I think we did get right is building huge build halls with detached buildings for all the other functions. The CIVMEC & Osborne facility was overbuilt in a good way. Arguably the greatest limitations aren't CIVMEC facility, but the contracting and specialized workforce around it.
With drones now everywhere, everyone is rethinking outside building. A fly over of a drone over these sites happens all the time. Which is a security risk of course, but also they could very effectively disrupt the build process. How many shipyard fires have we seen in the past few years that have cause devastation to ships and facilities. Australia is one of the few places where we have these covered modern well built structures, and pretty tight control of the airspace around them.
Luerssen Australia on LinkedIn: NUSHIP ARAFURA COMPLETES SEA TRIALS In a major milestone for the Arafura…
On some good news for the week, it looks like Arafura has completed contractor sea trials. It looks like things are finally heading in the right direction.
On some good news for the week, it looks like Arafura has completed contractor sea trials. It looks like things are finally heading in the right direction.
downunderblue
Member
Believe it, or not ...
"
Multiple defence industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Thursday night that bids from German shipbuilder TKMS and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries go through further analysis before a final decision next year
Defence officials last week put their recommendations to the government, knocking out bid from South Korean shipbuilders Hanwha Ocean and Hyundai Heavy Industries, and Spain’s Navantia".
www.afr.com
I'm quite surprised at the TKMS design being 'downlisted' over the HHI bid. Am sure it will all come out in the wash but surely the Mogami has it now ??!
"
Multiple defence industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Thursday night that bids from German shipbuilder TKMS and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries go through further analysis before a final decision next year
Defence officials last week put their recommendations to the government, knocking out bid from South Korean shipbuilders Hanwha Ocean and Hyundai Heavy Industries, and Spain’s Navantia".
Navy’s $10b warship contest down to Germans, Japanese
The Albanese government will make a final decision next year on the winning designer for a contract to build 11 new light frigates for the navy.
I'm quite surprised at the TKMS design being 'downlisted' over the HHI bid. Am sure it will all come out in the wash but surely the Mogami has it now ??!
Think a big factor was the range, the other designs were all around 4,500nm-5,000nm at 15knts. Only Hanwhas Ocean 4300 concept had a range of 6,000nm.Believe it, or not ...
"
Multiple defence industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Thursday night that bids from German shipbuilder TKMS and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries go through further analysis before a final decision next year
Defence officials last week put their recommendations to the government, knocking out bid from South Korean shipbuilders Hanwha Ocean and Hyundai Heavy Industries, and Spain’s Navantia".
Navy’s $10b warship contest down to Germans, Japanese
The Albanese government will make a final decision next year on the winning designer for a contract to build 11 new light frigates for the navy.
I'm quite surprised at the TKMS design being 'downlisted' over the HHI bid. Am sure it will all come out in the wash but surely the Mogami has it now ??!
A200 7,200nm at 16knts, Mogami(not listed anywhere but I’ve seen JMSDF papers saying 6,000nm)
Potential for another joint program with NZ.
Think the Japanese are still the favourites.
Last edited:
KrustyKoala
New Member
In the article it says that TKMS design is seen as lower risk. Surely that would put it above the Mogami in the eyes of the Government. Australian procurement is pretty risk averse is it not?