….not sure how this chat got on the Navy thread? So in the wash up how many boxers did we end up contracting for? Was it only 133 in the end? I thought it was 200. Plus…I’ve lost track…understand only 40 turrent ordered. If yes 133 yes our “light“ armour is 40 Turrent equipped Boxers and 127 Red Backs? …plus 93 Boxers without Turrent? What would be the contingency if we got into a hot war…order more Turrent and build more boxers?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
believe it was 211 Boxers, in total, with 25 being built overseas, and 186 built in Australia.
The 186 Block II CRVs are made up of 121 in the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) Reconnaissance variant, 29 in a joint fires support configuration (CRV-JFS), 15 in a command and control configuration (CRV-C2), 10 in a repair configuration (with crane) (CRV-REP), and 11 in a recovery configuration (with winch) (CRV-REC). Also included are 12 additional mission modules: 5 CRV-JFS; 4 CRV-C2; 2 CRV-REC; 1 CRV-REP. Also included are 20 frames for mission modules that allow these to be transported by truck, and within ISO dimensions. The contract includes an option for 11 ambulance mission modules.
The 186 Block II CRVs are made up of 121 in the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) Reconnaissance variant, 29 in a joint fires support configuration (CRV-JFS), 15 in a command and control configuration (CRV-C2), 10 in a repair configuration (with crane) (CRV-REP), and 11 in a recovery configuration (with winch) (CRV-REC). Also included are 12 additional mission modules: 5 CRV-JFS; 4 CRV-C2; 2 CRV-REC; 1 CRV-REP. Also included are 20 frames for mission modules that allow these to be transported by truck, and within ISO dimensions. The contract includes an option for 11 ambulance mission modules.
I wonder how easily Boxer mission modules could be fitted to surface vessels or even trains.
With drone operations the ability to mass produce something based on these could be a game changer.
Opens up a lot of development ideas, even loosely based on the modules for the boxer turrets.
I am sure that some alternative ideas will have been floated around, just the time frame that any decisions are made need to be re assessed in these times.
Last 3 Armidale class Patrol boats = no more. Next month all 3(Bathurst, Albany, Childers) are to be decommissioned at HMAS Coonawarra on December 4.
In other news, a JV between Austal and the Phillipines Coast guard for 3x 87m vessels(1 to be built in Austals Cebu yard, what about the other2?)
In other news, a JV between Austal and the Phillipines Coast guard for 3x 87m vessels(1 to be built in Austals Cebu yard, what about the other2?)
Attachments
Austal is certainly expanding its footprint. I was aware of them having yards in the US and the Phillipines but they also have a Vietnamese yard I was not previously aware of. Australia could probably do worse than acquire a few large Coast Guard vessels itself so it could be worth paying attention to the Austal builds in the Phillipines.
Not sure why the Phillipines Coast guard would want a few patrol boats from Austal(I’m guessing it’s a lengthened variant of the Patrol 83 they have been pitching since 2019), possibly not enough work going on at the Phillipines yard?
Korea+Japan offer so many more options, faster, cheaper? and commonality with previous Frigate/patrol purchases like the HDP 2200+.
Nothing from Austal on this. I would have thought they would be announcing it all over the place. I'm also not aware of Austal's Phillipine facility being a JV, my understanding is that Austal own this facility outright.
I agree Reptilia it sounds like a variant of the 83m OPV they have been marketing. Not sure if the 87 metre is a typo (perhaps a translation error). Can't see what you would get for an extra five metres on that design, its not enough for a hangar for instance.
Id say more room for fuel, data sheet says 3,500nm at 12knts.
Can't say for certain, but in the history of bureaucracies, I'm pretty sure that combining smaller bureaucracies into one mega bureaucracy has never made things more efficient and faster.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
It seems to be creating an even bigger byzantine bureaucracy than DMO ever was. Rolling in other groups and bureaucracies with similar mandates and responsibilities is almost going back to the days of the Department of Supply. History suggests this move won't be a success.
The current organisation is drowning under an unsustainable hierarchy that is sucking (perceived) talent up from the coalface on projects into a duplicated senior management structure.
At the same time the hollowed out middle is being stuffed with anyone they can get, usually confident, self marketing types, that puts the competent people under increased strain.
Get rid of the unnecessary duplication and get this new DDA in working on projects with the contractors instead of standing in the doorway throwing stones at them.
At the same time the hollowed out middle is being stuffed with anyone they can get, usually confident, self marketing types, that puts the competent people under increased strain.
Get rid of the unnecessary duplication and get this new DDA in working on projects with the contractors instead of standing in the doorway throwing stones at them.
It is in fact reinventing the DMO, which had those responsibilities, while adding a bit of Capability Development. What worries me is not the size of the organisation but the separation of requirements setting from the users of the capabilities being acquired, which seems inherent in the design.
I think this is the point. If you leave design and selection to users they will, understandably, look to customize and gold plate every capability. This is not a criticism it’s human nature.
We need someone divorced from users who can understand their needs and then optimize overall capability - recognizing that often that means off the shelf, or not world leading but mass produced affordable, or perhaps giving up or deprioritizing a capability for the sake of strategic alignment - and do that optimization within budget constraints.
I have no idea whether the new structure is going to deliver this and what the hell the rest of Dept of Defence is doing if they’re not doing this, but it is needed.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Just look at what the USN did to the Constellation Class. We need to avoid that like the plague!
d-ron84
Active Member
It means I'm going to have a fourth Hat and Patch in 2 years \_('~')_/
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Number of Australians trained or training on nuclear submarines now in the hundreds.
With 170 in the US nuclear submarine programme alone and more in the UK programme the numbers are quite impressive.
One slight concern though, what do they do for the next seven years till the first Virginia arrives?
Many could return to Collins but I am particularly thinking of people with specialist skills, like reactor engineers?
Do they just serve in the USN for the next seven years?
Or could this indicate the first Virginia delivery may happen before 2032?
With 170 in the US nuclear submarine programme alone and more in the UK programme the numbers are quite impressive.
One slight concern though, what do they do for the next seven years till the first Virginia arrives?
Many could return to Collins but I am particularly thinking of people with specialist skills, like reactor engineers?
Do they just serve in the USN for the next seven years?
Or could this indicate the first Virginia delivery may happen before 2032?
If I remember correctly, Dutton was talking about possible of 2 Virgina's delivery prior to 2032, during the last election, I recall him saying before the end of the decade.
However, that was the previous government, both Ours and the USA's.
Last edited:
I've been playing in this space with some success, bringing operators, SMEs and the primes (design leads) doing the work together, like I learnt to do seeing it done back in DMO days, to inform the design, ensure there are no surprises and manage expectations. Senior PMs and PDs hate what I am doing, you see, you can't actually work with the various stakeholders, you need to keep them separate and control the flow of information, be able to blame others and shirk responsibility and accountability by referring to the contract.
Operator input is critical, but they should not dictate the solution or how the contractor does their job.
The biggest issue I have had is when operators and CoA PMs misunderstand a contracted deliverable, because they are not subject matter experts, assume the contractor is incompetent or not doing their job, and go on the attack. They don't listen to industry, they don't listen to independent SMEs, they don't listen to their own technical specialists, they think they know best, and they pull out their biggest stick to bash the contractor into compliance while silencing everyone who is trying to explain to them that they have misunderstood because they lack the prerequisite knowledge to understand.
I waste more time convincing people that things need to be done, or that they don't actually matter, than I spend doing what is supposed to be my job.
Long story short, get the incompetent project managers and project directors (most of them are little more than admin people anyway, but admin with power) out of the decision chain, engage operators as SMEs, support design, build, and T&E, but not as decision-makers, and let the clever kids do their jobs without amateurs undermining them.