Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Redlands18]

Interesting what you said about the difference between manufacturing Cars ships plane and armoured vehicles.

I had a friend working on the Anzacs build for many years doing drafting work.
Hows it going I would ask
Yep another days locating pipes from one end to the other.
To the layman like myself I would of thought once you have ship one correct ( ANZAC ) the rest would be identical.

Apparently not the case!

Complicated bloody things ships.
........................................................................................................................................................

An interesting example of ship construction was the Liberty Ship in WW11.
A cargo ship designed for mas production, they reached an average medium time to build of just 39 days in 1943.
Simplicity and consistency were key to punching out such numbers.

Liberty ship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cheers S

Well Anzac was laid down in 1993 and the Perth commissioned in 2006, you don't want to be building an exact clone 13 years later. 13 years can be a long time, technology wise.
SS Robert E. Peary Liberty Ship Built in 4 Days 15 Hours 29 Minutes (usmm.org)
The record for a Liberty ship is an incredible 4 days 15 hours 29 mins

 

[MickB]

Excellence is the enemy of good has its place.

How that translates to our future fleet and time table I just don't know.
There is however merit in availability and numbers even if compromised by capability.

Cheers S

Another method of keeping up ship and missile launcher numbers during this period is to build a batch of 6 FAC/Small Corvettes.
With the idea of forward deploying to an allied nation (Singapore, S K etc) in event of conflict.

The same problem arrives as there are no current builds underway.
The (to me) 3 most notable designs of recent build are Finlands Hamina, Norways Skold and Swedens Visby class.

The Hamina and the Visby both use the Saab 9lv CMS which would reduce commonality/intergration issues.
The stealth of the Skold may be a great factor going forward.

Design work for an upgraded Visby 2 has already begun, perhaps we can leverage off that.

No need for a gold plated design, just keep the FAC in service long enough for the number of MFUs to rise then sell the on.

 

[Sierra Mike]

Perhaps more importantly, once a plan is initiated it needs to be followed, adapted by all means and improved, but followed, with out constant stops, restarts, moves and changes in direction. Its the failure to follow through with plans that does more damage than any other single factor.

This.... sums it up perfectly.

Start with a plan, review progress against the plan, make small incremental adjustments to the plan to drive improvements or efficency gains, but always go back to the plan and see it through.

It's called continuous improvement... it's not new...

 

[Volkodav]

This.... sums it up perfectly.

Start with a plan, review progress against the plan, make small incremental adjustments to the plan to drive improvements or efficency gains, but always go back to the plan and see it through.

It's called continuous improvement... it's not new...

I could tell you a story about the ridicule I copped during the first engineering team meeting I attended when joining a project and asked which continuous improvement methodology they used.

The engineering and data manager, ILS manager, platform engineering manager and waterfront engineering manager literally laughed and took turns belittling me, one even described Six Sigma and Lean as a "wank". They carried on about belt colours and idiot consultants telling them how to do their jobs, as well as how experienced, knowledgeable and perfect they were.

Actually the only professional engineer among them was pretty much on the sidelines, nervously nodding, hoping he was doing enough for them not to accuse him of being a wanker as well.

Moron to a man, but the guys running the show. There is no need to say how well that project performed, nor to mention the revolving door.

 

[Massive]

There are a great many options to build ships and submarines, the key is effectively project managing it. Perhaps more importantly, once a plan is initiated it needs to be followed, adapted by all means and improved, but followed, with out constant stops, restarts, moves and changes in direction. Its the failure to follow through with plans that does more damage than any other single factor.

I agree strongly and feel that the answer just keeps coming out as Hunter Class in numbers as quickly as possible.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

I find it astounding that there continue to be references to "off the shelf" submarines.

It brings a sense of being able to order a submarine and have it dropped of at Garden Island in a years time. It just doesn't pass the most basic smell test.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting what you said about the difference between manufacturing Cars ships plane and armoured vehicles.

I had a friend working on the Anzacs build for many years doing drafting work.
Hows it going I would ask
Yep another days locating pipes from one end to the other.
To the layman like myself I would of thought once you have ship one correct ( ANZAC ) the rest would be identical.

Apparently not the case!

Complicated bloody things ships.
........................................................................................................................................................

An interesting example of ship construction was the Liberty Ship in WW11.
A cargo ship designed for mas production, they reached an average medium time to build of just 39 days in 1943.
Simplicity and consistency were key to punching out such numbers.

Liberty ship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cheers S

There was a mod on one sub that was rolled out the the rest of the class and it didn't fit because the physical configuration of the surrounding pipe work on the sub they trialled the mod on turned out to be different to the rest. This happens all the time with ships and even cars and planes as designs evolve. The thing is because cars and planes are built in greater numbers over shorter design life spans, the differences between examples in the same batch are few in number and scope and strictly controlled by production breakpoints.

 

[Volkodav]

I find it astounding that there continue to be references to "off the shelf" submarines.

It brings a sense of being able to order a submarine and have it dropped of at Garden Island in a years time. It just doesn't pass the most basic smell test.

Regards,

Massive

The same people who seem to think off the shelf means we can get something in a couple of months also are amazed when they find out how comparatively small the ADF is, how few ships, aircraft, vehicles, and deployable combat units we have. They are stunned when they find out we have no aircraft carriers, no armoured brigades, less than 100 tanks, less than 100 combat jets, less than a dozen destroyers and frigates.

 

[Todjaeger]

Excellence is the enemy of good has its place.

How that translates to our future fleet and time table I just don't know.
There is however merit in availability and numbers even if compromised by capability.

Cheers S

A great deal would depend on whether or not the "compromised" capability was still sufficiently capable to be survivable in a threat or hostile environment. There would be little value in building a warship currently, with 'simple' electronics, comms and CMS more appropriate to earlier eras. One does not bring a 1945-era warship fitout to a sea fight with the weapons of today.

Another thing to keep in mind, particularly if one were to decide to seek out what was available and would provide a survivable capability in a modified warship build, is that any changes in the various bits of kit and subsystems would require integration and testing to ensure that whatever computer or sensor being fitted actually works with the rest of the ship's kit as required.

 

[Massive]

The same people who seem to think off the shelf means we can get something in a couple of months also are amazed when they find out how comparatively small the ADF is, how few ships, aircraft, vehicles, and deployable combat units we have. They are stunned when they find out we have no aircraft carriers, no armoured brigades, less than 100 tanks, less than 100 combat jets, less than a dozen destroyers and frigates.

Personally I feel that the complete lack of any real landpower is the thing that would shock people the most. I feel that the Airforce and to a somewhat lesser extent the Navy are what you might expect.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

Another method of keeping up ship and missile launcher numbers during this period is to build a batch of 6 FAC/Small Corvettes.
With the idea of forward deploying to an allied nation (Singapore, S K etc) in event of conflict.

The same problem arrives as there are no current builds underway.
The (to me) 3 most notable designs of recent build are Finlands Hamina, Norways Skold and Swedens Visby class.

The Hamina and the Visby both use the Saab 9lv CMS which would reduce commonality/intergration issues.
The stealth of the Skold may be a great factor going forward.

Design work for an upgraded Visby 2 has already begun, perhaps we can leverage off that.

No need for a gold plated design, just keep the FAC in service long enough for the number of MFUs to rise then sell the on.

WHY????? Where in the RAN CONOPS is such a capability mentioned? How are you go to crew them? What RAN capability do you lose in order to crew them / acquire them? Most importantly of all, are they what the RAN actually require?

 

[ngatimozart]

Personally I feel that the complete lack of any real landpower is the thing that would shock people the most. I feel that the Airforce and to a somewhat lesser extent the Navy are what you might expect.

Regards,

Massive

However when you think about it, you are an island nation, albeit of a continental size so you do really need a reasonably sized and capable navy and air force to keep any potential enemies as far away from your shores as possible. You really don't want them to gain a foothold anywhere on your continent. Even though you are a continent, you are still an island and don't lose sight of that.

 

[MickB]

WHY????? Where in the RAN CONOPS is such a capability mentioned? How are you go to crew them? What RAN capability do you lose in order to crew them / acquire them? Most importantly of all, are they what the RAN actually require?

This was in reply to several people asking about a capabity that could be stood up relatively quickly to go some of the way to cover a perceived shortfall in ships. Not put forward as a permanant change in RAN doctrine. Hence the line about retire them when MFU numbers are at desired levels.

The crews were to come from the ships that while being upgraded are causing this shortfall. They have to go somewhere and the navy is best served by having them at sea.

This was an idea for a specific set of circumstances.

 

[ngatimozart]

This was in reply to several people asking about a capabity that could be stood up relatively quickly to go some of the way to cover a perceived shortfall in ships. Not put forward as a permanant change in RAN doctrine. Hence the line about retire them when MFU numbers a at desired levels.

The crews were to come from the ships that while being upgraded are causing this shortfall. They have to go somewhere and the navy is best served by having them at sea.

This was an idea for a specific set of circumstances.

The crews on ships that are being upgraded go on professional courses or to other ships. They aren't left sitting around marking time. As it is the RAN is short handed. The shortfall is in MFU and these ships that you suggest aren't MFU and aren't what is required. Have a read through about what the defence professionals have been saying, especially the Australian ones about what is required and look at the wider picture, not just a narrow platform focussed one.

 

[Takao]

The same people who seem to think off the shelf means we can get something in a couple of months also are amazed when they find out how comparatively small the ADF is, how few ships, aircraft, vehicles, and deployable combat units we have. They are stunned when they find out we have no aircraft carriers, no armoured brigades, less than 100 tanks, less than 100 combat jets, less than a dozen destroyers and frigates.

People just fail to understand that everything we use, including off the shelf, is practically boutique.

There were more HiLux's sold in Australia in 2021 than MBTs built since 1945. Gosh, there were more MG SZ's sold in Australia in 2021 than all the 4th and 5th generation fighter aircraft ever made. This complicates supply chains, even for popular military platforms (take the F-16, the most popular teen fighter. ~4600 have been made; slightly more than the number of Toyota Yaris sold in Australia last year (the 59th most popular car)...)

Top 100 new cars sold in Australia in 2021: From Toyota HiLux and Ford Ranger to Mitsubishi's Pajero and Mirage - Car News

2021 was a year to remember – or forget – for all of us, but it was also an important 12-month period that saw the Australian new-vehicle market start to bounce back from some serious challenges, of which a few well-documented ones continue to linger

www.carsguide.com.au

However when you think about it, you are an island nation, albeit of a continental size so you do really need a reasonably sized and capable navy and air force to keep any potential enemies as far away from your shores as possible. You really don't want them to gain a foothold anywhere on your continent. Even though you are a continent, you are still an island and don't lose sight of that.

That's a very isolationist point of view though. I would rather go and fight the enemy near / on their shores than waiting for them to land. That does need a good air force and navy of course, but isolationist views in 1980s/90s came very close to rendering the ADF pointless in the 2000s. Every war requires a land force of significant strength and capability, even the Pacific War in 41-45.

 

[vonnoobie]

That's a very isolationist point of view though. I would rather go and fight the enemy near / on their shores than waiting for them to land. That does need a good air force and navy of course, but isolationist views in 1980s/90s came very close to rendering the ADF pointless in the 2000s. Every war requires a land force of significant strength and capability, even the Pacific War in 41-45.

At end of the day every force is required the only question is to what mix and capability. From the Aussie perspective say hypothetically we got into a one on one conflict with a decent sized nation in South East Asia. The RAN might be able to sink their ships, The RAAF might be able to ground their air force but the only sure way to garauntee a win would to put boots on the ground because we dont do that then some of our most important trade routes (and the worlds for that matter) are at extreme risk. The Active/Reserve mix varies by each branch but between active forces in each branch overall the RAN/RAAF/Army 25/25/50 (roughly) seems to be about the best we can do. Possibly more if we could bring forward greater efficiencies but that would require 1. Government removing cap on service numbers and 2. The military agreeing to them (As with any modernization civil, military or private will always have those that will push back against it, especially those that find their cushy roles redundant)

 

[hauritz]

In Australia’s case the tyranny of distance and lack of a land bridge would make it extremely difficult for any invader to even get a foothold on Australian territory. That possibility doesn’t really concern me.

However we do need to be able to shape our strategic environment.

We do need to be able to protect out lines of communication, protect our EEZ, and if necessary eject any potential adversary from the region.

Airforces, and navies are obviously the major players in keeping adversaries at an arms length but in the past our land forces have had to fight major wars in places such as PNG and Borneo. I also wouldn’t discount the possibility that we might have to be able to militarily intervene in the affairs of a number of smaller island nations as well.

 

[Redlands18]

In Australia’s case the tyranny of distance and lack of a land bridge would make it extremely difficult for any invader to even get a foothold on Australian territory. That possibility doesn’t really concern me.

However we do need to be able to shape our strategic environment.

We do need to be able to protect out lines of communication, protect our EEZ, and if necessary eject any potential adversary from the region.

Airforces, and navies are obviously the major players in keeping adversaries at an arms length but in the past our land forces have had to fight major wars in places such as PNG and Borneo. I also wouldn’t discount the possibility that we might have to be able to militarily intervene in the affairs of a number of smaller island nations as well.

An invasion of Australia makes very little sense, there are easier ways to defeat Australia militarily. We sit at the end of a very long supply line, cut that and we are stuffed, especially fuel. An invasion in the NW won't achieve a lot, its a long way from anywhere, everything is hostile, you would have to bring everything in by Air and Sea and there are few good roads, extreme heat in the dry season and few passable roads in the wet. To invade in the SE you would have to bring enough forces to overwhelm the ADF and its a very long way from your home.

 

[vonnoobie]

An invasion of Australia makes very little sense, there are easier ways to defeat Australia militarily. We sit at the end of a very long supply line, cut that and we are stuffed, especially fuel. An invasion in the NW won't achieve a lot, its a long way from anywhere, everything is hostile, you would have to bring everything in by Air and Sea and there are few good roads, extreme heat in the dry season and few passable roads in the wet. To invade in the SE you would have to bring enough forces to overwhelm the ADF and its a very long way from your home.

Hell I would go as far to say that the only country with the chance to launch a successful invasion of Australia is none other then the US of A and even then it probably a bridge to far for the forces and capability.

On subject of SSN's seeing it could be potentially quite some time till we get them would their be any benefit in us still building up the shipyard knowledge and capability to gain work in sustaining USN SSN's seeing as they have such a massive backlog that seems to only grow. Would aid the USN in getting what boats they have now up to scratch but would it be beneficial to the local capabilities in learning sustainment of them, sort of a crawl, walk run,,, ie: cut your teeth on maintenance before building up to production?

 

[seaspear]

Is there a possibility that Australian shipyard workers would go over seas to work on Foreign nuclear submarines to build up those skills prior to a build program here? ,as per other programs ,I note this article suggests that America is struggling with an ageing workforces and retention of skilled workers ,Im not sure if this has impacted production schedules ,but it could be possibly feasible
Shipbuilding Industry Struggles to Recruit And Retain Workforce - USNI News