Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

H_K said:
IIRC when Canada was considering buying SSNs in the late 80s, those would have been LEU fueled (Rubis class). Some pros and cons to each approach obviously, but bottom line is that HEU vs LEU should not be a deciding factor.
Click to expand...

LEU was only considered for the proposed SSN fleet because the USN opposed SSNs for Canada. Canada's finances after the 1987 economic downturn and various scandals with the Mulroney government killed the idea. One scandal terminated the Canadian $1,000 bill....given inflation since then, it would be useful today. The largest bill here is $100...covers the cost of 60 cans of beer! :(
 
No one knows what the Attack Class would have looked like had AUKUS not eventuated.

It was a program in such infancy it’s hard to judge what it would have looked like long term.

Yes many critics and maybe some justification ,but my belief is that the French do know how to build some good military kit

I’d speculate had we continued with the Attack class build , we would have eventually acquired an excellent SSK in good time ,numbers at a respectable price.
Some hiccups , price blowout and no doubt challenges ,
but still a good end result

A capability I would now have preferred to the current Plan A of AUKUS and its implications for a balanced ADF.

Anyway we cannot turn back the clock.

Back to the complexities of docking cycles of SSNs and all that implies

I’ve come to the conclusion that a SSN is a bridge too far for a nation of our size and expertise.
It also has a political element that I’m not comfortable with on many levels.

All up it’s a mistake



Cheers S


I
 
spoz said:
I am pretty sure we would not consider buying French submarines after our experiences with the last effort.
Click to expand...
I assume the anti-nuclear lobby at the time prevented consideration of a French SSN which in theory should have been more straight forward resulting in the questionable effort of modifying a SSN into a SSK.? Mind you France being France, a Australian-French collaboration on a a joint SSN build in Australia might not have fared any better than the Attack class SSK.
 
John Fedup said:
I assume the anti-nuclear lobby at the time prevented consideration of a French SSN which in theory should have been more straight forward resulting in the questionable effort of modifying a SSN into a SSK.? Mind you France being France, a Australian-French collaboration on a a joint SSN build in Australia might not have fared any better than the Attack class SSK.
Click to expand...
The anti-nuclear lobby prevented the consideration of any SSNs, hence the bastardised ATTACK class design. When that started to go pear shaped and analysts/commentators were pushing various other SSK designs, suddenly AUKUS happened so the push is now for SSNs.
 
OldTex said:
The anti-nuclear lobby prevented the consideration of any SSNs, hence the bastardised ATTACK class design. When that started to go pear shaped and analysts/commentators were pushing various other SSK designs, suddenly AUKUS happened so the push is now for SSNs.
Click to expand...
Abbott wanted the Japanese boats, Turnbull didn't like that and went for bastardised Attack class, and here we are!
 
spoz said:
Yes we might have done - had we agreed to build them in France.
Click to expand...

French now helping Brazil with their first SSN, build in Brazil yard. So I do see French will be helping Australian on domestic SSN, if Australia choose Baracuda base SSN, instead conventional base Baracuda design.
 
Reptilia said:
They'll get something post OPV, no doubt about it. Another patrol boat or auxiliary replacement perhaps.
Click to expand...

I can't see how larger shipbuilding is undertaken without the civmec facility. It's not just the big shed, but also the fabrication workshops and other facilities that bring all the services together.

Trying to build an LCH on the CUF open hard stand feels like a plan designed for infinite pain.

I also don't see how a top secret nuclear submarine maintenance dock can be built directly infront of the civmec facility without significant security problems.
 
Going Boeing said:
A Naval News article about the infrastructure at Henderson Defence Precinct - the author is not optimistic about any CIVMEC involvement in future naval shipbuilding, despite their very suitable facilities.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Austal will be prime, and outsource to civmec. Civmec has always seemed to me focused on the steel part of construction as complimentary to their business, less so about fitout and complete project ownership. Austal is over project management, but the workforce of actual steel hull construction is under Civmec contracted by Austal.

A cynical part of me thinks they were really interested in it to get a big new site and make sure no competitor came in and setup shop. They seem happy to take contracted block work, but not run the risks of entire project end to end. I don't think they want to give up their civil and industrial work to focus just on ships.

CIMVEC hall while next to the AMC CUF, isn't part of the AMC CUF AFAIK.


The problem is, however, that Austal’s existing facility at Henderson isn’t large enough to support the end-to-end construction of either the heavy landing craft or the new frigates and is one of the main reasons that the consolidation program is so critical to the timely delivery of capability for Defence.
Click to expand...
1783740621530.png

The main fabrication hall at the AMC CUF is only 55x20m.

So I presume Civmec can be contracted to do blocks and block assembly, then pull out a semi-fitted hull which can then be completed in the water.
 
SammyC said:
I can't see how larger shipbuilding is undertaken without the civmec facility. It's not just the big shed, but also the fabrication workshops and other facilities that bring all the services together.

Trying to build an LCH on the CUF open hard stand feels like a plan designed for infinite pain.

I also don't see how a top secret nuclear submarine maintenance dock can be built directly infront of the civmec facility without significant security problems.
Click to expand...

Austal will probably take alot of learnings from the Mobile yard, one large module manufacturing facility(300m x 200m) that distributes almost completed blocks to multiple halls for assembly. BAE site + part of CUF South = roughly 650m wide by 300m deep so something similar could be done.

 
Reptilia said:
Austal will probably take alot of learnings from the Mobile yard, one large module manufacturing facility(300m x 200m) that distributes almost completed blocks to multiple halls for assembly. BAE site + part of CUF South = roughly 650m wide by 300m deep so something similar could be done.

Click to expand...
Valid consideration. Their Mobile yard seems well designed.

I would have thought the BAE area needs to remain. We will still have ANZACs through into the mid 30's, and by then the Mogamis will be looking at their first docking cycles. And thereafter the Hunters.

While the proposed new dry docks will be built, I'm thinking this infrastructure will be late 30's at best and will commence with a floating dock for the Virginias. And it is unlikely to have capacity to support surface ships and submarines simultaneously.
 
SammyC said:
Valid consideration. Their Mobile yard seems well designed.

I would have thought the BAE area needs to remain. We will still have ANZACs through into the mid 30's, and by then the Mogamis will be looking at their first docking cycles. And thereafter the Hunters.

While the proposed new dry docks will be built, I'm thinking this infrastructure will be late 30's at best and will commence with a floating dock for the Virginias. And it is unlikely to have capacity to support surface ships and submarines simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I think that’s where cdi can help out -with maintenance. The potential Newcastle hub too would make alot of sense.
bae cut over 150 recently and pusser01 said they may be leaving the site next year.

Pics - Naval News
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4028.jpeg
    IMG_4028.jpeg
    225.4 KB · Views: 34
  • IMG_4029.jpeg
    IMG_4029.jpeg
    133.2 KB · Views: 37
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top