Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Can I ask what potential WA has to build the Hunter Class design?
- Please do not think I am suggesting that we change any plans; I'd just like to know, with full utilization of WA facilities, what could we get done?
i.e. the number of ships in construction in parallel, number of blocks... etc, compared to ASC.
- Please do not think I am suggesting that we change any plans; I'd just like to know, with full utilization of WA facilities, what could we get done?
i.e. the number of ships in construction in parallel, number of blocks... etc, compared to ASC.
The Osborne facility is designed to be a plate to hull process which means all the blocks are planed to be built on site. The facility does have the ability to increase the drum beat.
While block build spreads the love having a plate to hull site provides more work for that site and allows for centralised skill sets to be maintained. There are also advantages to scheduling and removes the need to move blocks. In my view this will be much more efficient and limits the impact of distributed quality control and is not limited to smaller blocks of the type shipped for the DDG.
Looking at the Arafura built is is obvious the yard is now capable of working with much larger blocks with the hull consolidated from two bega blocks. This allows a number of vessels to be in advanced states of build at one time and moving between sheds. This allows for more rapid consolidation.
The Henderson site is also intended to provide maintenacne of vessel so it will still be pretty well engaged covering SEA1180 and SEA1905 as well as any other minor war vesel project.
Given the Pacific Ship is still very much an unknown quantity you never know, it may allocated to Henderson ...... if it is built.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would caution about trying to determine what 'full utilization' would permit, as that would likely blow the national shipbuilding plan out of the water. If all the involved facilities for RAN vessel production run ahead of schedule, especially by a significant margin, then all RAN orders would be completed early and there would likely be another 'valley of death' in shipbuilding where there are no new orders to work on, keeping yards ticking and yard workers active. OTOH if facilities run too slowly, then the RAN runs the risk of either needing to invest in expensive MLU programmes to keep numbers up while fleet units are delayed getting into service, or have the fleet size shrink and vessels get decommissioned before their replacements are ready.
Definitely; my line of thought was not in the idea of just getting as many ships as quickly as possible, but being able to replace ships that may be combat ineffective after a conflict arises.
Another way of putting the question is: Could WA build Hunters effectively in a wartime surge?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
A better question might be, could we build Hunters fast enough for a wartime surge?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given the complexity of modern warfighting kit, I doubt any facility could build modern, advanced warships in a wartime surge. Consider how far ahead some of the long lead time items need to be ordered, in order for the components to be ready for installation. Using the SPY-1D(V) arrays of the Hobart-class DDG's as an example, the Aegis/SPY arrangement was selected for the then AWD programme back in 2007. By mid-2009, Lock Mart had completed two of the four array panels for the first AWD. Reading back through this thread, it seems that the lead time for a SPY-1D(V) array was three years or more which is why when the possible fourth DDG was not ordered by 2013, it was no longer a realistic option.
If parts going into a warship can take more than a few months to produce, then there would be no way to sustain a wartime production surge, at least not with the same level of capability and quality.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I remember reading this article on the ADM website about two years ago:
www.australiandefence.com.au
The relevant paragraph:
Australian construction is predicated on batches of three, utilising the same digital manufacturing process installed in BAE Systems’ Glasgow yard for Type 26 production. The present Osborne schedule involves completion of a ship every two years but sufficient capacity at the upgraded and expanded facility was available to either accelerate construction or build other ships concurrently, Stewart said
According to Nigel Stewart, who is (was?) the head of BAE Systems SEA 5000 bid team, there is capacity at Osborne to either increase the drum beat or even build ships concurrently.
I also remember reading at the time, the Government specifically said that the 'arrangement' with BAE would still allow ASC to continue to seek and obtain additional work outside of the Hunter project.
Yes of course you need the manpower to perform additional work, but it would appear that the facility, both the original facility (that produced the three AWDs and now two OPVs) and combined with the new expanded facility (for Hunter) could perform such tasks as increased drum beat and also concurrent construction (couple of ships for the Kiwis??).
Cheers,
Sea 5000: Behind the BAE Systems win - Australian Defence Magazine
Superior antisubmarine warfare (ASW) capabilities have emerged as the primary although not the only driver behind the selection of BAE Systems’ Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) to provide the RAN’s next generation of major surface combatants.
www.australiandefence.com.au
The relevant paragraph:
Australian construction is predicated on batches of three, utilising the same digital manufacturing process installed in BAE Systems’ Glasgow yard for Type 26 production. The present Osborne schedule involves completion of a ship every two years but sufficient capacity at the upgraded and expanded facility was available to either accelerate construction or build other ships concurrently, Stewart said
According to Nigel Stewart, who is (was?) the head of BAE Systems SEA 5000 bid team, there is capacity at Osborne to either increase the drum beat or even build ships concurrently.
I also remember reading at the time, the Government specifically said that the 'arrangement' with BAE would still allow ASC to continue to seek and obtain additional work outside of the Hunter project.
Yes of course you need the manpower to perform additional work, but it would appear that the facility, both the original facility (that produced the three AWDs and now two OPVs) and combined with the new expanded facility (for Hunter) could perform such tasks as increased drum beat and also concurrent construction (couple of ships for the Kiwis??).
Cheers,
Last edited:
The hall at Henderson is 130m by 40m by 70m tall at its apex.
The hall at Osborne is 187m by 87m wide by 50m high
I believe the Henderson hall can fit a Hobart class. But I don't think they ever built the facility to build that kind of ship, but perhaps to offer some maintenance/upgrade capability. The video shows Henderson housing a AWD and Anzac Frigate in the facility at the same time (although the rear doors are open to squeeze in the Hobart.).
Here is a video about the large ship yard BAE osborne.
Larger ships are clearly going to be easier to construct at Obsorne. It would make sense to always construct them there. There is scope to be able to expand drum beats of subs or surface combatants at Osborne. It is going to be an excellent large ship/submarine building facility.
However you could certainly build a large pacific ship or support ships at Henderson. If you wanted to build a corvette you could build something like that at Henderson.
During war time its very hard to increase production of large complex ships. Its probably more effective to try and early finish any you already are in the process in constructing, and focus on production of smaller ships which are quicker and easier to produce.
The hall at Osborne is 187m by 87m wide by 50m high
I believe the Henderson hall can fit a Hobart class. But I don't think they ever built the facility to build that kind of ship, but perhaps to offer some maintenance/upgrade capability. The video shows Henderson housing a AWD and Anzac Frigate in the facility at the same time (although the rear doors are open to squeeze in the Hobart.).
Here is a video about the large ship yard BAE osborne.
Larger ships are clearly going to be easier to construct at Obsorne. It would make sense to always construct them there. There is scope to be able to expand drum beats of subs or surface combatants at Osborne. It is going to be an excellent large ship/submarine building facility.
However you could certainly build a large pacific ship or support ships at Henderson. If you wanted to build a corvette you could build something like that at Henderson.
During war time its very hard to increase production of large complex ships. Its probably more effective to try and early finish any you already are in the process in constructing, and focus on production of smaller ships which are quicker and easier to produce.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is not the size of vessel that matters so much, but the complexity of the vessel. Looking at the US construction of Liberty ships during WWII, the 14,000 ton cargo vessels took an average of 42 days to construct once production was ramped up, with the work force experienced and designs understood. These vessels were larger than many warships of the day, but the on board systems were also much simpler.
While I do suspect a corvette-sized vessel might be faster to construct than a large destroyer or cruiser, if the corvette includes complex subsystems like integrated phased radar arrays, an advanced CMS, and comprehensive weapons fitout, that too will take time to construct. After all, the subsystems themselves will need to be assembled and tested prior to delivery and installation.
Indeed, its quite different building bulk carriers to surface combatants tonnage for tonnage.
Bigger weapons and sensors typically take longer to make. Some are directly proportional. A corvette might use 4 radar arrays, while a frigate might use 16 or more of those same arrays. There is generally a greater production capacity with smaller guns and missiles than with larger ones. Getting more 5" guns may be difficult in war time, but there might be a significant number of 76 or 40 or 30mm guns in storage.
During war time, even in longer wars like WW2, even tremendously capable nations like the US struggled to increase output of large "capital" style ships and their systems (however, what one may consider a capital ship for the USN is probably quite different to what Australia would refer to as a capital ship). Smaller ships are more do able in terms of production. Systems are usually more in common with commercial systems and therefore have greater production volume.
Most likely Australia's production capability won't be a significant factor in any war. However, it also comes back to sovereign capability to design, build, sustain, etc. As we have recently seen, we don't need a war to have logistics and supply problems. Having some manufacturing capability has proven very valuable, and adaptive. It is something other nations look at when looking at their security and partnerships. Cases where countries typically just buy MOTS overseas generally expose themselves to logistical problems when operating said equipment, even in peace time. Particularly for large complex equipment where you might only have a few examples. Capability to build can be adapted to maintain, or repair.
Realistically, even in war time, I wouldn't expect Australia to operate more than 14 large surface combatants.
Bigger weapons and sensors typically take longer to make. Some are directly proportional. A corvette might use 4 radar arrays, while a frigate might use 16 or more of those same arrays. There is generally a greater production capacity with smaller guns and missiles than with larger ones. Getting more 5" guns may be difficult in war time, but there might be a significant number of 76 or 40 or 30mm guns in storage.
During war time, even in longer wars like WW2, even tremendously capable nations like the US struggled to increase output of large "capital" style ships and their systems (however, what one may consider a capital ship for the USN is probably quite different to what Australia would refer to as a capital ship). Smaller ships are more do able in terms of production. Systems are usually more in common with commercial systems and therefore have greater production volume.
Most likely Australia's production capability won't be a significant factor in any war. However, it also comes back to sovereign capability to design, build, sustain, etc. As we have recently seen, we don't need a war to have logistics and supply problems. Having some manufacturing capability has proven very valuable, and adaptive. It is something other nations look at when looking at their security and partnerships. Cases where countries typically just buy MOTS overseas generally expose themselves to logistical problems when operating said equipment, even in peace time. Particularly for large complex equipment where you might only have a few examples. Capability to build can be adapted to maintain, or repair.
Realistically, even in war time, I wouldn't expect Australia to operate more than 14 large surface combatants.
Another hatchet job in APDR. They'd have a lot more credibility if they actually knew that the Hunter class isn't a submarine. And it's boilerplate regurgitating old news to fill column inches.
oldsig
oldsig
And the structure was also much simpler than a warship.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
sorry link not useable, but found the following by Googling fastest Liberty build.
The SS Robert E Peary was built in 4 days,15 hours,29 mins from Nov 8 to Nov 12 1942. Including 250.000 parts weighing 14,000,000 pounds.
I think most on DT would recognise the importance of Submarines to the RAN and the replacement program that is SEA 1000.
That said;it must also be recognised that as one of our biggest defence projects, SEA 1000 cannot be treated as some holy cow not to be questioned.
In a liberal democracy with freedom of speech this is understandable and in fact desirable.
The challenge is two fold.
One - how to keep the public on side for what will always be a rather secretive project when it comes into criticism from the media?
Two - how to keep the positive momentum for the project against this criticism,particularly when due to the recent pandemic and associated spending our accounts are not as flush compared to a few months back.
While not wanting to compare apples to oranges,the comparison of what the Netherlands are getting in replacement submarines, and for what price, does beg the question is SEA 1000 working for us ??????
Regards S
But you have just compared “apples to oranges”
The two boats are totally different, you don’t know the cost parameters of the Dutch boats or their projected CONOPS.
It’s therefore impossible to make a comparison.
Yes there is cause to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the acquisition process but that has to be done by those in possession of all the current information and that’s certainly not Robert Gottliebsen, Andrew Bolt or other talking heads
The ditch as far as I know still haven't made a decision on their future boat. At present its still a toss up between Saab, naval group and time. It's for 3-4 boats and a desired tonnage of circa 3000 tons. If naval group is chosen well as a bonus may be able to get some work for our industry down under.
Sorry for going OT admins
Sorry for going OT admins
For a second there I thought you were referring to our Kiwi cousins.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Also, even if the CONOPS for the RNLN subs was known, unless it was markedly similar to the RAN sub CONOPS and likely operating environments, it would still be an apples to oranges comparison.
Based on the little that is known about past RAN sub ops, plus Australia's area of interest stretching over three nearby oceans and covering an area from the southern polar regions to north of the equator, RAN subs need to operate in a broader range of maritime environmental conditions, as well as at longer distances, than pretty much all other subs excepting nuclear boats. That can be accomplished but likely requirements effort than boats which are likely to spend most of their operational lives in the North Sea or North Atlantic.
If this was not the case, then Australia's sub selection process would likely have been much easier, since more conventional sub designs would have met requirements without requiring basically a complete redesign.
Damn auto correct. Dutch*. I imagine the future kiwi submarine will resemble the kiwi WW2 tank and be made out of coragated iron. LolFor a second there I thought you were referring to our Kiwi cousins.
- Status