No, today composite materials and a whole lot of us Maori boys paddling.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I feel that for the next 10 to 20 there will be a lot of column inches filled with this stuff. One thing that I do wonder about, however, is to what degree do Australia and France share the IP rights not only for the Attack Class, but also technology derived from the development of Attack class. If the French sell boats to the Netherlands or any other customer Australia may well expect compensation or perhaps even insist that this technology be withheld.
No wonder it took an eternity to hammer out the contract for this project.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Following on from what Assail said, I think it very much comes down to who is saying what.
If I remember correctly, the editor of APDR Magazine is very much in the Kockums camp, even before the final short list of three was announced for SEA 1000 he was pushing for Kockums, and from memory they also did a fair bit of advertising in his magazine too.
If you look at Defence Connect, they are coming out with a lot of negative stuff too, they often reference Rex Patrick and a while ago appeared to be promoting that new Submarines for Australia group (the naval version of APA).
Before I take too much notice of media reports, I usually look closely at who is saying what!
Cheers,
justinterested
New Member
Can Australia reallistically handle all the planned naval shipbuilding/updates/modifications/maintenance that is supposed to happen in the next decade? Simultaneous construction of the complex attack class submarines, hunter class frigates, arafura class opv's, major updates to the collins class submarines, updates to the Anzac class frigates, updates to the mine hunter ships, Armidale class upgrades?, construction of pacific patrol vessels, possible pacific support vessel, upgrade of hobart class destroyers, port infrastructure upgrades, ongoing maintenance of everything mentioned, ..........
Are we over-extending our capabilities? We have two major shipbuilding centres - Osborne and Henderson, but do we need to be realistic and allocate some of these to foreign shipbuilders. Otherwise, we could be heading for delays, extra costs, skill shortages and damage to reputation?
Are we over-extending our capabilities? We have two major shipbuilding centres - Osborne and Henderson, but do we need to be realistic and allocate some of these to foreign shipbuilders. Otherwise, we could be heading for delays, extra costs, skill shortages and damage to reputation?
Takao
The Bunker Group
Short answer - yes.
Longer answer, having some insight into possible changes to the program, a reaffirmed yes. Some may not be what people on the forum or in the Service want, and some may need different approaches to construction, but yes. Honestly, there has been a bit of dragging uniformed people down this path, but I have faith that we have the skills, depth and capability to do this.
On what grounds are you basing your assumptions? Clearly there are enough qualified tradies etc., within the workforce to meet the demand. Plus if a well organised apprenticeship scheme involving industry, federal and state governments has been stood up and running well, there should be little or no labour problems apart from union inflicted ones.
This whole national shipbuilding plan is different to previous shipbuilding programs which were boom and bust, with valleys of death in between. This plan is a continual build plan in the case of the Attack class subs and the Hunter class FFG. The drumbeat has been designed so that there are no gaps, but it's flexible enough to allow for faster builds if required.
You need to provide reputable reliable sources to support your claims. That's how it works here.
justinterested
New Member
The troubled history of the Hobart class build is part of my evidence and the problematic Collins class build and the ongoing problems with the Armidale class could be supporting evidence. You stated ' Clearly there are enough qualified tradies etc., within the workforce to meet the demand." and then went on to say "You need to provide reputable reliable sources to support your claims. That's how it works here. " ??
John Newman
The Bunker Group
You are selling things a bit too short, both capabilities and facilities/infrastructure. You've mentioned Osborne and Henderson, but you've forgotten a few things too.
Don't forget FBE here in Sydney, including the Captain Cook Dry Dock, FBE is more than capable to perform minor and major refits and upgrades for the DDGs, FFH (eventually FFGs), LHDs, Choules and the future AORs.
You've also forgotten Darwin and Cairns, home to the PBs and Hydro fleets, maintenance facilities in both locations, and will be expanded in the years to come when the OPVs and also the new Hydro ships arrive. The Pacific PBs will also be maintained in Cairns too.
In Osborne South there is the existing shipbuilding facilities and the soon to be completed large expanded facilities, in Osborne North is the ASC Submarine facility that is more than capable of continuing to perform major cycle docking on the Collins fleet for many many years to come. In the not too distant future we will see the start of construction of the facilities to build the Attack class submarines.
In the West there is FBW and at Henderson there is the BAE facility that has been performing the Anzac class upgrades, and will continue to do so for as long as necessary. There is ASC West that performs the minor docking cycle work on the Collins fleet (maybe eventually the major docking work will move from Osborne to there, but that's a question for another day).
And of course Austal is well established in Henderson, there is also the new and very large Civmec facility which will be available for the build of 10 OPVs, the facility is also large enough do maintenance work on DDG, FFH and future FFG, etc.
The only thing lacking is shiplift / floating docks of the capacity to be able to launch new build ships of 15,000 tons or above at the moment, not difficult to solve if the Government so desires.
So, with all of those capabilities and facilities why would we want to send any building or maintenance work offshore? Why?
The trouble in the DDG program was largely a product of restarting shipbuilding from a standing start; once that was overcome the program ran like a sewing machine. The roll into the OPV program, with a different designer who had a different philosophy, has been achieved with only the predictable level of issues. Collins FCDs have been running smoothly for some time. There will always be issues in any shipbuilding activity; but there is no reason why they should not be overcome as they arise.
If you care to read through this thread you can read the history of the Hobart builds starting from the Construction of a new shipyard and training a non existent workforce, the AWD Alliance structure, incomplete drawings from Navantia, deliberate slow down from government by starving funding but in the end the programme was successful even if late with cost savings on the final ship of 50%+.
There was a similar storey with Collins, again read through the thread but the actual construction of the boats was pretty well on time and within budget.
The problems with Collins were again primarily poor welding from sections built in Sweden, poor propellor design finally rectified with cooperation from the USN and worst of all, a combat system chosen by the RAN which simply didn’t work as hoped.
There was no problem building the ACPBs, Austal built 14 in just over 2 years.
Navy chose an unsuitable design built with an unsuitable alloy IMHO.
Navy then compounded the problem by working the boats too hard in conditions they were not designed to meet.
In summary, the “troubled history and problematic construction” had little to do with the capacity of the shipyards to perform.
If there is a continuous build programme;
1. There will be no retention problems for skilled trades or loss of trades due to the stop start programmes of the past.
2. The will be experienced white collar manager/supervisor staff controlling production.
3. There will be a well established supplier corps confident of tooling up for ongoing contracts.
4. Once established it will be harder for governments to interrupt the funding stream as consequences will be politically harder, and,
Many other advantages, I’m sure, that others with greater experience in shipbuilding than I can list for you.
Last edited:
justinterested
New Member
Thank you John for your excellent, detailed answer. I am now assured about our ability for maintenance, but still not totally convinced about our ability to also, simultaneously provide a skilled workforce for so many long term new build, highly skilled projects. Considering the relatively low cost , and quick build of the two spanish OAR's, my original question still remains.
justinterested
New Member
Thank you John, Assail and Spoz for your measured responses. Your knowledge and experience have given me cause for optimism. Thank you
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate, it appears to me you are thinking or expecting that manpower levels should be at 100% as at today, well they are not, and they don't need to be at 100% today either.
But there is a plan, just as there is a plan for all of the infrastructure (which is now mostly completed and in place), the last major piece of infrastructure is for the Attack Class subs and that should be starting soon.
Have you read the 2017 Naval Shipbuilding Plan? If not, see the link below and download the 115 page PDF:
National Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise | Business & Industry | CASG | Naval Shipbuilding | Department of Defence
National Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise & the Australian Government has announced a planned to establish a secure, sustainable, continuous, Naval Shipbuilding Plan under the 2020 Force Structure Plan.
Manpower is covered in Chapter 4, starting on page 63.
(As a side note, with the current global CV issue and the loss of jobs across the country, I wouldn't be surprised if shipbuilders don't end up having long queues of people banging on their doors.)
Well, OPV construction is going ahead full blast at two locations, and preparations for the Hunter build are well underway. The Guardian build is continuing, and apart from in a few highly specialised areas where we as a country are still rebuilding expertise (mostly in breadth, not depth) and which are not directly related to the physical build, without any labour force issues so far as I am aware.
InterestedParty
Active Member
I hope that the local shipbuilders and their suppliers have a substantial apprentice program. Would this be built in to any contracts signed with the CoA?
This is a magnificent opportunity to get highly skilled engineers and tradespeople, something that has been seriously lacking since many of the big government organisations stopped training people as part of their "corporatisation/privatisation" programs over the last 20-30 years.
This is a magnificent opportunity to get highly skilled engineers and tradespeople, something that has been seriously lacking since many of the big government organisations stopped training people as part of their "corporatisation/privatisation" programs over the last 20-30 years.
You've made some very sweeping statements yet you didn't provide evidence to support said statements. Don't presume that others who frequent here are familiar with the history of any particular topic. This is an international defence forum run mostly by defence professionals so it isn't Australian centric. We have a set of rules for posters on here, one of which is that posters must provide sources for information that they provide. It's similar to academic standards. So there's no need to come the raw prawn with me over my request for you to provide reputable reliable sources for your arguments. However since you have, now I will have to put my Moderator's hat on.
@justinterested IN FUTURE, PLEASE PROVIDE REPUTABLE RELIABLE SOURCES FOR CLAIMS THAT YOU MAKE IN POSTS. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE RULES. ALSO READ BACK THROUGH THE VARIOUS THREADS BECAUSE YOU WILL LEARN FROM THEM.
Last edited:
protoplasm
Active Member
Never assume that “issues” with defence programs are wholly and solely issues with the capacity of the company to develop and deliver the required product. Many examples of problems have their root cause in political meddling or poor government side bureaucracy. In particular, poor contracting and government structures lead to severe issues. We have the facilities, the advanced engineers, and the fabricators to do all off this, the main risk is from political BS and bureaucratic short-sightedness.
And never assume they are Government or bureaucratic. Various programs over the years have suffered from problems caused by government or problems with the contractor. Sometimes both, and in reality in most programs which suffer significant problems there is usually blame on both sides.
O
There's a stack of financial services types, economists, accountants, economists, bankers lawyers and various arm chair experts with arts and business degrees, as well as small business owners who don't even have that or a trade, who delude themselves that Australia can't do this or that, basically because they think our people aren't smart enough or good enough. Guess what they all have in common, they are not experts in the fields they are making judgements on, they are confusing their lack of technical knowledge and competence with a national lack of same. Worst of all, many of them seem to believe, because they are paid more than defence personnel, engineers, technical officers, technicians and tradespeople, that they are smarter and worth more.
The decision makers rarely listen to the local experts because they don't see value in them but spend big in overseas experts who often end up reaching the same conclusions as the locals.
The issue isn't technical competence or capability, it's the lack leadership and inconsistant policy from non technical decision makers. Not saying engineers should be calling all the shots, but rather when an Australian expert says something is or is not achievable give more weight to their expertise than the gut feeling of a tosser with an MBA and a trail of failed/failing businesses behind them.
Of course we can do it, we were in a position to do it in the late 90s and the only reason it didn't happen was ship/submarine building became a political football. We could have built anything at Williamstown after the Anzacs, Burke's, Type 123/124, Type 45s, even the planned and cancelled corvettes. ASC could have easily built follow on batch 2 Collins straight on from the first six. But instead we had a black hole and nothing was ordered from either of the established yards until SEA1000 was reluctantly planned for Adelaide.
There's a stack of financial services types, economists, accountants, economists, bankers lawyers and various arm chair experts with arts and business degrees, as well as small business owners who don't even have that or a trade, who delude themselves that Australia can't do this or that, basically because they think our people aren't smart enough or good enough. Guess what they all have in common, they are not experts in the fields they are making judgements on, they are confusing their lack of technical knowledge and competence with a national lack of same. Worst of all, many of them seem to believe, because they are paid more than defence personnel, engineers, technical officers, technicians and tradespeople, that they are smarter and worth more.
The decision makers rarely listen to the local experts because they don't see value in them but spend big in overseas experts who often end up reaching the same conclusions as the locals.
The issue isn't technical competence or capability, it's the lack leadership and inconsistant policy from non technical decision makers. Not saying engineers should be calling all the shots, but rather when an Australian expert says something is or is not achievable give more weight to their expertise than the gut feeling of a tosser with an MBA and a trail of failed/failing businesses behind them.
Getting back to the challenge that largish modern warships take too long to be available for a wartime building "surge" would there be any options to build a modern day equivalent of armed merchant cruisers? It seems the sensors are some of the longest lead times so probably not?
- Status