Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Riga]

My point, quite clearly made, was a future PLAN; not today's. I understand the idea behind achieving a balanced fleet - minimizing manning levels where appropriate. My second point was that the Pacific is no so big and there was a fair amount racism towards the slanty eyed chaps which meant no one took them seriously.

Most RN escorts in the Falklands were not fit for purpose - it was a lesson learned at the cost of several ships: Coventry and Sheffield being specifically AAD - they were not up to the job.

I hope the thread can move on now please.

 

[CB90]

I have no suggested that a Phalanx is going to make a difference. My point was that the ocean will not be quite so big as one might think if facing a future Chinese threat.

If the "future" Chinese threat is the biggest concern, Australia should be buying F-22s and lots and lots of subs, not worrying about how to arm LHDs.

I would agree LHDs should be fitted with CIWS rather than Typhoon guns, but the "Chinese threat" isn't good justification.

And the Pacific is plenty big. It's > 2000nm from the southern edge of Hainan Island to the NW corner of Australia as the crow flies. And getting there by sea means running several maritime chokepoints and adding another 500nm or so. If the "Chinese threat" of the future has grown sufficiently powerful that it has colonized the first and second island chains and established air and maritime supremacy despite USN intervention, Australia's probably f###ed no matter what they do.

 

[John Fedup]

If the "future" Chinese threat is the biggest concern, Australia should be buying F-22s and lots and lots of subs

From a Canadian prospective, your suggestion has some merit except that the US won't sell us or Australia F-22s. They likely would not sell us Virginias subs either but they may sell them to you.

 

[gf0012-aust]

From a Canadian prospective, your suggestion has some merit except that the US won't sell us or Australia F-22s. They likely would not sell us Virginias subs either but they may sell them to you.

CB90 lives a tad south of you.

I think he was being facetious re F22 as he knows that it was never on the shopping list.
It was offered up in principle to Oz in 2007 as I attended a mil conference where John Ashcroft indicated that the USG would not be resistant to Oz approaches for it. The internal F22 analysis showed no sufficient benefit but a lot of force and future force imbalance if selected

 

[CB90]

Very facetious.

My point is that if one wants to play the "What if" game regarding a future hypothetical where the PRC is some sort of hyperpower, it requires equally dramatic steps in planning to counter them, not quibbling about minor details like LHD armament.

The fact that F-22s are now such an unrealistic option simply points out the relatively low probability of the PRC being in a position to both want and be able to threaten Oz in the next...say, 10 years or so. Even then, I doubt they'd be a threat, but you'd have more data to assess.

 

[Bonza]

My point, quite clearly made, was a future PLAN; not today's. I understand the idea behind achieving a balanced fleet - minimizing manning levels where appropriate. My second point was that the Pacific is no so big and there was a fair amount racism towards the slanty eyed chaps which meant no one took them seriously.

Most RN escorts in the Falklands were not fit for purpose - it was a lesson learned at the cost of several ships: Coventry and Sheffield being specifically AAD - they were not up to the job.

I hope the thread can move on now please.

Your point was not clearly made and race had nothing to do with it - right now you're smoke screening so you can ignore the fact that you're quite wrong and asking us to move on instead of continuing to rip your "point" to pieces.

Move on if you must but don't backtrack and change stories to feel better about yourself.

 

[meatshield]

Read this today and thought the forum might find it interesting

A brand new 27,000 tonne Australian Navy ship was damaged during maiden sea trials | News.com.au

 

[John Fedup]

Read this today and thought the forum might find it interesting

A brand new 27,000 tonne Australian Navy ship was damaged during maiden sea trials | News.com.au

A classic "stuff happens" story. The good news is it not the ship's fault (or the RAN's).

 

[hairyman]

From NEWS.com.au
Defence Minister David Johnston and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the team would target productivity and production schedules in a bid to get the controversial three-ship alliance project back on track.

Would we have been better getting one yard to build the ships?

 

[John Newman]

From NEWS.com.au
Defence Minister David Johnston and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the team would target productivity and production schedules in a bid to get the controversial three-ship alliance project back on track.

Would we have been better getting on yard to build the ships?

I assume you mean 'another' yard to build the ships?

If that other yard was here in Australia under the same management/project structure that the AWD's are being built, the answer is probably no, a different yard is just another place on the map.

If you mean for example in Spain where the 5 F-100's have been built, the answer is probably yes, BUT that would have meant that the shipbuilding industry would have pretty well died (and all the jobs that go with it to) and all the monies spent would go directly overseas and be lost to the economy.

So that's the Catch 22 isn't it?

Now that the AWD project has been put on the PoC list and the Government is saying they will be putting a spotlight on it, that things will improve (hopefully!), regardless of the "fault's" in the system that these ships are being built under, Government (and I mean successive Governments) have presided over the various boom and bust cycles in Naval shipbuilding for many a decade, this is probably one of those consequences of that boom and bust cycle too, successive previous Governments should take their share of the blame too.

This is where I'm always in two minds about defence manufacture in Australia, yes on the one hand if a capability can be built here (with whatever reasonable premium cost), then do it, great for defence and great for the economy.

On the other hand if that can't happen (as appears to be the case with most aerospace purchases for the ADF these days), then buy from overseas so that the capability can be delivered on time, is the priority that Defence gets what it needs? Or is the priority industry? I would always hope it can be both.

Anyway, we can all hope this gets sorted sooner rather than later and any lessons learnt can be applied to the Future Frigate and other shipbuilding programs that are to follow.

 

[Volkodav]

They are carrying on now but it was the Howard government that nationalized ASC, selected the alliance model, selected the design to be built and chose the builder, now it's all someone else fault.

 

[weegee]

Read this today and thought the forum might find it interesting

A brand new 27,000 tonne Australian Navy ship was damaged during maiden sea trials | News.com.au

Can anyone shed some light on this vibration failure? The way the article reads is that the 2 pods have to synchronised when used above 8 knots. Why is this any different to a twin screw ship? When travelling at speed one would imagine that your engines etc would be roughly at the same RPM or am I way off?

Or are the 2 props on each pod the problem can they be operated individually? And that they have to be synchronised at higher speeds? Help I am confussed

 

[Raven22]

I think a lot of the problem is the shipbuilding industry and the unions shooting themselves in the foot the same way the car industry did. By spreading the work and slowing it down as much as possible, to maximise the number of pay cheques for everyone, they make the whole process woefully inefficient and blow out cost and schedules. Which therefore makes building in Australia less competitive, and makes building overseas more attractive to the government.

 

[alexsa]

Can anyone shed some light on this vibration failure? The way the article reads is that the 2 pods have to synchronised when used above 8 knots. Why is this any different to a twin screw ship? When travelling at speed one would imagine that your engines etc would be roughly at the same RPM or am I way off?

Or are the 2 props on each pod the problem can they be operated individually? And that they have to be synchronised at higher speeds? Help I am confussed

Aligned my be a better word. Below 8 knots the pods can be oriented independently (saves tugs as well). However once you start pushing though the water above 8 knots the pods must be synchronised in that they move together. If one was 'toed' in or out then you can see how this would cause vibration.

 

[hairyman]

In my previous post above, I meant one yard doing the entire build instead of 3 or 4 yards being involved doing bits of the ship.

 

[Volkodav]

I think a lot of the problem is the shipbuilding industry and the unions shooting themselves in the foot the same way the car industry did. By spreading the work and slowing it down as much as possible, to maximise the number of pay cheques for everyone, they make the whole process woefully inefficient and blow out cost and schedules. Which therefore makes building in Australia less competitive, and makes building overseas more attractive to the government.

I understand that may be the case with the LHD at Williamstown but has not been the case at ASC. A big part of the issue was Smiths decision to slip the schedule on the AWD to save money short term but cost more all up. The idea was to keep the size of the work force down through removing as many concurrent activities as possible and work on each ship sequentially instead. Basically there is now a smaller work force going from ship to ship instead of a larger one working on all three ships simultaneously.

 

[StobieWan]

Most RN escorts in the Falklands were not fit for purpose - it was a lesson learned at the cost of several ships: Coventry and Sheffield being specifically AAD - they were not up to the job.

They were about as good as most other stuff out there - the 42's with 1022 radar were much better at picking out the lower flying stuff, but essentially, the AWD effort did their job by denying mid and upper altitude to the strike packages, pushing them into the waves and frustrating their efforts to take a more leisurely look around.

Sheffield had her set turned off, Coventry was a dropped ball - both could likely have engaged otherwise.

Drop in on the RN section if you want to evolve this so as not to clutter the RAN thread however,

Ian

 

[Raven22]

Well, interesting news being released today about the Navy.

A competitive tender between Navantia and Daewoo for the replenishment ship replacement, to be built overseas as quickly as possible.

Design work on the future frigate to be bought forward, concentrating on use of the AWD hull with CEA radars and SAAB combat systems.

The press release should be up soon if it isn't already.

Discussion go on...

Edit:

Here's the link to the media release:
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014/06/06/minister-for-defence-boosting-australias-maritime-capabilities/

Key quote:

“Naval shipbuilders and Unions must understand that naval shipbuilding in Australia is at a critical crossroads. Demonstrating that the AWD Program is able to provide value for money will be a crucial test for the Australian shipbuilding industry. No responsible Government could consider providing further work to an industry that is performing so poorly,” Senator Johnston said.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, interesting news being released today about the Navy.

A competitive tender between Navantia and Daewoo for the replenishment ship replacement, to be built overseas as quickly as possible.

Design work on the future frigate to be bought forward, concentrating on use of the AWD hull with CEA radars and SAAB combat systems.

The press release should be up soon if it isn't already.

Discussion go on...

DefMin dropped the fact that 8 replacement combat vessels will need to be factored in for the very near future.

I would imagine that if AWD hits the POC list that it will trigger a decision to build hulls (min) offshore

local work will get restricted to garnish and trimming.

ASC is still safe with the Libs for subs though.

 

[weegee]

Are we taking bets who will win the tender?
Looking at the difference between the Spanish and Sth Korean economies I would say that the Spanish will be hungrier for the work.

Out of the 2 options what does everyone think is the better ship? Cantarbria or the tide class? I thought I heard that the RAN was quite taken by Cantabria while she was out here so who knows maybe she has her bow in front. But i do like the look of the tide class they are a good looking class of ship.