Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

ASC has no experience in fabricating keel blocks as the ship yard has specialised in high precision superstructure blocks with combat system foundations and interfaces. Williamstown, after initial difficulties, has competently and efficiently fabricated the complex and difficult keel blocks, as well as the mating hull blocks containing the rest of the VLS and gun hoist and magazine arrangement. Forgacs has fabricated the the lions share of the less complex hull and superstructure blocks, probably more efficiently than the other, more specialised yards could have hoped to. When Williamstown was not performing, ironically due to the ship building black hole resulting from no new warships being ordered between the ANZACs in the early 90s and the AWDs in 2007, it's complex work was reallocated to Navantia as neither ASC or Forgacs had the capability to fabricate them meaning the same issues encountered by BAEs new work force would reoccur.

Basically any future build of surface combatants would logically follow the same pattern of specific types of blocks being fabricated in specific yards or even overseas if there is no local capability. The longer the break in suitable work the more damage is done to the expensively gained experience and capability.

Its not about everything going to one state and the others missing out, we haven't built ships like that since the 70s. Any new construction should be spread out among the various yards and states with the less complex, not so specialised blocks being awarded on merit there by maintaining a level of competition.

 

[Stampede]

Ok, if theyre not terrorists, theyre pirates.
Why dont they target the super trawlers that take entire schools of fodder fish?
Fodder fish just arnt as photogenic or newsworthy as whales.
Imagine you are from a poor area, and you land a job that gives you oppertunity to ahead, and make a difference to your family.
The job is considered as prestiegious in your home country, and the creatures you hunt, your people have been hunting for thousands of years (a bit like dugong hunting by aboriginal people of Australia) then some freaky looking people, push their morals onto you, and attempt to harm you while you are trying to do your job?
Love to see what would happen if a tinnie full of dreadlocked greenies attacked some aboriginals hunting dugong, and attempted to sink their boat, then tellevise it on international TV!
Infact I challenge GREENPEACE to stop the bloodthirsy aboriginals from torturing dugong, and sea turtles etc!

Old faithful
I'll try and articulate a bit better next time as I think your interprutation of what you read is different to what I wanted to convey.
Not here to be an ambassador for Sea Shepard but you may find they embrace the pirate association as its there trademark image and they understand what image brings to their cause.
Kind Regards S

 

[Stampede]

It seems Japan get 8 submarine, SA get 9 frigate, NSW get 12 OPV and Victoria get none. Victoria doesn't have Olympic Dam, their oil refinery is closing, is also suffering from the downfall of car industry and closure of shipyard, and strangely no one cares about jobless in Victoria. And yet, SA say they can't survive without a 12 SSK contract.

Victoria nervously waits for decision on naval shipyards | afr.com

Thanks rockitten

Not unhappy with the numbers and types of vessels. Await with interest the detail of ship and manufacture.Should make for a well balanced and robust R.A.N.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I would say a separate Coastguard would be a mistake due to budgetary reasons.

Once a separate department is established it will develop its own bureaucracy which will waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

More importantly, it locks funding outside of Defence. As situations develop and priorities change it is good that Defence can shift funding to more critical areas without needing to go back to the politicians begging for funds. This flexibility would be reduced with a separate Coastguard department.

Additionally, I believe it is valuable for the Navy to be conducting border security as it instils a culture that isn't solely focused on high-end warfare. As has become blindingly obvious, the ADF is required to conduct Operations across the entire spectrum of conflict. This requires assets that can meet those demands.



There's a Canadian Navy thread that would probably be better for discussions on Canadian military spending

Goknub

The ADF must always be properly funded, trained and equiped to tackle all levels of military activity from the low end to the high end.The difficulty is at the lower end knowing in the grey area when does the military hand over to other more appropriate agencies. I wonder if there is some merit to exploit the new Australain Border force to make it a fourth service on equal terms to the existing services under the department of defence. There maybe benefits of multi crewing navy ships dedicated to the constablatory role with both navy and ABF members.The navy can concentrate on what they do best and thats run and opperate ships while ABF specials can concentrate on their respective fields of expertise. It could maybe taken further that the maritime unit of the ABF must be naval reservists and have undertaken the appropriate training.Just as navy transports army on the LHD's with Air Force flight controllers integrated on the same ship so the patrol forces may opperate combined navy / ABF crews.
This suggestion is not with out many challenges of ownership and culture but Australia opperating two streams of ships doing like constablatory duties I suggest is not efficient, and doe's not serve us well. In the past I would have gone with a separate coast guard but I would prefer ALL ships ( navy and former customs marine unit) under the navy umbrella.
The ABF will take time to evolve and will unfortunately be a political football so it will have challenges. But maybe somday its members may find their way as regular and welcomed crew apart of navys patrol ships.

Thoughts S

 

[Stampede]

I am going off topic a little, but there has been a suggestion that Canada does not spend enough on defence. I would argue that Canada has about the safest geographical security of any nation in the world. The only country that could invade it is the US, and they are not going to. They tried something in 1812, but since then the two countries seem content for each to be sovereign

If Canada was to go from double its expenditure from 1 percent GDP to 2 percent GDP on defence, then over a decade or so, that is hundreds of billions of dollars spent on guns, ships and bombs. However it also means hundred of billions of dollars cut from roads, hospitals, tax cuts, schools, universities, health care, disability pensioners, safer airports etc etc.

Other nations are different to Canada, and do not have the geographic advantages that Canada has. Say you pick some other nations starting the C, Columbia, Chile, Croatia, Congo (DR), Chad. In each case these nations have neighbours with whom hostilities with land neighbors though not likely cant be ruled out.

(Columbia:Venezuela, Chile:Argentina, Croatia:Serbia, DRC:Rwanda-Uganda-Angola, Chad:civil war-Sudan-Dharfur).

So if Canada doubled its defence spending what would it spend its money on. It could confront China in the western pacific, it could mess about in the middle east. I think the idea of Russian paratroopers flying over the north pole and taking one of those remote, barren islands up the top there is crazy. Russia has heaps of land to develop its natural resources, it is not overly short of tundra.

As to building up its submarine force to detect fishing vessels. I would argue detection could be done for a fraction of the price by fixed winged aircraft

Then we get into the morality bit, does Canada have an obligation to help out the west around the world. Canada did its bit in WW1, WW2 and Korea. Maybe it takes the view that messing about in Libya or Iraq is none of its business. Although many may dislike this idea of Canada not helping out, they are a sovereign nation and can choose to do as they please.

Next take a hypothetical idea. Just say that Canada was controlled by a crazy dictator like Kim Jong Il, and that individual had nuclear weapons. The amount that the US would have to spend to secure its northern border would be astronomical. At the moment the US spends zero, because Canada is no threat. How many nations can get away with spending zero protecting thousands of miles of their land border? The money saved by the US is huge

Even if we scale back the hypothetical and reduce it to an unresolved border dispute. The amount that the US and Canada would both have to spend to ensure that small area of land stayed secure would be very high.

Canada knows that its geographic situation is extremely secure. Should it spend an extra 20 billion dollars a year (double spending) so that it can mess about in Africa, the middle east, Afghanistan etc? Maybe they have just decided to keep out of all that. An individual may not agree with their decision, may not like their decision, but in the end, its really up to them. If the Canadian public wanted more spent on the military they could rally in the streets and start petitions. I guess Canada could have joined the intervention in Libya and Iraq, but how did that end up, I would argue so-so. The money saved could be spent of rebuilding the infrastructure of very poor nations.

I do realise that in decades to come there may be stressors relating to trade routes relating to China and Asia, that could be a threat to Canada's trade security. It seems Canada has decided to simply keep out of all that. Does Canada have a moral obligation to protect Vietnam's sovereignty against Chinese incursions? Or maybe they feel its is best to keep out of all that. In my view an argument can be made either way.

My point is that Canada is different, the nearest potential threat is a 1500 miles away over the north pole, and I think Russians claiming sovereignty over those northern islands as exceptionally remote

Other countries, Australia included have different geographical issues and are less secure. I doubt there is a nation on earth as secure as Canada, (maybe Iceland or New Zealand because nobody cares massively about them). Many may dislike the idea that Canada does not spend a lot on defence, but I would argue that is much better than if they were a hostile or difficult neighbour.

I know others on this forum may not like what I have said, if u choose to respond, pls direct ur comment to the arguments I made rather than me personally

Does raise the question of how and when to contribute as a good global citizen, and is your contibution actually being a good global citizen? A challenge all countries face and don't always get right. No easy answer. Well done to Canada for the courage to be themselves.
On a side note can someone confirm, did not Canada have a project to build 12 nuclear subs back in the late 80's.
Regards S

 

[John Newman]

For those here who are particularly interested in naval shipbuilding in this country, here are a couple of ASPI documents that are well worth a read.

Firstly, this was just published the other day, "An enterprise-level naval shipbuilding plan":

https://www.aspi.org.au/publication...naval-shipbuilding-plan/SI93_shipbuilding.pdf


It's a fairly short and concise document, 13 pages, but well worth the read to see what the challenges are for the Government (in fact any future Government too) dealing with the question of how to undertake a 'continuous shipbuilding plan'.

On page 6 under the heading 'Rolling builds' there is reference to "Chapter 7 in the 2015 ASPI Defence budget brief", see link below:

https://www.aspi.org.au/publication...-brief-20152016/ASPI-Cost-of-Defence-2015.pdf


This is a pretty big document that covers a whole range of issues, but I'd seriously suggest that you take the time to read Chapter 7, which runs from page 183 to 226 (or find page 194 of the PDF, which includes prelim pages).

But particularly start from around page 208 (219 of the PDF), titled, "The 2015 RAND report on Australian naval shipbuilding". It does make very interesting reading, in my opinion.

The tables on pages 219, 220 and 222 (230, 231 and 233 of the PDF) towards the end of Chapter 7, are worth taking a close look at too.

Anyway, I'm not going to add any comments yet (going to read thought it a second time).

 

[Alf662]

Hi guys, I have been on side lines for some time, my previous posts appear to have been unsuccessful, so hopefully this one works.

I have a couple of issues with the RAND report, and also with the ASPI document.

1. The RAND report was supposed to focus on a rolling build for Australian domestic Naval ship building. If I recall correctly it said very little about the ACPB replacements and absolutely nothing about the LCH replacements.

2. Both documents focus very much on the high end war fighting vessels. Four OPV's have been suggested to help alleviate the valley of death, but these are quite low tech vessels and would do little to help the high tech end of town.

3. It is my understanding that a class of around 20 OPV's were being considered to replace the APCB's. If only four OPV's are being considered for ASC, what about the other 16 vessels.

4. The LCH replacements have been discussed a number of times on here, and despite a capability gap, are not mentioned in either document.

5. 20 OPV's and 6 LCH replacements is 26 vessels. That is sufficient to keep a second yard busy with a rolling build of 1 every 12 months, and for the vessels to be retired at a respectable age. Our New Zealand cousins could also be interested to add to the total?

6. Once ASC starts to focus on the replacement Frigates, would a low tech build such as an OPV or LCHR be a distraction?

I could be barking up the wrong tree, but I thought I would put it out their any way.

 

[John Fedup]

@Stampede....the Mulroney government considered buying nuclear subs back in the 1980s along with the Polar 8 icebreaker. Neither project advanced very far as the economy was in the toilet and the conversatives went from a 175 seat majority down to a mere 4 MPs in the following election. BTW, the incoming Liberal government cancelled the previous government's EH101 order and paid AW 500 million to do so. Only now are new helicopters replacing our 50+ year old SeaKings.

 

[SouthernSky]

With all due respect to John and others. Can the Canadian discussion be kept for the related Canadian threads. Thanks

 

[Goknub]

The ABF will take time to evolve and will unfortunately be a political football so it will have challenges. But maybe somday its members may find their way as regular and welcomed crew apart of navys patrol ships.

Thoughts S

Moving the Border Force under the Defence Department would create efficiencies but I believe it would be seen as a step too far by the public. The Border Force is already being chastised by some as being too militaristic. I think there should be a clear distinction between grey Naval vessels and yellow civilian-run vessels.

That being said, I do think it would be wise to procure additional OPVs for the Coastwatch. The Chinese are establishing pattern of using white Coast Guard ships to engage in sea disputes to keep the confrontation away from naval combat ships. Their new Zhongguo Haijing is 10,000t. It may be wise to have a few larger Coastwatch OPVs up our sleeves incase they are needed.

 

[Goknub]

Hi guys, I have been on side lines for some time, my previous posts appear to have been unsuccessful, so hopefully this one works.

I have a couple of issues with the RAND report, and also with the ASPI document.

I would say it is unlikely to be on the cards for several reasons.

Firstly, the 20 OPVs was a number from the previous Labor government's WP (OCVs actually). The most recent suggestion is 12 OPVs. This would not be enough to sustain a continuous-build, particularly considering their smaller, simpler design.

Secondly, they are not advanced enough. A major selling point for a frigate/destroyer continuous-build is the support it gives to broader high-tech industries.

Thirdly, it would take too long to bring into fruition. Additional patrol boats could be procured to fill the gaps until the new OPVs came on-line however.

Finally, the LCHs will likely be needed quite soon to fill gaps that will become more evident as the LHDs become part of the fleet. Building in Australia would certainly be doable but probably best kept separate to any OPV build.

A OPV build could be done if the numbers were large enough. I don't favour additional hulls for the ADF because it would encourage the politicians to cut Frigate numbers. If NZ and perhaps some of the larger Pacific nations were brought on board it could be done.

 

[Alf662]

Hi Goknup.

The RAND report was focused on Naval ship building in Australia and justifying rolling builds. It also questioned the viability of all of the existing yards, but totally ignored the differing types and numbers of low end combatants that would also be required. The ASPI article appeared to question the rationale of the RAND report.

If Australia's Naval ship building is based on the RAND reports facilities to support a rolling build then I question whether that industrial base would be sufficient to also support the production of the low end combatants that we also need. If ASC (or who ever it ends up being) is focused on the rolling build of high end combatants, then the low end would be a distraction.

It is all well and good to rationalize and restructure an industrial base, but to end up with a monopoly will only end up costing the tax payer. As an example it would be quite achievable for say Forgacs or BAE Williamstown or even another company based at Techport to build the low end combatants and still build blocks for the future frigates.

Building OPV's (or even OCV's) to help bridge the gap will not help because of the lower technology level. And you are also correct about the length of time to implement the project. I just cannot see it being practical, but it has been put forward as a potential solution!

The actual numbers of OPV's or OCV's will be revealed in the upcoming DWP so I am aware that the numbers will vary. It is also my understanding that the Navy would prefer steel over aluminium. Even if 12 OPV's were the specified number and type, the project would still be 8 short, so that then raises the question as to what type the remaining 8 would end up being. I just see it as a disjointed and uncohesive project that would end up being more expensive than what it needs to be.

Agree with the LCHR's being needed sooner, I am amazed that this particular project has been allowed to be delayed and to result in a capability gap and to contribute to the "valley of death".

Also agree that high end combatant numbers need to be maintained, if not increased, and they should certainly not be sacrificed for lower end combatants.

It appears to me that we are going to have around 5 separate ship building projects going in tandem:
1. Replacement supply ships to be built in either South Korea or Spain - well advanced and currently in the tender stage but how much domestic involvement is yet to be defined. This project should be close to completion when the other projects are ready to kick off.
2. Replacement Pacific Patrol Boats - currently in the tender stage
3. Replacement Frigates - currently at the project definition stage
4. Replacement LCH - project deferred and required to fill capability gap
5. Replacement ACBP - urgent replacement required to avoid a capability gap

I just question that Australia's current and forecast industrial base would be sufficient to deliver what the Navy needs when they need it, especially with what is currently happening at all of the existing yards, it just isn't a good position to be in.

 

[StingrayOZ]

France to share its stealth crown jewels with Australia.

France Lures Australia with Submarine Stealth Technology

"These technologies are the “crown jewels” of French submarine design knowhow and have never been offered to any other country," DCNS spokeswoman Jessica Thomas added in an email exchange.

"By the very nature of these stealth technologies and the decision to release them to the Australian government, this is a significant demonstration of the strategic nature of this program for the French authorities."

Looks like France is stepping up the pressure.

I know there are issues with the French, but I do find their proposal interesting from a purely technical point of view. They also had an interesting way of splitting the build across the sub and the nuclear plant both sharing the prime.

 

[alexsa]

Australian Navy receives new vessel to boost submarine SAR capability - Naval Technology

And your point is???? What are you trying to add to the discussion or are you just trying to get your numbers up by posting a link with no comment.

Just so this is not a complete waste of time: there are two new commercially owned and operated ships that will provide submarine rescue services to the RAN along wiht other work that comes up. These will be operated by DMS. It is also notable the same process also provided 4 commerically owned and operated fuel and water barges to support the RAN.

 

[John Newman]

And your point is???? What are you trying to add to the discussion or are you just trying to get your numbers up by posting a link with no comment.

Agree.

Unfortunately the thread has become very littered (or should I say, polluted) with a whole bunch of 'one liners' or near enough to one liners lately, and as we all know, one liners are against the forum rules.

Just a pity when someone posts a link to an article that they just couldn't be bothered to add commentary to that link or one liner which would add some value at the same time too.

 

[Volkodav]

I have very little faith in Rand as I have had the concerning experience of filling in one of their surveys, the one that was meant to gauge ASCs ability to design a new submarine.

The survey was very oddly worded, wanting to know the highest level of education of all engineering employees listing the options as diploma, certificate, bachelor and masters, i.e. the US scheme of high school diploma, technical certificate, bachelor degree and masters degree. All well and good if Australia had an identical qualification structure to the US, which we don't, the big difference being diploma.

In Australia within engineering there are paraprofessional technical diplomas that are a higher level than trade and technical certificates, there are also higher level Advanced Diplomas and their superceded equivalent Associate Diploma. People with these are highly trained paraprofessionals, our technicians, technical officers, through senior, principle levels, it is the qualification held by many of the most senior designers and quite a few technical delegates and managers. In addition many individuals with diplomas, advanced or associate diplomas or even bachelor degrees undertake additional studies at graduate level, either grad certificate, diploma or a full masters.

It appears that Rand has simply written off the vast majority of ASCs best, brightest and most experienced people as unqualified high school graduates.

 

[rockitten]

The Royal Navy has 4 submarines carrying letters with instructions on what to do in the event of nuclear attack | Business Insider

"One of the first tasks of the Cabinet Secretary on the appointment by the Queen of a new Prime Minister, is to have the new leader write that very letter. After the elation of an election victory, the civil servant informs the politician that this letter will lay out the action the Prime Minister wishes to take, should the government and chain of command be totally destroyed by nuclear attack. Tony Blair, according to his cabinet secretary, was said to have gone “quite white” on being told of his options. Options do allow a great deal of latitude, with varying degrees of widespread destruction of human life:

1.Retaliate with nuclear weapons without prejudice.
2.Do not retaliate at all.
3.Allow the commander to act within his own discretion.
4.Place the boat under the control of an allied navy, specifically the Royal Australian Navy or US Navy."

Interesting, If we are really gonna take over her majesty's bloomers, may be we really should have a fleet nuclear submarine.......

 

[Volkodav]

The Royal Navy has 4 submarines carrying letters with instructions on what to do in the event of nuclear attack | Business Insider

"One of the first tasks of the Cabinet Secretary on the appointment by the Queen of a new Prime Minister, is to have the new leader write that very letter. After the elation of an election victory, the civil servant informs the politician that this letter will lay out the action the Prime Minister wishes to take, should the government and chain of command be totally destroyed by nuclear attack. Tony Blair, according to his cabinet secretary, was said to have gone “quite white” on being told of his options. Options do allow a great deal of latitude, with varying degrees of widespread destruction of human life:

1.Retaliate with nuclear weapons without prejudice.
2.Do not retaliate at all.
3.Allow the commander to act within his own discretion.
4.Place the boat under the control of an allied navy, specifically the Royal Australian Navy or US Navy."

Interesting, If we are really gonna take over her majesty's bloomers, may be we really should have a fleet nuclear submarine.......

What would be amusing is if they were placed under the command of the RNZN. Australia may seem an odd choice but there are the historical ties, the common parliamentary systems and shared head of state. There's also a significant number of ex RN personnel in the RAN submarine group as well as private industry.

 

[shanes_world_05]

What would be amusing is if they were placed under the command of the RNZN. Australia may seem an odd choice but there are the historical ties, the common parliamentary systems and shared head of state. There's also a significant number of ex RN personnel in the RAN submarine group as well as private industry.

Speaking for the RNZN, we'll have them....now. Boy will you Aussie's regret those sheep jokes and stealing Spilt Endz/ Pavlova/ Dragon/ Phar Lap and the unpleasant underarm incident.

 

[Raven22]

Interesting, If we are really gonna take over her majesty's bloomers, may be we really should have a fleet nuclear submarine.......

I don't think Prince Phillip would be too happy with us taking over Her Majesty's bloomers, nuclear submarine or no nuclear submarine...

What would be amusing is if they were placed under the command of the RNZN. Australia may seem an odd choice but there are the historical ties, the common parliamentary systems and shared head of state. There's also a significant number of ex RN personnel in the RAN submarine group as well as private industry.

There's probably also the fact that if the UK's leadership has been destroyed by a nuclear attack, there's probably not going to be all that much left of the USA (or Canada) either. Australia (and New Zealand), being a lot further away and less entrenched in NATO and the nuclear fight, would be far more likely to still be in one piece.

Better whether in Sydney/Fremantle than Scotland as well.