Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Alf662]

Trying to compare publicly released contract prices is always a nightmare, as it's often not possible to determine what is included/excluded. From memory, the figures being tossed around for Norway's Aegir were in the $230-250 million range.

That's a fair bit less than the $350 mil per Cantabria quoted in the link above. I suspect an 'apples with apples' comparison would show a much lower difference, or Daewoo would have won the order.

Labour, Unions & Nick Xenophon are taking a cheap political swipe at the Government over the Navantia contract:

Pre-election promise on shipbuilding sought by Labor, Xenophon, unions after Spain wins naval deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

My memory of the 3 ship ASC proposal was that 2 of the ships were going to be built in Korea, which every one seems to have conveniently forgotten.

 

[alexsa]

there are a number of vessels currently being built which are not RAN vessels but will have RAN control

they don't appear in things like the DWP as they are not a Defence asset

its been discussed before on here

Alexsa can add further ruminations

Essentially the NAB has funded the construction of a number of 'commercial civilian vessels" to support Navy in training and submarine rescue. These are not Naval Aux rather they are more akin to other civilian service providers that support the military under under contact. There are arrangements in place between the CoA and NAB but the vessels are owned by NAB.

The vessel have to be under the operational control of the organisation that has benifical control of the vessels ..... In the case DMS. Navy can task them but cannot interfere with the running of the ships. Where uniform staff are carried they have to operate within the Safety management systems put in place by DMS and certified and Audited by AMSA.

The aviation training ships is not a 2400 although it share as common heritage, however, it is closer to the RGS and EGS (Stoker and Besant) notng it only has two main engines and the accomodation must comply with the Maritime Labour Convention.

The reason you don't here much on the aviation support ship is that he design process prior to build is not always quick.

 

[Volkodav]

Come'on Volk, I know Austal is not all saints, but enough of bashing them ok. I'm bias as I am a west aussie, so I still kinda like Austal , and look at our shipbuilding capabilities with the Bae upgrading the ANZAC class, one word comes across my mind, impressive! On time, on budget, and first class!

Afterall, they are the first ship building company from down under that have successfully penetrated into the US market building ships for USN. Don't see ASC, Tenix, Incat or Forgacs doing that

Far to many people mistake budget and schedule for capability and quality. The ACPBs were delivered with multiple design and build faults that ( apart from the fact they shouldn't have existed at all) should have been fixed under warranty. Instead the boats were accepted as is (I believe for political reasons) leaving it to the operator (RAN) and maintainer (DMS) to sort out some how, without the support of the designer and builder.

The worst part of it is the boats that have been refitted at Austal have been returned to service in better than new condition, i.e. having got out of fixing the boats under warranty they then charge an unsustainably large amount to do what they should have done in the first place for nothing. In fact it has the appearance of posturing to to fit their prefered narrative while their political allies in the WA mafia keep their competition over the barrel. Good business but very very poor ethics and customer support. They have always been in the position to do the right thing but have placed sailors lives at risk because there was more money to be made by doing the wrong thing.

 

[Muar River]

Labour, Unions & Nick Xenophon are taking a cheap political swipe at the Government over the Navantia contract:

Pre-election promise on shipbuilding sought by Labor, Xenophon, unions after Spain wins naval deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

My memory of the 3 ship ASC proposal was that 2 of the ships were going to be built in Korea, which every one seems to have conveniently forgotten.

Would the RAN consider having Navantia build a ship based on the Rotterdam or Galicia as the third ship identified in the DWP?

.

 

[Alf662]

Would the RAN consider having Navantia build a ship based on the Rotterdam or Galicia as the third ship identified in the DWP?

I doubt it, I think it would be political suicide.

The third ship is not due (if it ever happens) until the late 2020's and around the time that Chuoles is up for replacement, so it is a long way down the track.

If the government is serious they would upgrade Techport in a timely manner so that the two ships could be built in Adelaide.

Just my view, but with all of the cheap political point scoring, I think it is wish full thinking

 

[ASSAIL]

I doubt it, I think it would be political suicide.

The third ship is not due (if it ever happens) until the late 2020's and around the time that Chuoles is up for replacement, so it is a long way down the track.

If the government is serious they would upgrade Techport in a timely manner so that the two ships could be built in Adelaide.

Just my view, but with all of the cheap political point scoring, I think it is wish full thinking

Techport is owned by the South Australian government and had they upgraded several years ago a local build may have been viable.
Further, if Xenophon and co were being honest they would not complain that only $100m was being spent in Australia from a $2b contract, the construction costs will be less than $1b and all the rest including the aforementioned $100m will be spent in Oz on through life sustainment.

 

[rockitten]

Techport is owned by the South Australian government and had they upgraded several years ago a local build may have been viable.
Further, if Xenophon and co were being honest they would not complain that only $100m was being spent in Australia from a $2b contract, the construction costs will be less than $1b and all the rest including the aforementioned $100m will be spent in Oz on through life sustainment.

Just curious, when there are potential jobs in the pipeline (from AOE to LPD/LPH overhauls) that needs the ship lift upgrade, what is stopping SA government to not bite the bullet and do that upgrade in advance?

 

[Alf662]

Techport is owned by the South Australian government and had they upgraded several years ago a local build may have been viable.
Further, if Xenophon and co were being honest they would not complain that only $100m was being spent in Australia from a $2b contract, the construction costs will be less than $1b and all the rest including the aforementioned $100m will be spent in Oz on through life sustainment.

As I said, cheap political point scoring. The ships we are talking about are nearly fifteen years down the track, if political parties of either persuasion (state or federal) are serious they would put plans in place to expand Techport.

It would even give an alternative location for slipping the LHD's and the AOR's

Previous governments have had every opportunity to put the infrastructure in place for the current AOR build and they have chosen not to.

 

[Stampede]

The IIP appeared to be having a bet each way, until I had a closer read

For replenishment ships we have:

Quote:
Replenishment ships
3.24 Two new replenishment ships will replace the current mixed fleet
of one replenishment ship and one oiler (fuel only) by the early 2020s.

Replenishment ships are able to resupply fuel, water, food and weapons
to ships at sea to extend their range and endurance.

As the surface fleet grows with the introduction of larger frigates and larger patrol vessels, Defence will acquire another support vessel such as a third high
-capacity replenishment ship or an additional logistics support ship similar to
HMAS Choules in the late 2020s.

A third replenishment ship would provide an assured capacity to continuously generate one operationally available replenishment ship for Surface Task Group operations.


For Logisitics Support Ship we have:

Quote:
3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement
of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better equipped forces.

HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations.

A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be
considered in the late 2020s

I got the impression that when HMAS Choules is up for replacement around 2030 it will be replaced by two ships that will have the utility of a Logistics ship (as in what we have with HMAS Choules) as well as a replenishment capability.

Having a third AOR would be great, but having two logistics ships with replenishment capabilities would provide even more flexibility and capability

A couple of questions

Are our current two supply ships, Sirius and Success going to last the diistance until the new supply ships ( Cantabria ) come into service?

Also if we are to go with Cantabria, will there be any Australianisation of the ships?
I suspect the ships will be kept fairly standard with the excitement limited to painting a red kangaroo on the funnel. Not necessarily a bad thing. .
Can others please may advise.

Depending on the build time table a third Cantabria may not be such a bad thing. While no LPD they still have some logistical capability of stores and containers over and above their fuel capacity .
I'm sure our new bigger fleet of destroyers and OPV's will need at least two dedicated supply ships in service at all times.
As to a future replacement for Choules and the LCH, I would suggest pool the two into a class of 3 / 4 medium sized ships in the 7000t range. Suggest something basic like Indonesias Makassar class.These ships have the ability to transport a reinforced Infantry Company sized group complete with vehicles over large open ocean ranges.
Build time table could see the first built in the early 20's with the last commisioned with the retirement of Choules at the end of next decade.If the price is good maybe build them in Korea.
These ships look to be a good fit for the RAN. Not too large a crew and fairly well priced.
Should be a good complement to the LHD's or for independent operations.

Just a thought
Regards S

 

[Alf662]

A couple of questions

Are our current two supply ships, Sirius and Success going to last the diistance until the new supply ships ( Cantabria ) come into service?

Also if we are to go with Cantabria, will there be any Australianisation of the ships?
I suspect the ships will be kept fairly standard with the excitement limited to painting a red kangaroo on the funnel. Not necessarily a bad thing. .
Can others please may advise.

Depending on the build time table a third Cantabria may not be such a bad thing. While no LPD they still have some logistical capability of stores and containers over and above their fuel capacity .
I'm sure our new bigger fleet of destroyers and OPV's will need at least two dedicated supply ships in service at all times.
As to a future replacement for Choules and the LCH, I would suggest pool the two into a class of 3 / 4 medium sized ships in the 7000t range. Suggest something basic like Indonesias Makassar class.These ships have the ability to transport a reinforced Infantry Company sized group complete with vehicles over large open ocean ranges.
Build time table could see the first built in the early 20's with the last commisioned with the retirement of Choules at the end of next decade.If the price is good maybe build them in Korea.
These ships look to be a good fit for the RAN. Not too large a crew and fairly well priced.
Should be a good complement to the LHD's or for independent operations.

Just a thought
Regards S

This is where the politics is coming into play. A replacement for HMAS Success should have been ordered 5 to 6 years ago as she is at the end of her use full life, she has undergone a very expensive refit to keep her going, but it has not been money well spent.

Any delays in delivering the new AOR's will result in very high maintenance bills or a capability gap. The politicians are only looking at jobs and telling the general public what they want to hear.

Very little has been said about potential Australian content with the Navantia AOR build. I could be wrong, but I think it will be limited to a communications & navigation suite and some of the automation. I am sure all will be revealed in the near future.

As far as the additional Logistics ship goes I think a need has been recognised for an additional AOR (to improve fleet operations) and an additional LPD (to improve amphibious operations), but they can only have one, not both.

An LPD such as "Rotterdam" or "Johan de Witt" come with a well dock and ability to hangar 6 medium sized helicopters, but they would be quite limited in delivering RAS requirements for other vessels (I don't think they have the capability and neither does the Galicia).

AN AOR will excel at the RAS requirements but looses the well dock and a large hangar for multiple aircraft.

Throw into the mix the possibility of MV22 Osprey acquisitions, the replacement of the LCM1e with an undefined replacement that may also have to be carried and new army watercraft that would have to be considered and you start having to ask some very hard questions and fore go some other preferred capabilities.

If a third AOR was ordered, I don't think it would be another Navantia "Cantabria".

 

[d-ron84]

Cantabria is the provisional choice - and to be built offshore

Although Cantabria seems to be the more popular platform on here, this actually came as a bit of a shock, considering we have been getting told for the last few months that we were going the Korean option, hell even they thought they had it sewn up. They were going to smash out two ships in 6 months, but we would have had to get them as is. So it looks like the CoA's drawn out selection and wanting too Australianise the design is why it is going to Spain.

Another thing, even though it's a Naventia product, it'll actually have a little less commonality with the DDG's and LHD's.

 

[t68]

Alexsia has touched on the differences for crew habitability between military commercial standards for the new Avaiation Training Ship, but I was wondering if need be can it be pressed into service with the armaments and sensors listed in the brochure be fitted in a timely manner?

http://www.damen.com/~/media/Produc...Documents/Offshore_Patrol_Vessel_2400_DS.ashx

 

[ASSAIL]

Although Cantabria seems to be the more popular platform on here, this actually came as a bit of a shock, considering we have been getting told for the last few months that we were going the Korean option, hell even they thought they had it sewn up. They were going to smash out two ships in 6 months, but we would have had to get them as is. So it looks like the CoA's drawn out selection and wanting too Australianise the design is why it is going to Spain.

Another thing, even though it's a Naventia product, it'll actually have a little less commonality with the DDG's and LHD's.

You might not have read through this thread. Had you done so you would have seen that there is a great amount of commonality in platform management systems etc. 300 RAN personnel served on Cantabria while she was deployed to the RAN. They did this to train for the future systems they would be using in the LHDs/AWDs.

The choice in favour of Cantabria is no shock if you had researched their capacities; Cantabria carries 80 more tonnes of ammunition, 1,300 more tonnes of F76, 1,100 more tonnes of JP5, Cantabria is faster and, being single shaft, is cheaper to sustain. The only lesser capacity c.f. Aegir18Ais in general cargo, 200
tonnes less.

Both bidding companies have been evaluated and have submitted designs for consideration without any interference or change demanded by defence. Your supposition re " Australianise" is rubbish.

 

[John Newman]

Labour, Unions & Nick Xenophon are taking a cheap political swipe at the Government over the Navantia contract:

Pre-election promise on shipbuilding sought by Labor, Xenophon, unions after Spain wins naval deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

My memory of the 3 ship ASC proposal was that 2 of the ships were going to be built in Korea, which every one seems to have conveniently forgotten.

Labor, Unions and Xenophon (the Three Stooges) all having a whinge, what a joke!!

Where was Labor's commitment to Naval Shipbuilding in it's six years of Government? Where? Not one ship ordered for the RAN in that time, nil, zero, zilch!

During all those years of throwing GFC dollars around like confetti, a bit of it could have gone into a 'real' infrastructure program such as extending the hardstands and doubling the capacity of the ship lift at Techport, a bit of real forward thinking, but of course that didn't happen.

If they had done that, there could have been an order for local AOR build during those six years they were in the drivers seat, they could have also ordered the 4th AWD too.

They could have done a lot, but of course did completely nothing!!

What a joke!!

 

[John Newman]

Just curious, when there are potential jobs in the pipeline (from AOE to LPD/LPH overhauls) that needs the ship lift upgrade, what is stopping SA government to not bite the bullet and do that upgrade in advance?

At the times that the big ships (LHD's, Choules and the AOR's), need docking there is of course the Captain Cook dry dock at Garden Island.

Don't need a ship lift for maintenance and overhauls when you have that facility already in existence.

The larger ship lift at Techport has a reported capacity of 13,500t, more than enough for the projects that it has now and into the future for the OPV's and Future Frigates (it can probably be used for the Collins replacement if the ASC ship lift is not large enough for them).

The question is, if the ship lift was to expanded to be able to lift an AOR size ship, how long would it be 'unable' to be used during that expansion period?

Probably the best time to have increased it's capacity would have been at the very start of the AWD construction (during the time of all the GFC dollars being thrown around), that way there definitely wouldn't be any disruption to ship launching schedules.

Anyway, I can't see it being extended, for what purpose now??


Edit:

Couple of videos, first is Canberra on her first visit to Sydney and being docked in the Captain Cook dry dock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpTjojThgik

Flyover video animation of Techport:

http://www.techportaustralia.com/media/audio-visual/techport-flythrough

For those that have seen this flyover before, it appears that it has been 'updated' recently, no longer does it talk about increasing the size of the ship lift, but focuses on Future Frigates, OPV's and the Collins replacement (apart from the current AWD assembly).

It appears that the SA Government has given up promoting an expansion of the ship lift for assembly of much larger ships!

 

[Volkodav]

Labor, Unions and Xenophon (the Three Stooges) all having a whinge, what a joke!!

Where was Labor's commitment to Naval Shipbuilding in it's six years of Government? Where? Not one ship ordered for the RAN in that time, nil, zero, zilch!

During all those years of throwing GFC dollars around like confetti, a bit of it could have gone into a 'real' infrastructure program such as extending the hardstands and doubling the capacity of the ship lift at Techport, a bit of real forward thinking, but of course that didn't happen.

If they had done that, there could have been an order for local AOR build during those six years they were in the drivers seat, they could have also ordered the 4th AWD too.

They could have done a lot, but of course did completely nothing!!

What a joke!!

The joke IMO is peoples short memories. I am no fan of Rudds or Gillards and was completely unimpressed with Swan but I do actually remember the Global Financial Crisis, the hung parliament and the government being wedged into attempting to achieve a surplus by what was one of the most effective oppositions in history. I also recall the promises that the new government made in reference to returning the economy to surplus, shipbuilding etc. The economy still isn't in surplus, no new ships have been ordered, in fact projects that were due to lead to ordered in 2014/15 were delayed or altered removing local construction as an option.

A lot of the shipbuilding decisions post 2013 were purely politically driven. In a major part by the PMs personal ambivalence to local manufacturing in general plus rent seeking by the WA mafia, who controlled, defence, finance, and foreign affairs portfolios (quite ironic as this same portfolios we held by the SA mafia during most of the noughties when Tenix was done over on the AWD). Basically we are repeating old mistakes by letting ministers from rent seeking states screw up expensively established strategic capabilities to win votes. Pine is the only senior government member from SA so they are screwed irrespective what is best for the country, or how much time and effort has been invested in Adelaide, Melbourne and New Castle.

Let me make this very clear, the argument about capacity and capability to build the AORs was BS. The ship lift at Port Adelaide was specifically designed to be upgraded to support ships as large as the LHDs and AORs and would not have been required to have been ready for such ships until later this decade. In fact the intention was that the shiplift would be extended if ASC won the AOR contract, which would have provided work for construction workers coming off mining and infrastructure projects around the country. Blocks for the third ship would have been built around Australia, as seen in the AWD project, and transported to Adelaide on barges, concurrently with the first two being built in South Korea, with all ship outfitted to varying degrees in Australia.

The desision not to build the AORs locally was purely political and part of the plan to move all shipbuilding off sure with maintenance to be shared by WA and NSW. Once certain figures were out their replacements reviewed on going projects and discovered that the reality was a long distance from the rhetoric and hence why local build are back on in many cases. Had the tankers been ordered concurrently with a shiplift upgrade back in 2014 it would be ready by now.

 

[John Newman]

Had the tankers been ordered concurrently with a shiplift upgrade back in 2014 it would be ready by now.

V, why 2014? Why specifically pick 2014?

Why not 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013? It's not because the current Coalition Government is in office is it?

Why not pick a date somewhere between 3 December 2007 and 18 September 2013 for the ship lift to be upgraded and orders placed (2 x AOR, 4th AWD)? Plenty of years there, six years in fact to pick from.

As far as a 'hung Parliament' goes, that wasn't until the Gillard Government was re-elected in August 2010.

And despite it being a 'hung Parliament' during the Gillard years, and in all my many many years of following politics, I've never ever seen a Government having to be forced to make a 'Defence related' decision because of the makeup of the Parliament.

 

[ASSAIL]

The desision not to build the AORs locally was purely political and part of the plan to move all shipbuilding off sure with maintenance to be shared by WA and NSW. Once certain figures were out their replacements reviewed on going projects and discovered that the reality was a long distance from the rhetoric and hence why local build are back on in many cases. Had the tankers been ordered concurrently with a shiplift upgrade back in 2014 it would be ready by now.

Had the AWD build been performing well there may have been a chance that the decision makers would be inclined to build locally but the decisions occurred right when ASC, BAE and Forgacs had uncompetitive productivity levels. Overseas build was not a surprise.

 

[Volkodav]

2014 because that is the earliest a decision on the AOR could have been ordered after the election, 2015 could also have happened but would have been pushing it due to the AWDs needing it.

Captain Cook is great but pretty much limited to whatever the schedule of the current job is, if something else is already in there you have to wait until it's finished before starting the next job. A ship lift or floating dock serving a hard stand can dock and undock ships as required, even unexpected repairs , it happened with subs while I was there.

I made it very clear that I am no fan of Gillards, I lay the failure to order a fourth AWD squarely on her shoulders as I also do the cost cutting and rebaselining that further slowed the project and handed control over to Raytheon. The fact we had a ship building black hole after the ANZACs and moved all the work to a brand new ASC shipyard was a Downer, Hill, Minchin, thing. All states push their wares, its the federal government of the day that decides which way to go.

No government is innocent, nor totally at fault, all contributed, The simple fact of the matter is all have contributed to the current situation and six years of nothing is now nine years.

 

[t68]

It quite the pity really that they did not expand it when the GFC was on, hypotheticaly speaking could have done a barter trade with the UK 2x CVS for 4x oilers, a run of 6-7 would have been welcome. Just need to look outside the box sometimes.