Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The RAN has had female submariners for well over a decade, and likely will have their first female submarine commander before the end of the year.

I think many would be surprised at how well women have been doing in the ADF, and how much they have done to improve things for everyone.
I believe every single job in the ADF is now available to Women, the last holdouts being the Arms Corps' in the army, finally fell a few years ago.
Submariners excited by sea of opportunity | Defence
There is at least 1 in the latest group of 10 prospective Submariners.
 

Going Boeing

Active Member
There was discussion earlier in this thread about the works being carried out at the Darwin Patrol Boat base - these pics were taken today. Unfortunately, my vessel wasn’t close enough to get good resolution and angle but it should give an idea of the progress.

0BD25E5F-2F61-461E-A1FC-EDBB92F0474F.jpeg
6B3B2A4C-97FA-461E-889C-049ECFDE7B80.jpeg
C7DF9802-1E29-46C0-9F92-7463A7B33A05.jpeg
 

OldNavy63

Active Member
Me too and still my favourite recruitment add
I joined expecting to being generally dry, at home frequently and reasonably content. I may have been wet, homesick and frightened going through Recruit School at Cerberus for a little while. Then, somewhat warmer, closer to home and quite jolly going through Creswell. Overall, looking back, I would not change any of it!
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There was discussion earlier in this thread about the works being carried out at the Darwin Patrol Boat base - these pics were taken today. Unfortunately, my vessel wasn’t close enough to get good resolution and angle but it should give an idea of the progress.

View attachment 50369
View attachment 50370
View attachment 50371
The only problem with that location is that it has the fastest tidal stream (+4.5kts on top springs) in the harbour.
Mooring lines will have to be continually adjusted and watched very closely on an 8 mtr tide!
 

Going Boeing

Active Member
The only problem with that location is that it has the fastest tidal stream (+4.5kts on top springs) in the harbour.
Mooring lines will have to be continually adjusted and watched very closely on an 8 mtr tide!
Yes, I saw how strong the tide is. I was wondering if the light colour piles on the outside of the jetty are for attaching pontoons so that the Arafuras could berth and have a constant mooring line length. I would assume that they have thought through the issue as they have a lot of experience with these tides as well as cyclonic storm surges.

I also took this pic looking towards East Arm, I suspect that the dark fuel storage tanks are the new US military tanks which were announced in January 2022 - it looks like good progress has been made with the construction.

Work begins on $270m US fuel storage facility on Darwin's outskirts

C6DA6510-3261-48F2-BEDA-CA76AEF5B561.jpeg
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, I saw how strong the tide is. I was wondering if the light colour piles on the outside of the jetty are for attaching pontoons so that the Arafuras could berth and have a constant mooring line length. I would assume that they have thought through the issue as they have a lot of experience with these tides as well as cyclonic storm surges.
They did a survey including tides but I doubt if they allowed for the large swell found there after a period of constant wet season westerlies/norwesterlies.
A frigate size ship and below would be unable to use the wharf in those conditions and a larger vessel would not berth there by choice.
No problems during the dry season.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Then again look how old the existing Anzac's are ,why wouldn't a future government consider further upgrades etc. as per the Anzac class
Frigate, Helicopter (FFH) | Royal Australian Navy
This is due in part to not having a continous construction arrangement in place. Failure to order new hulls necessiated the FFGUP programme when the CFA DDG's were paid off and has put the RAN in the position where the ANZAC's have to be upgraded. Same goes for the Collins Class.

A mid-life upgrade can be a very expensive undertaking and a new build is a better option, particularly where new systems require more space and power. Upgrading an existing platform is often a compromise (i.e the top weight issues on the ANZAC resulting in a deeper draft (ballast), lower speed and difficulty in providing expanded systems). Older vessels can be harder (adn more costly) to maintain as well. Basically you don't get the same bang of buck over the remaining life of the vessel.

On selling the vessels being replaced may be an option or they could be mothballed if there appears to be a potention need in the future.

The other significant advantage of continous build are:
  • Each batch provides lessons to the next allow interative improvements to each batch fo vessel within a class of vessel. In addition a lot of lessons that can be passed on to the next class of ship which may (or may not) be an evolved version of the last. Much better for retention of corporate knowledge that relearning the lessons.
  • You are unlikley to have the same issue with block obsolescence that was seen with the ANZAC (same gear over the run of 10 vessels)
  • Industry skills improve bring costs down and yards may not tied up doing significant upgrades to ships that may take years. Hopefully availability will improve as a result.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This is due in part to not having a continous construction arrangement in place. Failure to order new hulls necessiated the FFGUP programme when the CFA DDG's were paid off and has put the RAN in the position where the ANZAC's have to be upgraded. Same goes for the Collins Class.

A mid-life upgrade can be a very expensive undertaking and a new build is a better option, particularly where new systems require more space and power. Upgrading an existing platform is often a compromise (i.e the top weight issues on the ANZAC resulting in a deeper draft (ballast), lower speed and difficulty in providing expanded systems). Older vessels can be harder (adn more costly) to maintain as well. Basically you don't get the same bang of buck over the remaining life of the vessel.

On selling the vessels being replaced may be an option or they could be mothballed if there appears to be a potention need in the future.

The other significant advantage of continous build are:
  • Each batch provides lessons to the next allow interative improvements to each batch fo vessel within a class of vessel. In addition a lot of lessons that can be passed on to the next class of ship which may (or may not) be an evolved version of the last. Much better for retention of corporate knowledge that relearning the lessons.
  • You are unlikley to have the same issue with block obsolescence that was seen with the ANZAC (same gear over the run of 10 vessels)
  • Industry skills improve bring costs down and yards may not tied up doing significant upgrades to ships that may take years. Hopefully availability will improve as a result.
Greg Tunny, former MD of ASC produced a paper for the national ship building enquiry back in the mid to late 2000s.

It was very informative tracking cost, capability and value for money across various options of continuous builds and platform life from 15, 20, 25, and 30 years, with and without midlife upgrades.

From memory the highest cost, but greatest capability was a 15 or 20 years life, with no major midlife upgrade. There would be incremental and spiral upgrades but not major system replacements or structural work.

The flipside was, no matter how much you spent on the midlife upgrade, it would never deliver the capability increase you would get from an equivalent new build.
 

Maranoa

Active Member
I wonder if Sirius could have found a new niche as a bulk refueller for the more remote naval stations like the proposed one on Manus Island, or for refuelling the two Supply class AORs in forward areas. Not going to happen now obviously.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
This is due in part to not having a continous construction arrangement in place. Failure to order new hulls necessiated the FFGUP programme when the CFA DDG's were paid off and has put the RAN in the position where the ANZAC's have to be upgraded. Same goes for the Collins Class.

A mid-life upgrade can be a very expensive undertaking and a new build is a better option, particularly where new systems require more space and power. Upgrading an existing platform is often a compromise (i.e the top weight issues on the ANZAC resulting in a deeper draft (ballast), lower speed and difficulty in providing expanded systems). Older vessels can be harder (adn more costly) to maintain as well. Basically you don't get the same bang of buck over the remaining life of the vessel.

On selling the vessels being replaced may be an option or they could be mothballed if there appears to be a potention need in the future.

The other significant advantage of continous build are:
  • Each batch provides lessons to the next allow interative improvements to each batch fo vessel within a class of vessel. In addition a lot of lessons that can be passed on to the next class of ship which may (or may not) be an evolved version of the last. Much better for retention of corporate knowledge that relearning the lessons.
  • You are unlikley to have the same issue with block obsolescence that was seen with the ANZAC (same gear over the run of 10 vessels)
  • Industry skills improve bring costs down and yards may not tied up doing significant upgrades to ships that may take years. Hopefully availability will improve as a result.
Is there an added cost though to the frigate program of its production cycle in avoiding the "wall of death "though? Then stepping up of productivity to less than eighteen months per ship build you are likely to reduce the costs of the program and even retire the previous frigate class earlier, certainly having a complete class finished in a shorter period could likely avoid some of the obsolescent between first and last batch? and certainly be in a better position to bring in a replacement class for the Hobart class whilst avoiding "wall of death" lets face it the ships are needed sooner than later
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Is there an added cost though to the frigate program of its production cycle in avoiding the "wall of death "though? Then stepping up of productivity to less than eighteen months per ship build you are likely to reduce the costs of the program and even retire the previous frigate class earlier, certainly having a complete class finished in a shorter period could likely avoid some of the obsolescent between first and last batch? and certainly be in a better position to bring in a replacement class for the Hobart class whilst avoiding "wall of death" lets face it the ships are needed sooner than later
The Valley of Death as it has been called was referring to periods of time when there were breaks in naval ship construction in Australia. As a result of these breaks in naval shipbuilding (which lasted several years, more than once...) the various yards' skilled workforces were reduced or disbanded. This loss of a skilled workforce is part of why it had been so expensive to get some of the naval construction programmes going in Oz, as a skilled workforce kept needing to be re-raised/re-trained.

Now it might be possible to increase the 'drumbeat' and turn out Hunter-class frigates at rates faster than 24-month intervals but there would also need to be commitment from Australia & the RAN to have a new/additional build programme set to start right after the Hunter-class build completes. Whether that means the Hobart-class destroyer replacement or something else entirely does not IMO particularly matter. What is needed is work to keep the already raised and trained workforce together and working to maintain their skills.

Accelerating the current project but not taking steps to initiate projects to follow it will just lead to another/more Valleys of Death and the resulting inefficiencies and additional startup costs to future Australian naval construction.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The UK resorted to ordering new OPVs to fill a building gap, because otherwise the MoD would have had to pay to keep the workforce sitting around. The government had committed to placing orders (signed contract!), to tie itself to keeping a drumbeat going & thus avoiding the Valley of Death, but politicians & bureaucrats (some in uniform) still failed to get their act together & order frigates. Doh! Ah well. At least we got more & better OPVs, able to take over some low-end taskings.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The Valley of Death as it has been called was referring to periods of time when there were breaks in naval ship construction in Australia. As a result of these breaks in naval shipbuilding (which lasted several years, more than once...) the various yards' skilled workforces were reduced or disbanded. This loss of a skilled workforce is part of why it had been so expensive to get some of the naval construction programmes going in Oz, as a skilled workforce kept needing to be re-raised/re-trained.

Now it might be possible to increase the 'drumbeat' and turn out Hunter-class frigates at rates faster than 24-month intervals but there would also need to be commitment from Australia & the RAN to have a new/additional build programme set to start right after the Hunter-class build completes. Whether that means the Hobart-class destroyer replacement or something else entirely does not IMO particularly matter. What is needed is work to keep the already raised and trained workforce together and working to maintain their skills.

Accelerating the current project but not taking steps to initiate projects to follow it will just lead to another/more Valleys of Death and the resulting inefficiencies and additional startup costs to future Australian naval construction.
As a simple observation one would think there is plenty of on going construction work if we constantly rebuild our fleet going forward.
Its not just frigates and subs, the RAN has a decent sized fleet of over 40 vessels of various types and sizes that one day will need replacing.
The challenge I guess is actually committing to doing all the work locally and balancing it across our two major ship building centres in SA and WA plus other smaller yards around the nation.

Landing craft, patrol vessel, LHD, supply ship, etc could all be built locally and with that expertise create a skill base of excellence which hopefully would allow us to be competitive on the global export market.

A lot of stars to align over the future decades to make this happen but it is possible.


Cheers S
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
A side product of ongoing build programs is the potential to on-sell relatively new ships after they have served in the RAN. If a market for these second hand ships can be found that would be incentive to increase the drumbeat.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
As a simple observation one would think there is plenty of on going construction work if we constantly rebuild our fleet going forward.
Its not just frigates and subs, the RAN has a decent sized fleet of over 40 vessels of various types and sizes that one day will need replacing.
The challenge I guess is actually committing to doing all the work locally and balancing it across our two major ship building centres in SA and WA plus other smaller yards around the nation.

Landing craft, patrol vessel, LHD, supply ship, etc could all be built locally and with that expertise create a skill base of excellence which hopefully would allow us to be competitive on the global export market.

A lot of stars to align over the future decades to make this happen but it is possible.


Cheers S
IMO it would require more than 'just' a commitment to doing all builds locally. I suspect that in many respects, the planning necessary to actually achieve all-local builds would be both more important, and much more difficult to carry out. I also am not all that enthused about requiring all builds to be local, in large measure due to it likely increasing the costs (in some cases likely by a significant margin) whilst limiting flexibility and capacity.

I would much rather Australia have the ability to increase the drumbeat for warship production and/or add in a new combatant build (a la a light, FFBNW frigate class) than ensuring that all RAN/AusGov vessels, including support and other vessels built to commercial standards, were built in Australian yards. If things could be managed so that Australia has one or two (preferably two) yards which handle all of the naval/combatant construction and then another yard or two which can handle the support and commercial builds, that would be fine. However, I suspect that the numbers which would be ordered, as well as what the likely timelines would be for orders and/or replacements would be insufficient to provide enough work to keep three or four yards operational. There could even be issues managing sufficient work to keep two yards occuppied.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Without wanting to restart a discussion about an Aircraft carrier for Australia. I finally had time to watch this YouTube video.

Putting aside the upscaled and navalised MQ28 …..one aspect discussed around the 55 minute was the claim a F35B ASEA radar could effectively be used as an Early Warning radar to give ships targeting data against inbound Anti Ship Missiles at ranges of up to 100 miles when flying at 30000 ft.

Is that a valid claim?
 
Top