Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

hauritz · Jul 30, 2014

The overall balance of the fleet seems to have been compromised in favour of building bigger and more capable warships. Without a class of OCVs The surface fleet will be be a mix of 6500 ton destroyers and 300 ton patrol boats. With the LCH gone the smallest amphib we will have available will be 16,000 tons.

We clearly need a class of OCV between the destroyers and Patrol boats as well as a replacement for the LCH.

Ironically these would be the perfect projects to keep our home shipbuilding industry occupied.

Punta74 · Jul 31, 2014

THE Abbott government wants to sack its own naval shipbuilder and install British defence giant BAE Industries to rescue the nation’s largest defence project, the $8.5 billion construction of three air warfare destroyers.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Volkodav · Jul 31, 2014

Punta74 said:
THE Abbott government wants to sack its own naval shipbuilder and install British defence giant BAE Industries to rescue the nation’s largest defence project, the $8.5 billion construction of three air warfare destroyers.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Completely ignoring the fact that it was BAE charging top dollar to build the keel blocks for ship 1 and then stuffing up, not just the work but the rework on those blocks that directly led to many of schedule and cost issues plaguing the project. Their work was so bad that there were suggestions of industrial sabotage attempting to discredit ASCs shipbuilding credentials, the work was so bad that they had work taken off them and awarded to Forgacs and Navantia, work that these other subcontractors delivered on time, cost and specification.

BAEs work only improved after they lost work they thought couldn't be taken off them. They also enlisted political and media support to try and save Victorian jobs, in part through shifting public blame to ASC and Navantia. Well it looks like they have gotten away with it, they stuffed the project, blamed the victim and then sucked up to the new government to be brought in as saviours, what a joke.

Riga · Jul 31, 2014

StingrayOZ said:
48 VLS plus the 8 harpoon on deck plus CIWS with additional growth margin on top of that of ~500 odd tons. I'm not sure that the anzac replacements would get a full 48 cells, but that would further increase the available growth (I can't imagine they would be replaced with anything heavier than loaded VLS cells).

With 11 (3 AWD and 8 Frigates) the RAN I imagine would be pretty happy with that capability. Combine that with some OCV/OPV to relieve them of chasing fishing boats and refugees that would be a huge increase in capability/availability for a very slight reduction in hulls. It would be like complaining the RAAF has fewer airframes for lift, because we didn't replace hercs 1 for 1 with C-17's, yes its a slight reduction but C-27j, c-130 and C17 as a whole are a lot more capable any way you cut it.

I going to do something very bad, but do it to illustrate the proposed future. Currently the RAN has ~44900t of warships (FFG+ ANZAC). The plan is to get 71500t-77000t of a lot more capable warships. That extra tonnage can carry more fuel, weapons, sensors, UAV's, etc. I don't think many would argue that is a reduction. Particularly if that tonnage and capability is now focused on its primary task. Looking at hull numbers doesn't tell the whole story.

In fact the weakness with this plan is its entirely too sensible. I waiting to hear its not going to happen for some wacky reason and instead we are going to double life extension ANZACs or repurpose FFG dive wrecks or buy 2nd hand US Cruisers cheap or "put missiles on gun boats".

Interesting point.

Should have thought of that with regard the Royal Navy. On the other side, platforms can only be in one place at one time and should the platform be sunk, what replaces it?

ausklr76 · Jul 31, 2014

Volkodav said:
Completely ignoring the fact that it was BAE charging top dollar to build the keel blocks for ship 1 and then stuffing up, not just the work but the rework on those blocks that directly led to many of schedule and cost issues plaguing the project. Their work was so bad that there were suggestions of industrial sabotage attempting to discredit ASCs shipbuilding credentials, the work was so bad that they had work taken off them and awarded to Forgacs and Navantia, work that these other subcontractors delivered on time, cost and specification.

BAEs work only improved after they lost work they thought couldn't be taken off them. They also enlisted political and media support to try and save Victorian jobs, in part through shifting public blame to ASC and Navantia. Well it looks like they have gotten away with it, they stuffed the project, blamed the victim and then sucked up to the new government to be brought in as saviours, what a joke.

Would be interesting to see how much BAE donated to LNP fund raising.

Volkodav · Jul 31, 2014

ausklr76 said:
Would be interesting to see how much BAE donated to LNP fund raising.

I'm afraid I couldn't possibly comment.

Not suggesting causality but, BAEs Australian shipbuilding is based in Victoria and Western Australia with state Liberal governments, one of which is on the nose and looks like being tossed. ASC shipbuilding is based in SA with a state Labor government.

StingrayOZ · Jul 31, 2014

Riga said:
Interesting point.

Should have thought of that with regard the Royal Navy. On the other side, platforms can only be in one place at one time and should the platform be sunk, what replaces it?

I would argue a 7000t frigate with 48vls with higher mounted and improve radars, with more UAV/UUV capability, more and better systems and effective layout would avoid sinking. But you have 8% decrease in hull numbers 71% more displacement if you completely ignore capability. However as the 2007 whitepaper pointed out, 20x OCV (~2000t) would more than fill the gap by a reduction of 1 primary hull. Not that it would perform the same mission or replace disabled or sunken vessels, but would free up the 11 to do the primary mission more effectively and support them in that.

You end up a long way ahead of where we are now. But the new white paper I hope will clarify what is the overall picture.

gf0012-aust · Jul 31, 2014

Volkodav said:
Completely ignoring the fact that it was BAE charging top dollar to build the keel blocks for ship 1 and then stuffing up, not just the work but the rework on those blocks that directly led to many of schedule and cost issues plaguing the project. Their work was so bad that there were suggestions of industrial sabotage attempting to discredit ASCs shipbuilding credentials, the work was so bad that they had work taken off them and awarded to Forgacs and Navantia, work that these other subcontractors delivered on time, cost and specification.

BAEs work only improved after they lost work they thought couldn't be taken off them. They also enlisted political and media support to try and save Victorian jobs, in part through shifting public blame to ASC and Navantia. Well it looks like they have gotten away with it, they stuffed the project, blamed the victim and then sucked up to the new government to be brought in as saviours, what a joke.

and not to put too fine a point on it - but DEFMIN citing BAE's success with Astute class conveniently ignores all the work that USN, NAVSEA and US Dept of Commerce put into it to remediate the prog

Volkodav · Jul 31, 2014

gf0012-aust said:
and not to put too fine a point on it - but DEFMIN citing BAE's success with Astute class conveniently ignores all the work that USN, NAVSEA and US Dept of Commerce put into it to remediate the prog

BAE is being judged on where they are now at the end of long projects, not where they got themselves to at the start of those projects after a valley of death caused atrification and loss of skills. Australian shipbuilding is being judged on their similar struggles on an original unrealistic schedule without a rebaselining to acknowledge what has been achieved to rectify the early problems.

This whole thing stinks of a politically inspired witch-hunt intended to thump the government owned shipbuilder and justify its sale. The government should rebaseline the project and then review it on actual performance rather than on what competitors (with their own agendas) are alleging and what an audit of the issues of four years ago found.

Judge them on the improvements seen in ship 2 and then on their performance on ship 3, don't rant, rage and do irreparable damage to a national strategic capability based on the unrealistic expectations placed on a greenfield shipyard and workforce at the start of the project. The hard work has been done, the lessons have been learnt, the workforce has seen significant turn over and change to get things right and fix the problems, now these people who changed or came in as part of the change to get things back on track are going to be shafted because the minister and his advisors are fixated on the past and problems that occurred years ago.

John Newman · Aug 1, 2014

ausklr76 said:
Would be interesting to see how much BAE donated to LNP fund raising.

I'd suggest that large companies donate monies to both sides of politics, having an each way bet regardless!!

What good that does them, well time will tell!

mickm · Aug 2, 2014

Gents
I have read recently that HMAS Darwin will be paid off and decommissioned in December this year.
I am a bit concerned that with the delays in the AWD build that it may be a bit premature to pay Darwin off especially with the demands placed on our ships at the moment.
Would it be possible to keep her in service until Nu Ship Hobart is commissioned or is Darwin past her operational life.
I am eagerly anticipating the release of the Defence White Paper regarding the RAN building OPVs that could do a lot of the work which is being presently being done by major fleet units like Darwin in Operation Resolute etc which obviously reduces the life of ships like her.

What do you think

Volkodav · Aug 2, 2014

I see, according to News Limited, that government front benchers from WA are pressuring for submarine maintenance and other work to be moved to the West. Let the pork barreling begin again, lets ignore the amount of investment, infrastructure and experience over the preceding three decades and just move the whole thing because a bunch of polies want photo opportunities and to be able to claim how many local jobs they have created. Lets forget about the job losses interstate, lets forget about the duplication and waste of money, the extra stress on the defence budget, subsidising yet another, politically driven green fields or redeveloped site. Lets just throw a stack of tax payers money at a dumb idea because it helps the reelection of government members vs the status quo which aids the opposition.

The constant attacks on SA based defence projects and attempts to destroy SA based industry because SA has a Labor government and few federal Liberal members is shallow, sickening and revolting. This is tax payers money, this is defence industry, this is the ADF and its future capability, it should be above all this party political, parochial BS but apparently its not. Lets look forward to more greenfield sites, new unnecessarily expensive projects as we start from scratch yet again rather than just building on what we have.

Tassie_Terror · Aug 3, 2014

Would the Patrol Frigate series (variant of the National Security Cutter) make a feasible replacement for the Anzac-class frigates. They are cheap to build, and have been advertised with the CEAFAR radar.

Do not scorn me if I'm a bit wrong here, ships aren't my speciality.

old faithful · Aug 4, 2014

Volkodav said:
I see, according to News Limited, that government front benchers from WA are pressuring for submarine maintenance and other work to be moved to the West. Let the pork barreling begin again, lets ignore the amount of investment, infrastructure and experience over the preceding three decades and just move the whole thing because a bunch of polies want photo opportunities and to be able to claim how many local jobs they have created. Lets forget about the job losses interstate, lets forget about the duplication and waste of money, the extra stress on the defence budget, subsidising yet another, politically driven green fields or redeveloped site. Lets just throw a stack of tax payers money at a dumb idea because it helps the reelection of government members vs the status quo which aids the opposition.

The constant attacks on SA based defence projects and attempts to destroy SA based industry because SA has a Labor government and few federal Liberal members is shallow, sickening and revolting. This is tax payers money, this is defence industry, this is the ADF and its future capability, it should be above all this party political, parochial BS but apparently its not. Lets look forward to more greenfield sites, new unnecessarily expensive projects as we start from scratch yet again rather than just building on what we have.

Similar situation when the ALP used the "Indonesian cattle torture" as a smokescreen when they wanted to divirt attention from the Mining tax, NT cattlemen are hardly ALP voters anyway, not losing votes.....cost the NT millions.
WA is, however well placed to service the Collins fleet, good gain for a state that contributes significantly more to our economy than SA.
SA does need help, like getting the northern suburbs of Adelaide off wellfare. Not sure Collins maintanence would help much in that case anyway. Production of military vehicles might help Geelong and Adelaide, we need to produce something in this country sooner rather than later, hope that it is made by humans, and exported. IMO, China is destroying the Wests economy, and we need thinking pollies to find a way to produce something before we see centerlink ques like we saw in the 80, s.

ausklr76 · Aug 4, 2014

Volkodav said:
I see, according to News Limited, that government front benchers from WA are pressuring for submarine maintenance and other work to be moved to the West. Let the pork barreling begin again, lets ignore the amount of investment, infrastructure and experience over the preceding three decades and just move the whole thing because a bunch of polies want photo opportunities and to be able to claim how many local jobs they have created. Lets forget about the job losses interstate, lets forget about the duplication and waste of money, the extra stress on the defence budget, subsidising yet another, politically driven green fields or redeveloped site. Lets just throw a stack of tax payers money at a dumb idea because it helps the reelection of government members vs the status quo which aids the opposition.

The constant attacks on SA based defence projects and attempts to destroy SA based industry because SA has a Labor government and few federal Liberal members is shallow, sickening and revolting. This is tax payers money, this is defence industry, this is the ADF and its future capability, it should be above all this party political, parochial BS but apparently its not. Lets look forward to more greenfield sites, new unnecessarily expensive projects as we start from scratch yet again rather than just building on what we have.

There was a report on ABC radio ( sorry cant find source to confirm) that the SA premier is calling upon the premiers on VIC and NSW to come together and pressure the federal government on shipbuilding. He is calling on them to make sure the replenishment ships and subs are built here in oz. Basically those three states have the most to lose from the valley of death.

Volkodav · Aug 4, 2014

old faithful said:
Similar situation when the ALP used the "Indonesian cattle torture" as a smokescreen when they wanted to divirt attention from the Mining tax, NT cattlemen are hardly ALP voters anyway, not losing votes.....cost the NT millions.
WA is, however well placed to service the Collins fleet, good gain for a state that contributes significantly more to our economy than SA.
SA does need help, like getting the northern suburbs of Adelaide off wellfare. Not sure Collins maintanence would help much in that case anyway. Production of military vehicles might help Geelong and Adelaide, we need to produce something in this country sooner rather than later, hope that it is made by humans, and exported. IMO, China is destroying the Wests economy, and we need thinking pollies to find a way to produce something before we see centerlink ques like we saw in the 80, s.

Its been going for decades and I'm sick of it. Basically the destroyers should have been built in the established proven Tenix yard in Melbourne instead of a brand new yard being built in Adelaide, prior to that the FFGUP should have been awarded to Tenix instead of ADI, later bought by Thales, in Sydney as Tenix had built the last two FFGs, were the experts on that platform and had proven themselves on the ANZAC Project. That said however, construction of the final two FFGs and the ANZACs (as well as all the efforts privatising and updating the yard) should logically have been awarded to Cockatoo Island Dockyard as they were our premier shipbuilder at the time with the most talented and capable work force.

Basically every new project we are taking work away from the current lead yard and giving it to a new player for political reasons. This is causing disruption and dislocation of the workforce, many experienced and competent individuals leaving the industry all together, seeing many of the same learning errors being made again and again, as well as preventing the establishment any real degree of corporate knowledge, economies of scale or salable reputation.

What I am saying is parochialism and pork barreling should never be a part of these decisions rather government should look at what is best for the national economy, not just one state and above all what will deliver the best result for the ADF.

Joe Black · Aug 4, 2014

Volkodav said:
Its been going for decades and I'm sick of it. Basically the destroyers should have been built in the established proven Tenix yard in Melbourne instead of a brand new yard being built in Adelaide, prior to that the FFGUP should have been awarded to Tenix instead of ADI, later bought by Thales, in Sydney as Tenix had built the last two FFGs, were the experts on that platform and had proven themselves on the ANZAC Project. That said however, construction of the final two FFGs and the ANZACs (as well as all the efforts privatising and updating the yard) should logically have been awarded to Cockatoo Island Dockyard as they were our premier shipbuilder at the time with the most talented and capable work force.

Basically every new project we are taking work away from the current lead yard and giving it to a new player for political reasons. This is causing disruption and dislocation of the workforce, many experienced and competent individuals leaving the industry all together, seeing many of the same learning errors being made again and again, as well as preventing the establishment any real degree of corporate knowledge, economies of scale or salable reputation.

What I am saying is parochialism and pork barreling should never be a part of these decisions rather government should look at what is best for the national economy, not just one state and above all what will deliver the best result for the ADF.

Don't necessary agree. Whilst there are some really good points about the expertises in the Tenix having built the FFG, one can't rely just 1 shipyard to build all your combat ships. Take the Americans for example, the Virgina class SSN is built by 2 different shipyards, GD Electric boats and Newport News. The American has always practised having 2 different shipyards build the same class of warships so that no one shipyard will dominate and hold the government "ransom" so that they can fleece them at whatever price.

I think getting other shipyards involved in building RAN ships is a reasonably sensible thing to do. Having said this, I am not sure if ASC has the skillset though. Both Tenix (now BAE Systems Australia) and ADI (Thales Australia) are pretty well established companies being able to produce reasonable ships based on foreign designs, OH Perry and Meko 200. Any two of these companies would have been able to produce the AWD reasonably well by themselves. I think probably a better decision could have been awarding 4 AWD to both these two companies with each of them building two of them or splitting up the working between the two yards. Not sure if the AWD Alliance thingy work at all. Too many cooks spoil the broth situation????

Volkodav · Aug 4, 2014

The Alliance part worked quite well, the issues have been with the contractors that are not part of the Alliance. The designer for instance should have been part of the Alliance and all major structural work should have been carried out by Alliance members, not contractors with no vested interest.

When I was on the project it was generally known that the newly trained workforce at ASC was doing a higher standard of work on more complex blocks than BAE where because, unfortunately, BAE had lost most of their experienced workers in the valley of death before the new contract. As they were an experienced shipbuilder they were not subject to the same level of oversight as ASC and as such were able to stuff up things beyond recognition before it was realised there was a problem. As an experienced shipbuilder they were responsible for their own quality and stuffed it. As a new shipbuilder ASC got alot of help from Lloyds, Bath Iron Works and others and got it right. In hindsight the project would have been better off building the keel blocks in Adelaide under the same regime as they successfully built the complex superstructure blocks including the foundations for the SPY-1 radars. BAE on resent experience would not have been able to do this work successfully.

Now that said had the government, upon cancelling the corvette program in 1996, decided, instead of upgrading the FFGs and attempting to upgrade the ANZACs (ANZACWIP), to build a replacement for the DDGs, Williamstown would have been the place to go. As a direct follow on from the ANZACs I have no doubt that Tenix could have built three or four F-100, Flight IIA Burkes, Hamburgs, or Darings on or below cost and ahead of schedule. They were on a roll having successfully completed two FFGs and ten ANZACs in just over a decade, they were a world standard shipbuilder. Instead they were starved of work, their workforce made redundant and the capability wasted.

ADI / Thales is not a major shipbuilder, they are a maintainer and modifier of ships others built. You may have been thinking of Cockatoo Island which was the major shipyard in Sydney that was closed in the 80s. A shame really as it could have been everything and more than Tenix, ASC, BAE but was like so much else killed by politics and lack of work.

Volkodav · Aug 4, 2014

The only way Australia could support multiple shipyards is to guarantee that every single RAN ship is built in Australia and to also replace the Patrol Boats with something larger, be it an OPV, a corvette, or a light frigate design. With out sufficient work to go around multiple yards will not work here.

Sea Toby · Aug 4, 2014

Volkodav said:
The Alliance part worked quite well, the issues have been with the contractors that are not part of the Alliance. The designer for instance should have been part of the Alliance and all major structural work should have been carried out by Alliance members, not contractors with no vested interest.

When I was on the project it was generally known that the newly trained workforce at ASC was doing a higher standard of work on more complex blocks than BAE where because, unfortunately, BAE had lost most of their experienced workers in the valley of death before the new contract. As they were an experienced shipbuilder they were not subject to the same level of oversight as ASC and as such were able to stuff up things beyond recognition before it was realised there was a problem. As an experienced shipbuilder they were responsible for their own quality and stuffed it. As a new shipbuilder ASC got alot of help from Lloyds, Bath Iron Works and others and got it right. In hindsight the project would have been better off building the keel blocks in Adelaide under the same regime as they successfully built the complex superstructure blocks including the foundations for the SPY-1 radars. BAE on resent experience would not have been able to do this work successfully.

Now that said had the government, upon cancelling the corvette program in 1996, decided, instead of upgrading the FFGs and attempting to upgrade the ANZACs (ANZACWIP), to build a replacement for the DDGs, Williamstown would have been the place to go. As a direct follow on from the ANZACs I have no doubt that Tenix could have built three or four F-100, Flight IIA Burkes, Hamburgs, or Darings on or below cost and ahead of schedule. They were on a roll having successfully completed two FFGs and ten ANZACs in just over a decade, they were a world standard shipbuilder. Instead they were starved of work, their workforce made redundant and the capability wasted.

ADI / Thales is not a major shipbuilder, they are a maintainer and modifier of ships others built. You may have been thinking of Cockatoo Island which was the major shipyard in Sydney that was closed in the 80s. A shame really as it could have been everything and more than Tenix, ASC, BAE but was like so much else killed by politics and lack of work.

Cockatoo didn't help themselves when it took them twice as long and thrice as much to build HMAS Success, a Durance class replenishment ship than the French shipyards. The unions somehow found a way with enough industrial action to cancel the second ship. Fast forward thirty years and the unions are doing the same again with shoddy work. No wonder the government is looking abroad to build ships. Currently the unions can't even fit out two LHDs on time and within budget. Somehow the Spanish workers can, on time and within budget. Quality control is vital for manufacturing, the Australians have lost sight of QC.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Well-Known Member

Member

The Bunker Group

New Member

New Member

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

New Member

The Bunker Group

New Member

The Bunker Group

New Member

The Bunker Group

Active Member

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

New Member