Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

alexsa · Mar 21, 2017

Volkodav said:
Very interesting, I would suggest that this teaming may involve a shared block build on all twelve OPVs with the consolidation and combat system integration for the first two being in Adelaide and the rest in Henderson. This could then quite logically continue on with SEA5000 with ASC fabricating an pre outfitting superstructure and the more complex blocks and Civmec producing the lions share of the hull blocks.

It will certainly give Austal and Fassmer something to fret about. My understanding is 'at least' two will be built in Adelaide with some suggest one or two more.

A connection between ASC and CIVMEC in Fremantle is a very logical step if the build process is not to be interrupted as a new builder tools up.

I am no longer into predicting any outcome but I would surmise that this makes any suggestion that Austal are a 'shoe in' for the OPV build questionable.

Volkodav · Mar 21, 2017

alexsa said:
It will certainly give Austal and Fassmer something to fret about. My understanding is 'at least' two will be built in Adelaide with some suggest one or two more.

A connection between ASC and CIVMEC in Fremantle is a very logical step if the build process is not to be interrupted as a new builder tools up.

I am no longer into predicting any outcome but I would surmise that this makes any suggestion that Austal are a 'shoe in' for the OPV build questionable.

Forgacs performed quite well on the destroyer build and deserved more orders for their efforts, especially after they ramped up to absorb some of BAEs slack. Too bad in hindsight that the AORs weren't ordered locally as they could probably have built the hulls a Tomago, superstructures in Adelaide, building an appropriate ship lift at Tomago.

vonnoobie · Mar 21, 2017

Volkodav said:
Forgacs performed quite well on the destroyer build and deserved more orders for their efforts, especially after they ramped up to absorb some of BAEs slack. Too bad in hindsight that the AORs weren't ordered locally as they could probably have built the hulls a Tomago, superstructures in Adelaide, building an appropriate ship lift at Tomago.

By this point even BAE could have undertaken the work. Not so certain Tomago would have been able to build the hulls, well actually have the skills to yes, but the actual site lay out and with a ship lift thrown in no so sure it would have been capable without a major redevelopment of the site.

That said could Cairncross have built them? Or at least have assembled the completed blocks?

alexsa · Mar 21, 2017

vonnoobie said:
By this point even BAE could have undertaken the work. Not so certain Tomago would have been able to build the hulls, well actually have the skills to yes, but the actual site lay out and with a ship lift thrown in no so sure it would have been capable without a major redevelopment of the site.

That said could Cairncross have built them? Or at least have assembled the completed blocks?

Without building new facilities the graving dock would have to be used to build the ship. This dock is 244m long and 33.5m at the top (noting its structure narrows at the base). It could theoretically do the job but the dock would not be useable for any other and you could only build one hull (meaning a long delivery time as you can only consolidate a single hull). You would also need significant infrastructure upgrades to handle very large blocks.

But it is a moot point. The yard has been shut since 2014 and work force dispersed (It has now been sold for residential development) so this was not an option given the delivery schedule for the AORs.

There are lots of 'what ifs' in this and the greatest loss is really the facilities at Cockatoo Island with its combination of building ways and dock ..... however this is not going to change. We should be pleased that new(and modern) construction facilities are being built to support the current programme. Lets hope the Pollie's don't backslide

hauritz · Mar 21, 2017

alexsa said:
Without building new facilities the graving dock would have to be used to build the ship. This dock is 244m long and 33.5m at the top (noting its structure narrows at the base). It could theoretically do the job but the dock would not be useable for any other and you could only build one hull (meaning a long delivery time as you can only consolidate a single hull).

Would the long delivery time and the fact that we could only build one ship at a time really be that big an issue?

Had the navy chose to build its new replenishment ships in Australia it probably could have spread that order out. The Success might be pretty clapped out but the Sirius is still a relatively new ship.

If you were to deliver a ship every 5 years from 2020 you should have ongoing work until the mid 30s.

That would be the 2 new tankers followed by an additional logistics/replenishment ship in the late 20s and a Choules replacement in the 30's.

alexsa · Mar 21, 2017

hauritz said:
Would the long delivery time and the fact that we could only build one ship at a time really be that big an issue?

Had the navy chose to build its new replenishment ships in Australia it probably could have spread that order out. The Success might be pretty clapped out but the Sirius is still a relatively new ship.

If you were to deliver a ship every 5 years from 2020 you should have ongoing work until the mid 30s.

That would be the 2 new tankers followed by an additional logistics/replenishment ship in the late 20s and a Choules replacement in the 30's.

If a ship takes 5 years to deliver from cutting steel (not included the tome required to configure the yard) then you would be looking at almost a decade between commencement of build and delivery of the second vessel if you cannot do much of the work concurrently. Some block work could be done concurrently but it is still going to be a slow process and a graving dock is not best suited for this were there is limited space at the margins and currently no overhead carnage.

However, it is a moot point as the dock has been sold and was shut down before this decision was made.

vonnoobie · Mar 21, 2017

Fair point, Best thing we can do for now it to upgrade existing facilities be they in SA or WA to allow us to be able to build such ships in the future but not just build them but allow us to maintain them in modern world class facilities.

ASSAIL · Mar 21, 2017

vonnoobie said:
Fair point, Best thing we can do for now it to upgrade existing facilities be they in SA or WA to allow us to be able to build such ships in the future but not just build them but allow us to maintain them in modern world class facilities.

But why do we need to invest in building facilities that would be used a few times every decade or so?
The return on capital for such a venture makes it totally uneconomical and the skills to build commercial vessels are very different to building warships. It also makes the cost of such vessels vastly inflated and possibly more than double compared with an overseas yard that is continually building large ships.
Building such vessels in a commercial yard frees up meagre funds which can be better used.
All of this has been said before in this forum and although some may disagree, the rationale for building overseas is incontestable IMHO.
Let's concentrate on what we do well and not repeat the mistakes we made building Success.

John Newman · Mar 21, 2017

ASSAIL said:
But why do we need to invest in building facilities that would be used a few times every decade or so?
The return on capital for such a venture makes it totally uneconomical and the skills to build commercial vessels are very different to building warships. It also makes the cost of such vessels vastly inflated and possibly more than double compared with an overseas yard that is continually building large ships.
Building such vessels in a commercial yard frees up meagre funds which can be better used.
All of this has been said before in this forum and although some may disagree, the rationale for building overseas is incontestable IMHO.
Let's concentrate on what we do well and not repeat the mistakes we made building Success.

Agree with all your points, 100%.

Putting aside the various yards mentioned in previous posts, there is only one real 'lost' potential opportunity (in my opinion).

And that would have been during the GFC, if some of those Billions of GFC dollars had gone into 'infrastructure' upgrades at Techport, such as:

* Expanding/extending the shiplift to cater for AOR sized ships
* Wharf extension, to the full potential
* Dredging the basin (in conjunction with the shiplift upgrades)
* Expand the hardstand/building areas in the vacant areas at the back of the Techport site

But of course none of that happened, it if did (and with an order for the 2 AOR's at that time, then yes there was the 'possibility' that the AOR's could have been the 'gap' filler projects that were needed at the end of AWD construction).

It is interesting when you go to the Techport website today and look at the 'Flythrough', see link below:

Techport Flythrough

Back a few years ago the Flythrough used to feature the expansions as I mentioned above, the 'current' version of the flythrough does not mention those expansions anymore.

Anyway, here we are today, and the AOR's are being built in Spain, and as Assail mentioned, it's probably not a bad result in a number of ways, the two ships will most likely be buily on time and on budget (Navy gets what it needs on time, not like our poor Canadian cousins with their AOR replacements), and we can concentrate (efforts and dollars) on all the other naval shipbuilding projects.

Just my opinion too.

vonnoobie · Mar 21, 2017

ASSAIL said:
But why do we need to invest in building facilities that would be used a few times every decade or so?
The return on capital for such a venture makes it totally uneconomical and the skills to build commercial vessels are very different to building warships. It also makes the cost of such vessels vastly inflated and possibly more than double compared with an overseas yard that is continually building large ships.
Building such vessels in a commercial yard frees up meagre funds which can be better used.
All of this has been said before in this forum and although some may disagree, the rationale for building overseas is incontestable IMHO.
Let's concentrate on what we do well and not repeat the mistakes we made building Success.

I had viewed such an investment as being able to build a number of our larger ships, Over the life time the AOR's, LHD,s LSD's etc but not just build them but have a site able to better and more efficiently maintain the vessels at a lower cost.

The build would only be one phase of it, future sustainment, upgrades and non defence work would be another but for now it's just a thought bubble, Until any politicians or business leaders ask for a business case it doesnt matter.

John Newman · Mar 21, 2017

vonnoobie said:
I had viewed such an investment as being able to build a number of our larger ships, Over the life time the AOR's, LHD,s LSD's etc but not just build them but have a site able to better and more efficiently maintain the vessels at a lower cost.

The build would only be one phase of it, future sustainment, upgrades and non defence work would be another but for now it's just a thought bubble, Until any politicians or business leaders ask for a business case it doesnt matter.

For future sustainment and upgrades of the 'heavy metal' in the fleet, lets not forget the Captain Cook Dock at Garden Island, Sydney, It is right there where most of those ships are based too.

gf0012-aust · Mar 21, 2017

John Newman said:
For future sustainment and upgrades of the 'heavy metal' in the fleet, lets not forget the Captain Cook Dock at Garden Island, Sydney, It is right there where most of those ships are based too.

I can't see any compelling need for any additional heavy infrastructure.

there's no appetite from all sides of govt for large facilities and capability as they know that there is a tipping point where it just is not competitive to build vessels beyond a certain displacement...

we're already getting vessels built in Vietnam which in theory could have been done here - and yet both sides are not making a hue and cry about lost Oz jobs etc....

Volkodav · Mar 22, 2017

The ASC yard was designed to be expanded to build larger ships, much larger ships. The building halls easily fit multiple blocks and could handle (if I remember correctly) either 32 or 35m wide blocks. The ship lift was designed to be increased in capacity, I believe by adding modular / prefab extentions, the entire facility was always intended to be able to build the largest vessels the RAN needs.

A colleague of mine at AWD was a naval arch on the Success build and he related how the design data issues on the Hobarts was very reminiscent of the experience on Success. What they received and were expected to build to was in no way fit for purpose and similar to recent times the Australian yard and its workers were blamed for the projects failings.

Ever since the government of the day started cancelling local production and ordering ships overseas in the 50s and 70s we have been on a merry-go-round of starving local yards then rebuilding capability at more than it would have cost to just sustain what we already had. Well technically it started back in the 30s when Australia and Canberra were ordered overseas to save money, then a mostly useless seaplane carrier was built at Cockatoo to maintain skills, that ended up costing more than than the premium to build the two cruisers locally. In fact Albatross probably cost more than the premium to build the required replacements for WWI Towns locally as well.

We are simply repeating the mistakes of the past over and over again with the added stupidity of shutting down existing, very capable facilities and starting from scratch. It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of this is more than just ordering and building locally what the RAN needs.

SteveR · Mar 22, 2017

Volkodav said:
The ASC yard was designed to be expanded to build larger ships, much larger ships. The building halls easily fit multiple blocks and could handle (if I remember correctly) either 32 or 35m wide blocks. The ship lift was designed to be increased in capacity, I believe by adding modular / prefab extentions, the entire facility was always intended to be able to build the largest vessels the RAN needs.

A colleague of mine at AWD was a naval arch on the Success build and he related how the design data issues on the Hobarts was very reminiscent of the experience on Success. What they received and were expected to build to was in no way fit for purpose and similar to recent times the Australian yard and its workers were blamed for the projects failings.

Ever since the government of the day started cancelling local production and ordering ships overseas in the 50s and 70s we have been on a merry-go-round of starving local yards then rebuilding capability at more than it would have cost to just sustain what we already had. Well technically it started back in the 30s when Australia and Canberra were ordered overseas to save money, then a mostly useless seaplane carrier was built at Cockatoo to maintain skills, that ended up costing more than than the premium to build the two cruisers locally. In fact Albatross probably cost more than the premium to build the required replacements for WWI Towns locally as well.

We are simply repeating the mistakes of the past over and over again with the added stupidity of shutting down existing, very capable facilities and starting from scratch. It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of this is more than just ordering and building locally what the RAN needs.

I have a copy of an ASC brochure about 2012 when they teamed with DSME for the AOR that stated that ASC could not build the first 2 AORs but would take over production of the third.

t68 · Mar 22, 2017

SteveR said:
I have a copy of an ASC brochure about 2012 when they teamed with DSME for the AOR that stated that ASC could not build the first 2 AORs but would take over production of the third.

I imagine that would be down to the ship lift, as it would need to be expandedfor the oiler, that most likley happen during the build process with two built overseas to get them PDQ

Volkodav · Mar 22, 2017

It was down the schedule, the first two ships on the original schedule would have clashed with the slowed schedule on the AWD (back when Labor rebaselined it to save upfront expendature). The plan was that the blocks for the third ship would tail straight into the last blocks being completed on the Hobarts, the failure of both governments' to order the ships in 2013/14 meant this window of opportunity was missed.

The brochure was actually produced from a far earlier but basically similar proposal that was put on the back burner when the OPCs (whoops getting my acronyms mixed OCV, OPC was the Keating era corvette that fataly delayed the DDG/FFG replacement) were on the cards. ASC had assumed they would mot be in the running but the government specifically requested they bid the earlier proposal.

ASSAIL · Mar 22, 2017

I heard some rumblings that Canberra experienced some quite serious mechanical engineering issues during the Tiger trials and had to return to FBE.
Has anyone more info?

Nick underscore · Mar 22, 2017

Interesting note, looks like x4 of the Collins are operating/ working up, just off Freeo/ GI currently.

Never noticed such an active cluster before..

Appears the perceived availability rate, is moving in the right direction.

Volkodav · Mar 22, 2017

Nick underscore said:
Interesting note, looks like x4 of the Collins are operating/ working up, just off Freeo/ GI currently.

Never noticed such a cluster before

Appears the perceived availability rate, is moving in the right direction.

Its amazing the difference following the advice of professionals makes. Just too bad that it took a procession of overseas professional's, all making basically the same recommendations Australia's own experts had been pushing for over a decade, before any action was taken. Why is it so many in Aus are so willing to listen to and believe home grown bean counters and political/economic ideologues, but won't listen to our own technical experts and only implement their recommendations if presented by an os expert?

protoplasm · Mar 22, 2017

Volkodav said:
Its amazing the difference following the advice of professionals makes. Just too bad that it took a procession of overseas professional's, all making basically the same recommendations Australia's own experts had been pushing for over a decade, before any action was taken. Why is it so many in Aus are so willing to listen to and believe home grown bean counters and political/economic ideologues, but won't listen to our own technical experts and only implement their recommendations if presented by an os expert?

Standard issue in many industries, the politically motivated accountants are the ones that are listened to by the decision makers. It takes a eternity before finally someone realises that they've been lied to over the years and finally a decision is made that actually allows the purchased system or capability to actually be realised. Education (my field) is ripe with examples of money spent on "things" with too little of the resources needed to make them effective, or worse, money spent on the wrong things. Latest local push is to have STEM style laboratory and learning spaces in primary schools. Unfortunately well over 80% of primary teachers have no scientific discipline knowledge, let alone science pedagogical knowledge, and what they do have is usually based upon myth. Hundreds of millions will be spent with no beneficial learning outcome achieved.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

Grumpy Old Man

The Bunker Group

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Member

The Bunker Group

Active Member