Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I wonder if Civmec might pick some of the ASC workforce up.

My comment regarding the 4th awd was about how sometimes plans that would have resulted in nice significant capability in a timely manner, a sustainable work force, the decision to (optionally) cut numbers resulted in no savings, and ultimately has left Australia with poorer equipment levels and will damage future builds. Having 8 collins and 4 AWD's would have been nice to have, should have had capability, and would have fixed a lot of issues regarding ship building. Our previous plans for continuous ship building were not implemented, it wasn't that they didn't exist.

I also worry about the bipartisan support for the future frigate, also ensuring no political interference. It would be nice at the sea5000 announcement if Labor also clearly committed to the plan. I would hate to see us tear it all apart, either internally within a party or when power is handed over to the other guys. The ausgov has a history of fairly destructive defence ministers.

This won't just be an announcement for libs, but for workers, the region, other allies, and a significant statement regarding global security.

Post sea5000 announcement, I would be interested to see if the OPV perhaps is complimented by a corvette/combat patrol vessel class of 6. Consolidating some of the other RAN classes with a different type and moving some duties to the OPV. Something with a hangar and a missile system (say ESSM and NSM and torpedoes).
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what type of workers have received redundancy at ASC.
I understand that some are being used in the yard upgrade and that others will soon be employed in the first two OPVs so hopefully the skilled welders, pipe fitters, electricians etc are still retained. The same goes for project managers/foremen.
My gut feel would be that a number of white collar jobs would go but that vacancies in the SEA 5000 project will soon occur.
I don't think that the labour force is as mobile as you believe in so far as many workers have been involved at Osborne for over a decade and many have strong roots in Adelaide and would likely seek alternative work Until the new build begins.
Moving from family and friends/schools to a different state and company is quite a disruption.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
ASSAIL said:
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what type of workers have received redundancy at ASC.
I understand that some are being used in the yard upgrade and that others will soon be employed in the first two OPVs so hopefully the skilled welders, pipe fitters, electricians etc are still retained. The same goes for project managers/foremen.
My gut feel would be that a number of white collar jobs would go but that vacancies in the SEA 5000 project will soon occur.
I don't think that the labour force is as mobile as you believe in so far as many workers have been involved at Osborne for over a decade and many have strong roots in Adelaide and would likely seek alternative work Until the new build begins.
Moving from family and friends/schools to a different state and company is quite a disruption.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing and of course redundancy packages can cost a fortune.

I assume that they crunched the numbers, but it might have almost been cheaper to keep as many people as possible around until work on the OPVs start up.

Perhaps they could have sent them on training courses or given them some other busy work for a few months.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
I wonder if Civmec might pick some of the ASC workforce up.

My comment regarding the 4th awd was about how sometimes plans that would have resulted in nice significant capability in a timely manner, a sustainable work force, the decision to (optionally) cut numbers resulted in no savings, and ultimately has left Australia with poorer equipment levels and will damage future builds. Having 8 collins and 4 AWD's would have been nice to have, should have had capability, and would have fixed a lot of issues regarding ship building. Our previous plans for continuous ship building were not implemented, it wasn't that they didn't exist.

I also worry about the bipartisan support for the future frigate, also ensuring no political interference. It would be nice at the sea5000 announcement if Labor also clearly committed to the plan. I would hate to see us tear it all apart, either internally within a party or when power is handed over to the other guys. The ausgov has a history of fairly destructive defence ministers.

This won't just be an announcement for libs, but for workers, the region, other allies, and a significant statement regarding global security.

Post sea5000 announcement, I would be interested to see if the OPV perhaps is complimented by a corvette/combat patrol vessel class of 6. Consolidating some of the other RAN classes with a different type and moving some duties to the OPV. Something with a hangar and a missile system (say ESSM and NSM and torpedoes).
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that this plan already has bipartisan support, and even if it didn't this will lock in the shipbuilding program for the next 30 or 40 years regardless of which party is in power. This isn't just the government committing to replacing some frigates, submarines and patrol boats. This is a long-term shipbuilding strategy that will be very hard to dismantle once it is in place. Failing a collapse of the economy it means that it would take a great deal of courage from either party to stop this program once it is up and running. If they did the voter backlash from states such as South Australia and West Australia would probably see them lose office.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Meriv90 said:
I hope it isn't OT to post about the FFG(X)since i don't know how much SEA5000 and CSC programs are influenced by the USN choices. So how much are you influenced by the FFG(X)?
Click to expand...
Well, I doubt if SEA5000 is influenced in any way whatever by FFG(X) and whether the CSC program is, is probably a matter for the Canadian navy thread. Bear in mind that SEA5000 has been under way for *years* and will come to choice in the very near future, so similarities will be because Australia will probably choose many weapons and equipment from the same catalogue for commonality with our and our allies current fleets

oldsig
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
hauritz said:
I am pretty sure that this plan already has bipartisan support, and even if it didn't this will lock in the shipbuilding program for the next 30 or 40 years regardless of which party is in power. This isn't just the government committing to replacing some frigates, submarines and patrol boats. This is a long-term shipbuilding strategy that will be very hard to dismantle once it is in place. Failing a collapse of the economy it means that it would take a great deal of courage from either party to stop this program once it is up and running. If they did the voter backlash from states such as South Australia and West Australia would probably see them lose office.
Click to expand...

Did the Australian goverment made a time schedule table to see all the programs in the long term? So a foreign like me can grasp the situation easily?
I know during the post war you had quite the industry so I'm really interested to see how you manage to create a new industry without entering a Pig cycle (is it the correct term no?). It would be quite the useful learning economic lesson.
 
7

76mmGuns

Active Member
I think having an ongoing shipbuilding industry can only be a good thing. I'd like to see the price of future warships and if they end up matching other nations. eg in it's wiki page, the Italian PPA is € 3.900 billion for first 7 vessels. Imagine if, in the future, the cost of the Hobart's replacements is , say, AUD$4.5bn for 3 ships, rather than $8bn, because of the rebuilding of infrastructure and retraining of workers. Commencement times might be 6-12 months sooner as well. (armchair enthusiast guess). Ignoring crewing issues, imagine if the savings translated to more vessels :)
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Meriv90 said:
Did the Australian goverment made a time schedule table to see all the programs in the long term? So a foreign like me can grasp the situation easily?
I know during the post war you had quite the industry so I'm really interested to see how you manage to create a new industry without entering a Pig cycle (is it the correct term no?). It would be quite the useful learning economic lesson.
Click to expand...
The plan is here: http://www.defence.gov.au/NavalShipBuilding/Plan/Docs/NavalShipbuildingPlan.pdf. They're implementing the first stages of it with the Offshore Patrol Vessel and Sea 5000.

The PPA as it is presently envisaged, particularly in the light version, is a very different capability to that provided by the Hobart Class DDG; comparing the two is an apples and oranges thing.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Meriv90 said:
Did the Australian goverment made a time schedule table to see all the programs in the long term? So a foreign like me can grasp the situation easily?
I know during the post war you had quite the industry so I'm really interested to see how you manage to create a new industry without entering a Pig cycle (is it the correct term no?). It would be quite the useful learning economic lesson.
Click to expand...
To get a better understanding of the plan you could read this.
http://www.defence.gov.au/NavalShipBuilding/Plan/Docs/NavalShipbuildingPlan.pdf

The gist of it is that a RAND report suggested that the boom and bust cycle of the Australian shipbuilding industry has resulted in a 30% to 40% premium on the cost of building ships in Australia.

As a result the government has entered into an agreement with the shipbuilding industry that involves a promise of ongoing work in return for productivity improvements.

That the government has effectively joined in a partnership with the shipbuilding industry will make it very difficult for any future administration to back out of this agreement.
 
K

koala

Member
hauritz said:
I was thinking the same thing and of course redundancy packages can cost a fortune.

I assume that they crunched the numbers, but it might have almost been cheaper to keep as many people as possible around until work on the OPVs start up.

Perhaps they could have sent them on training courses or given them some other busy work for a few months.
Click to expand...
In a big company and a big yard I would imagine that there would be a lot of casual maintenance personnel, cleaners, ground maintenance, yard maintenance, store and delivery to canteen personnel, not to forget that ever important job of keeping the dunny's topped up with dunny roll.

You would hope that the all important tradesmen would be retained on full time and it is only the casuals that have been let go until the next cycle

Chris
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
oldsig127 said:
Well, I doubt if SEA5000 is influenced in any way whatever by FFG(X) and whether the CSC program is, is probably a matter for the Canadian navy thread. Bear in mind that SEA5000 has been under way for *years* and will come to choice in the very near future, so similarities will be because Australia will probably choose many weapons and equipment from the same catalogue for commonality with our and our allies current fleets

oldsig
Click to expand...
Honestly I would be shocked if the SEA 5000 project was influenced by the FFG(X) programme which had a later start (by a few years) and is as a result not as far along. Second Pass approval and gov't announcement of the prime contractor for the SEA 5000 project is expected (by Defence) to happen in the 2nd quarter of 2018. Meanwhile, the USN is evaluating five different contenders for the FFG(X) programme and expects to request a final RFP in 2019, with contract signing to happen sometime in 2020 around the time SEA 5000 construction should have started.

As for any links order consideration for the CSC programme... IMO that is likely behind the FFG(X) in terms of scheduling. Even if it were not, given the state of Canadian defence procurement I would want Oz decision makers to have a firewall separating them from any consideration for CSC programme objectives.
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
koala said:
In a big company and a big yard I would imagine that there would be a lot of casual maintenance personnel, cleaners, ground maintenance, yard maintenance, store and delivery to canteen personnel, not to forget that ever important job of keeping the dunny's topped up with dunny roll.

You would hope that the all important tradesmen would be retained on full time and it is only the casuals that have been let go until the next cycle

Chris
Click to expand...
Not always, the Canadians tried to raid our shipbuilding workforce few months ago for example. Engineers and welders. I don't think they had success though, since welding is already a high specialization work in Italy with good salary. Plus if they accepted they would have said goodbye to Genoa region for Halifax

Article on their Raid
L'offerta di lavoro - I cantieri navali canadesi cercano operai e ingegneri. A Genova

This is a benefit of our offer, even if you enter in a pig circle the industry can keep alive by the civil sector.

Vard, an acquisition we did in plain crisis, a norwegian shipbuilder specialized in the oil sector. Went from logistic ships to cruise ships for example.


To Artic Cruisers.



Even thought they are a small design of only 110mln I imagine that you being as affected by them by the Oil price dip can quite relate to the Norwegians.



EDIT: Thanks for the gov link! I love when govs make things clear and transparent and nothing beat a nice set of graphs.
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
spoz said:
The plan is here: http://www.defence.gov.au/NavalShipBuilding/Plan/Docs/NavalShipbuildingPlan.pdf. They're implementing the first stages of it with the Offshore Patrol Vessel and Sea 5000.

The PPA as it is presently envisaged, particularly in the light version, is a very different capability to that provided by the Hobart Class DDG; comparing the two is an apples and oranges thing.
Click to expand...
Exactly plus there has been "news", the PPA that had to be 16 ships in 3 different models (light, light+ and full) got reduced to just the first batch of 7, we are seeing if we can reach the 8th at least, the remaining 8 got replaced by 2 DDX and a series of lighter frigates/corvetes 3500t to develop with the French.

If you want to compare the Hobart you should compare it to the Horizon or the future DDX (in the spoiler an artistic model from the info we have for now Source: Forum Difesa)

P.S. I'm deeply sorry if it looks like I'm derailing the topic. But on your program and the USN one (hoping the CSC gets back in track) there is a lot in game. Not only from a monetary side but for the future of European defense industry. We acquired STX France and we are seeing what kind of alliance we can get with the French, the problem is that in the military we are significant behind in revenue. So to have an equal merger and thus having a balanced European defense industry we need to win this one or the French are going to polarize too much defense sectors creating unbalances in the union.
 
M

Meriv90

Active Member
@GutoAberconwy confirms the 1st Type 26, HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from builders summer 2025. She will not be fully operational until 2027.
Click to expand...
Looks like the Type 26 will take 10 years to be operational :eek:

Wondering how they will maintain the the economies of scale with that speed.
 
J

Jack Wyatt

Member
Meriv90 said:
Looks like the Type 26 will take 10 years to be operational :eek:

Wondering how they will maintain the the economies of scale with that speed.
Click to expand...
Speculation only but on the UK Defence Journal there has suggestions numbers will be cut to 6 and the balance made up with Type 31s.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Meriv90 said:
Looks like the Type 26 will take 10 years to be operational :eek:

Wondering how they will maintain the the economies of scale with that speed.
Click to expand...
It suggests that the first ship will be very much a prototype.

I am beginning to doubt whether the development work on this ship will be sufficiently advanced enough for Australia to risk becoming involved with the type 26.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Jack Wyatt said:
Speculation only but on the UK Defence Journal there has suggestions numbers will be cut to 6 and the balance made up with Type 31s.
Click to expand...
but will they make T31 a better fly trap?

no point in building additional T31 if they are just glorified OPV'S how does that fix the escort problem?
 
J

Jack Wyatt

Member
hauritz said:
It suggests that the first ship will be very much a prototype.

I am beginning to doubt whether the development work on this ship will be sufficiently advanced enough for Australia to risk becoming involved with the type 26.
Click to expand...
Stretching the timeline is probably the softest option for the UK with the Defence budge apparently stretched. Getting the Type 31 into service quickly is probably a higher priority to enable the retirement of the oldest Type 23s. I wonder if the RN has considered leasing FREMMs off the French Navy like Greece?

As for the RAN, with construction due to commence in 2020 it would be likely the first RAN ship will be in service before HMS Glasgow.
 
J

Jack Wyatt

Member
t68 said:
but will they make T31 a better fly trap?

no point in building additional T31 if they are just glorified OPV'S how does that fix the escort problem?
Click to expand...
Probably allows the RN to retire the oldest Type 23s and certainly not like for like in terms of quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top