Search this Topic:
Sep 5 14 11:13 AM
Sep 5 14 2:49 PM
Sep 5 14 7:48 PM
Sep 5 14 11:34 PM
HK wrote:The other problem with building in Japan is you still need to build the maintenance & overhaul capability in Oz. So some level of tech transfer is needed... and as always the devil is in the details. You wouldn't want to discover during the sub's first refit that the ASC engineers don't have the proper technical documentation...
Sep 6 14 5:10 AM
skipper101 wrote:Also considering ASC can't build a Destroyer and you want them to build submarines cost effectively? And yeah I am taking into account BAEs part in it.
Sep 6 14 6:13 AM
sam mk2 wrote:skipper101 wrote:Also considering ASC can't build a Destroyer and you want them to build submarines cost effectively? And yeah I am taking into account BAEs part in it.Building warships is very, very hard. If you want to build them locally ... and I think it is very important that we do build as much military equipment in Australia as possible ... then you are going to have to invest a lot of time, money and effort into it. You are not going to have an over night success. If you have an ongoing ship building program rather than of the stop, start arrangement we have now then you will find that the industry will improve. There will be more pain to begin with, but in a decade or two we could be building as efficiently as any other nation.We went through a lot of pain building the Collins subs. If we now abandon the idea of building their successors in Australia then all the time, effort and money that was spent on it is totally wasted.
As much as I admire Australia and am deeply impressed with the RAN, a large dose of reality needs to be interjected into this idea of home production. Few nations and I mean a very tiny actually have the infrastructure, resources, long term stability and technical base to build warships. That list gets smaller on a regular basis and it is rare to see a new one added - India. Of those nations that do so, they either build totally for national consumption and must often modify a design heavily for a customer or they build for the international market of which their nation is also a client. This means that they do not really get a warship best suited to their own national needs because decisions were made that appealed to the broadest base of buyers instead of the specific demands of the host.
Even those nations that build their own warships often sub out key aspects of a design such was weapons or sensors to a larger builder, like the USA. When such moves are made because they have no organic options, the cost of the warships grows and the technology purchased is often restricted in some way or reduced from its host abilities to permit export. Some nations avoid this issue by simply pilfering foreign technology and making very bad and poorly understand copies - China.
Australia has tried to organically build for RAN needs and it simply does not have all of the pieces in place to undertake that effort. Australia should focus on building support facility and mastering that aspect of fleet management before diving once more into organic construction. The Collins are a lesson in desire exceeding capacity. That is not meant to single out Australia, many other nations should follow that advice but pride is a factor in these debates.
The choice to build organically or not is a complex one and often has many principle issues involved that have little to do with the actual warship needed. In the end, only so much can be afforded by any nation and how best to spend that capacity should be the main and truly only focus, but it seldom is. Enough has been spent on the AWD program to buy something like 4 to 6 at this stage if I have read the reports correctly. The Collins class have had so much money spent on them, they could have been a dozen and not 6 units ordered in 3 sub groups of 4 each over the course of 15 years. There would be no block obsolescence and the fleet would be more able. Or think of this another way, the cost of the Collins program could have built 6 ships and maybe another Canberra with perhaps 2 AWDs for each of the three. What is the better deal, building fewer and less effective units at home or more able units on a regular timetable with greater numbers?
Sep 6 14 6:20 AM
Sep 6 14 7:53 AM
Sep 6 14 8:51 AM
Sep 6 14 8:52 AM
sam mk2 wrote:The reason that ship building in Australia is so expensive is simply because we don't give the programs enough time to mature. These programs don't have time to mature is because we only order small batches, and don't always provide follow up work. Take the Collins program. When it started we had nothing. There were no suitable submarine designs, nobody in Australia with any experience in building subs ... in fact there wasn't even a shipyard.
Starting from that base did anybody seriously think that Australia was going to be building submarines at a price and quality competitive to established foreign yards?
All of the expenses involved in creating the infrastructure necessary for building submarines had to be added to the cost of the program. What we in fact bought with the program wasn't just six subs but also an entire submarine building industry. An industry that a lot on this forum seem perfectly happy to throw away. It is like buying a business and then immediately pulling the front doors shut because it doesn't start showing immediate profits.
Sep 6 14 9:13 AM
Sep 6 14 11:22 AM
Sep 6 14 4:30 PM
sam mk2 wrote:You might struggle to keep an industry going based on 6 submarines. However we are now talking about up to 12 submarines. You could break that down to ordering a batch of 4 submarines every 10 years. If you also factor in maintenance then that should be enough to keep the industry going indefinitely.
I still suspect that is how we might end up going.
If you want to keep an ability such as submarine building ever-present you never build in batches. You build in drum beat. Instead of ordering 4 now and then 4 more late and then 4 more even further out, you instead order one to lay down every 18 months. Assuming that each submarine needs 36 months to come into service the first one will hit the water 3 years after the program starts. By the time you have begun work on the 12th submarine it is 18 years later and by 21 years later all 12 are finally in the water. At this point the technology that went into #1 is very outdated and she is ready for retirement. So, 18 months after #12 started construction you start #13, which is based on a totally new design. You have a perpetual submarine program.
I am sure it would be possible to shorten the drum beat ( the amount of time between new starts) but leaving it at 18 months gives the host the option of inserting a few client orders here and there, effectively starting a new submarine every 9 months.
Obviously this sort of program requires the government of the host nation to sign off on a steady budget for the navy and it assume that the host navy can actually build the design, something many nations larger than Australia have issues with.
Sep 6 14 6:44 PM
Sep 6 14 11:33 PM
Sep 7 14 2:53 AM
Sep 7 14 7:35 AM
Sep 7 14 12:40 PM
Sep 7 14 1:07 PM
Sep 7 14 1:23 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.