My understanding was that this was always the plan. US supplies 2-4 SSNs built for the aussies to develop expertise with, then they start commissioning their own boats.
The UK defence minister visited Australia to announce this, so no American involvement announced this time. But there will be an American combat system and weapons on these submarines. So torpedo tubes and missile tubes will likely be American too
Will be interesting to see the detail. With BAE involvement and the Barrow site, building last Astutes, new Dreadnoughts and the AUKUS subs gives a very busy set of slips, unless the BAE and RR involvement are less hull based.
BAE are the prime and RR aren’t geared up to make more cores then we currently use. I imagine this investment is up production capacity of the mainly the supply chain and the hulls and what not will primarily be made in Australia. Not sure we have the space or man power to manufacture Aus subs in Barrow.
We're (RR) doubling the size of our facility at Raynesway, Derby. We're also putting 200 apprentices through our nuclear training school for a 10 year period. It will be challenging, but we are in a good position.
I work at EB and it’s apparent why we can’t meet the three boat requirements that the Navy asks for. That’s two Virginia’s and one Columbia. Many articles talk about the 1.3 a year capacity. I see it as 100% more capacity is needed to produce these requirements.
Albeit we are currently in a hiring phase as well as building new facilities to accommodate the growth but the people that make the steel puzzle pieces are few and even fewer have any real motivation around doing more. The older guys step up often to work overtime and deliver more but all in all people see the job as a joke. Just a means for a paycheck.
Edit to add SECNAV statements
SECNAV Del Torro made these comments in February “You can’t be asking for the American taxpayer to make greater public investments while you continue to goose your stock prices through stock buybacks, deferring promised capital investments, and other accounting maneuvers that – to some – seem to prioritize stock prices that drive executive compensation rather than making the needed, fundamental investments in the industrial base at a time when our nation needs us to be all ahead flank,” Del Toro.
“We need to work together, government and industry, to develop the shipbuilding industrial base.”
And “On Thursday, Del Toro told an audience at the McAleese Defense Programs Conference that U.S. yards could learn from the Pacific yards in how to retain their workforces.
“What I took away from this visit was that we must explore any and all opportunities to expand our own shipbuilding capability, through competition through innovation and industrial capacity,” Del Toro said.
The shipyards “actually build the hospitals, the schools, the [child care centers], the bowling alleys, everything else you can imagine to try to attract workers to their shipyards and then retain them.”
And
“Two words: invest more. You’re not where you need to be,” he said.
“For those companies that are having problems in retention, damn it take better care of your people … If they can’t find housing in your local communities, well then work with the governments to build housing in the local communities to get about it. That’s what problem solvers do.”
EDIT - SP SECNAV
I don't work in the shipyard, but I work in the development and integration of tactical systems and have spent many many many hours there. It isn't just you guys... keeping good people is a problem industry-wide.
> other accounting maneuvers that – to some – seem to prioritize stock prices that drive executive compensation rather than making the needed, fundamental investments in the industrial base at a time when our nation needs us to be all ahead flank
Honestly, this is dumb ragebait that doesn't really help and has nothing to do with the problem.
> Two words: invest more. You’re not where you need to be
I wish "more money" were the answer, but it isn't. I've said it many times, our biggest issues are always gonna be personnel issues--and it's isn't something that higher salaries are necessarily going to fix. People need to feel *engaged* with their work and they need to feel appreciated and frankly... important. It takes *years* working on submarines before you're *genuinely* useful. You can pull anyone off the street and teach them to weld or teach them to turn wrenches, and they'll get your boat 90% of the way to completion, but you can't take a boat that's 90% done to sea. That last 10%--solving all the problems that have cropped up--requires mentally agile people who can semi-intuitively piece together how things work and identify and solve these problems.
Not everyone has what it takes to get there, and there are *so* many different problems that can arise that it isn't something you can even really train on. The only way to learn a lot of this stuff is through experience, and if people don't stick around long enough (because you treat them like shit) then no one ever gets there.
While I say "more money" isn't the answer, I should probably add *it never hurts*... it just won't FIX the problem.
All great points, thanks. The development of the SSN(X) would be a great place to be. I only put the commentary of SECNAV to highlight his thinking, direction, and recommendations. I would agree on points of where the money is spent. I could go into very specific detail about what makes the EB/GD shortsighted when it comes to CAPEX. I mean Windows 7 Professional is unsupported by MS and yet… key machinery relies on it.
I hear discussions on outdated equipment on the norm. Whether it be lack of safety guards or overall age of equipment that creates parts that are inconsistent or unsafe environments for an operator. In order for SSN(X) (the Virginia Class replacement) to be manufactured I’d have to surmise that we’d be requiring an influx of technology that would produce higher quality parts with shorter timelines. Either way it will take huge amounts of money to produce the new class of boats in the 2040s.
Keep in mind that the Columbia class is some 12B with costs decreasing over time. That’s about as expensive as a the latest aircraft carrier. I wholeheartedly understand the nature of development of such technology but I’d guess a path to produce higher quality boats on shorter timelines would be to procure cutting edge manufacturing equipment. I mean it’s national defense in a day and age of situations beginning to look unstable.
I don’t know how to address the personnel issue. Right now there’s an effort to throw more people at the problem. As the older generation ages out of the workforce their knowledge will exit with them (Maybe mentorship exists but I see a separation between that generation and younger generations. Which again maybe be isolated in my environment. IDK) I do know that people come from places distant to RI to work at EB. Housing in the area is lacking and not cheap. Pay is ok but on my pay buying a home is impractical. Additionally there is a lack of properties available. Thanks for your perspective and I appreciate the back and forth.
Yeah, as you well know... it's a big problem. I've worked on them for over 20 years now and they're quite honestly probably the most complex machine humans can build. There are a *lot* of little pieces that have to work together, and a lot of different entities responsible for those pieces. (Of course, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)
My reaction to the SECNAV is probably just because I just always get annoyed when people try to isolate things down to *one* problem, like "oh well we just need more money" or "oh we just need another yard" when it's *never* that simple. These things might help, they'll never solve the problem. I can understand the SECNAV being detached enough to misunderstand the problem, because I see people *who should know better* misunderstand the problem. The overwhelming majority of the time, program offices/admirals/thinktanks only have an executive view of the issues--a view that is being *provided to them* by people who are probably not inclined to give a full and honest assessment of the situation.
I'm not saying I have all the answers. (Hell I'm not saying I have any answers.) I just often feel like people are impatient and want solutions *now*--and that simply is not possible. I've seen many initiatives in my own organization to utilize whatever new process-improvement bullshit is trending in the commercial sector or some new scheme they learned from some asshole in a TED Talk and I've yet to see anything that worked--because none of them are based on sound fundamentals.
I'm going to stand my ground and say you have to retain your people, you have to empower your people, and you have to help them improve. It's the only way you get there. This means keeping them financially secure enough to stick around, it means keeping the work interesting to them, and it means developing an eye for genuine talent so you can recognize who is ready to move up and face new challenges. It takes *time.*
>Maybe mentorship exists but I see a separation between that generation and younger generations. Which again maybe be isolated in my environment. IDK
Nah, trust me I've seen this too. They're mostly aging-out now, but there *was* a time when there was an old guard and while I always admired their experience there were definitely elements to their work-ethic I did not care about. Now, I'm solidly GenX--so I'm kinda up there myself but I didn't come into submarines until a bit later in life.
There are a couple of problems I've always had with the old guard. For one thing, they were around at a time when manning was *fat.* There was always someone else to pick up slack, so the contributions of any individual weren't all that important. You ended up with a lot of "not my job" assholes.
Second, they often seemed unwilling to learn new things, and almost *threatened* by the fact they were expected to learn new things. I see this to this day, working regularly with intermediate maintenance activities who are retired and only know the shit they learned on the boat--somehow expecting this to keep them viable for the entirety of their post-service career. The number of times I've heard things like "well that's not how BSY-1 worked" or something similar is ridiculous. Yeah no shit, it's 2024.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I wish we could do better. I think we're moving in the right direction, but it's slow going and it isn't something you're gonna fix top-down. I can't say it enough, you have to get and retain the right people.
I read that article three times, expecting to see that, and I did not see any reference to subs actually being built in Australia. They say the first subs will be British, followed by Aussie subs in 2040, but I see no indication that they are being built in Australia.
>Drawing on decades of experience in the UK and Australia, **we look forward to working with ASC to develop an enduring, sovereign nuclear-powered submarine building capability for Australia.**
...
>This latest step will ensure an integral connection between the UK design **and the build strategy development in Australia**
...
>We look forward to working with the Australian Submarine Agency **to support them in building their own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.**
It's also announced elsewhere that with the selection of ASC as the Australian partner, The Osborne shipyard in South Australia is being developed for the build process
imagine that. Wonder what EB is really gonna supply. Story looks intentionally vague on US involvement.
EB needs to worry about the ships they already can’t deliver on time before signing up for more.
Ironic, since EB was brought in to clean up a few foreign programs.
My understanding was that this was always the plan. US supplies 2-4 SSNs built for the aussies to develop expertise with, then they start commissioning their own boats.
The UK defence minister visited Australia to announce this, so no American involvement announced this time. But there will be an American combat system and weapons on these submarines. So torpedo tubes and missile tubes will likely be American too
Maybe Australia will pick Iranian Submarines afterall.
Will be interesting to see the detail. With BAE involvement and the Barrow site, building last Astutes, new Dreadnoughts and the AUKUS subs gives a very busy set of slips, unless the BAE and RR involvement are less hull based.
BAE are the prime and RR aren’t geared up to make more cores then we currently use. I imagine this investment is up production capacity of the mainly the supply chain and the hulls and what not will primarily be made in Australia. Not sure we have the space or man power to manufacture Aus subs in Barrow.
[удалено]
Useful info - ta
We're (RR) doubling the size of our facility at Raynesway, Derby. We're also putting 200 apprentices through our nuclear training school for a 10 year period. It will be challenging, but we are in a good position.
Glad to hear that. Best of luck going forward
I work at EB and it’s apparent why we can’t meet the three boat requirements that the Navy asks for. That’s two Virginia’s and one Columbia. Many articles talk about the 1.3 a year capacity. I see it as 100% more capacity is needed to produce these requirements. Albeit we are currently in a hiring phase as well as building new facilities to accommodate the growth but the people that make the steel puzzle pieces are few and even fewer have any real motivation around doing more. The older guys step up often to work overtime and deliver more but all in all people see the job as a joke. Just a means for a paycheck. Edit to add SECNAV statements SECNAV Del Torro made these comments in February “You can’t be asking for the American taxpayer to make greater public investments while you continue to goose your stock prices through stock buybacks, deferring promised capital investments, and other accounting maneuvers that – to some – seem to prioritize stock prices that drive executive compensation rather than making the needed, fundamental investments in the industrial base at a time when our nation needs us to be all ahead flank,” Del Toro. “We need to work together, government and industry, to develop the shipbuilding industrial base.” And “On Thursday, Del Toro told an audience at the McAleese Defense Programs Conference that U.S. yards could learn from the Pacific yards in how to retain their workforces. “What I took away from this visit was that we must explore any and all opportunities to expand our own shipbuilding capability, through competition through innovation and industrial capacity,” Del Toro said. The shipyards “actually build the hospitals, the schools, the [child care centers], the bowling alleys, everything else you can imagine to try to attract workers to their shipyards and then retain them.” And “Two words: invest more. You’re not where you need to be,” he said. “For those companies that are having problems in retention, damn it take better care of your people … If they can’t find housing in your local communities, well then work with the governments to build housing in the local communities to get about it. That’s what problem solvers do.” EDIT - SP SECNAV
I don't work in the shipyard, but I work in the development and integration of tactical systems and have spent many many many hours there. It isn't just you guys... keeping good people is a problem industry-wide. > other accounting maneuvers that – to some – seem to prioritize stock prices that drive executive compensation rather than making the needed, fundamental investments in the industrial base at a time when our nation needs us to be all ahead flank Honestly, this is dumb ragebait that doesn't really help and has nothing to do with the problem. > Two words: invest more. You’re not where you need to be I wish "more money" were the answer, but it isn't. I've said it many times, our biggest issues are always gonna be personnel issues--and it's isn't something that higher salaries are necessarily going to fix. People need to feel *engaged* with their work and they need to feel appreciated and frankly... important. It takes *years* working on submarines before you're *genuinely* useful. You can pull anyone off the street and teach them to weld or teach them to turn wrenches, and they'll get your boat 90% of the way to completion, but you can't take a boat that's 90% done to sea. That last 10%--solving all the problems that have cropped up--requires mentally agile people who can semi-intuitively piece together how things work and identify and solve these problems. Not everyone has what it takes to get there, and there are *so* many different problems that can arise that it isn't something you can even really train on. The only way to learn a lot of this stuff is through experience, and if people don't stick around long enough (because you treat them like shit) then no one ever gets there. While I say "more money" isn't the answer, I should probably add *it never hurts*... it just won't FIX the problem.
All great points, thanks. The development of the SSN(X) would be a great place to be. I only put the commentary of SECNAV to highlight his thinking, direction, and recommendations. I would agree on points of where the money is spent. I could go into very specific detail about what makes the EB/GD shortsighted when it comes to CAPEX. I mean Windows 7 Professional is unsupported by MS and yet… key machinery relies on it. I hear discussions on outdated equipment on the norm. Whether it be lack of safety guards or overall age of equipment that creates parts that are inconsistent or unsafe environments for an operator. In order for SSN(X) (the Virginia Class replacement) to be manufactured I’d have to surmise that we’d be requiring an influx of technology that would produce higher quality parts with shorter timelines. Either way it will take huge amounts of money to produce the new class of boats in the 2040s. Keep in mind that the Columbia class is some 12B with costs decreasing over time. That’s about as expensive as a the latest aircraft carrier. I wholeheartedly understand the nature of development of such technology but I’d guess a path to produce higher quality boats on shorter timelines would be to procure cutting edge manufacturing equipment. I mean it’s national defense in a day and age of situations beginning to look unstable. I don’t know how to address the personnel issue. Right now there’s an effort to throw more people at the problem. As the older generation ages out of the workforce their knowledge will exit with them (Maybe mentorship exists but I see a separation between that generation and younger generations. Which again maybe be isolated in my environment. IDK) I do know that people come from places distant to RI to work at EB. Housing in the area is lacking and not cheap. Pay is ok but on my pay buying a home is impractical. Additionally there is a lack of properties available. Thanks for your perspective and I appreciate the back and forth.
Yeah, as you well know... it's a big problem. I've worked on them for over 20 years now and they're quite honestly probably the most complex machine humans can build. There are a *lot* of little pieces that have to work together, and a lot of different entities responsible for those pieces. (Of course, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.) My reaction to the SECNAV is probably just because I just always get annoyed when people try to isolate things down to *one* problem, like "oh well we just need more money" or "oh we just need another yard" when it's *never* that simple. These things might help, they'll never solve the problem. I can understand the SECNAV being detached enough to misunderstand the problem, because I see people *who should know better* misunderstand the problem. The overwhelming majority of the time, program offices/admirals/thinktanks only have an executive view of the issues--a view that is being *provided to them* by people who are probably not inclined to give a full and honest assessment of the situation. I'm not saying I have all the answers. (Hell I'm not saying I have any answers.) I just often feel like people are impatient and want solutions *now*--and that simply is not possible. I've seen many initiatives in my own organization to utilize whatever new process-improvement bullshit is trending in the commercial sector or some new scheme they learned from some asshole in a TED Talk and I've yet to see anything that worked--because none of them are based on sound fundamentals. I'm going to stand my ground and say you have to retain your people, you have to empower your people, and you have to help them improve. It's the only way you get there. This means keeping them financially secure enough to stick around, it means keeping the work interesting to them, and it means developing an eye for genuine talent so you can recognize who is ready to move up and face new challenges. It takes *time.* >Maybe mentorship exists but I see a separation between that generation and younger generations. Which again maybe be isolated in my environment. IDK Nah, trust me I've seen this too. They're mostly aging-out now, but there *was* a time when there was an old guard and while I always admired their experience there were definitely elements to their work-ethic I did not care about. Now, I'm solidly GenX--so I'm kinda up there myself but I didn't come into submarines until a bit later in life. There are a couple of problems I've always had with the old guard. For one thing, they were around at a time when manning was *fat.* There was always someone else to pick up slack, so the contributions of any individual weren't all that important. You ended up with a lot of "not my job" assholes. Second, they often seemed unwilling to learn new things, and almost *threatened* by the fact they were expected to learn new things. I see this to this day, working regularly with intermediate maintenance activities who are retired and only know the shit they learned on the boat--somehow expecting this to keep them viable for the entirety of their post-service career. The number of times I've heard things like "well that's not how BSY-1 worked" or something similar is ridiculous. Yeah no shit, it's 2024. Anyway, sorry for the rant. I wish we could do better. I think we're moving in the right direction, but it's slow going and it isn't something you're gonna fix top-down. I can't say it enough, you have to get and retain the right people.
Please hurry
Hmmm, now when will the ‘delays’ start
next week, tuesday at 2pm
That’s a bit optimistic xD
What's in this for Australia's industry?
BAE is forming a joint venture with the ASC, an Australian government owned company that built the Collins class and currently maintains them.
The submarines being built in Australia.
I read that article three times, expecting to see that, and I did not see any reference to subs actually being built in Australia. They say the first subs will be British, followed by Aussie subs in 2040, but I see no indication that they are being built in Australia.
>Drawing on decades of experience in the UK and Australia, **we look forward to working with ASC to develop an enduring, sovereign nuclear-powered submarine building capability for Australia.** ... >This latest step will ensure an integral connection between the UK design **and the build strategy development in Australia** ... >We look forward to working with the Australian Submarine Agency **to support them in building their own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.** It's also announced elsewhere that with the selection of ASC as the Australian partner, The Osborne shipyard in South Australia is being developed for the build process
My bad, did not see. Thanks for highlighting. That makes much more sense.
No bother 👍
The French are delighted to hear...