I don't understand why we built OPV80's in the first place. The OPV90 is basically the same cost, has better range, better sea keeping, a hangar. Of all the OPV proposals, we choose the least capable and smallest. If there was one thing that Damen, Lurrsen and Fassmer agreed on it is they had to cut down existing small OPV designs to meet requirements. They had to de-content and simplify, which increased cost and increased risk, against their recommendations to build a smaller less capable boat.
I apart from spending and additional ~$100m for the remaining 6 ships hulls. I don't understand why people would be against the idea of going from an OPV80 to an OPV90. Weapons are of course, extra. Even if the weapons were never fitted, you would still have a more capable, longer range, longer endurance, ship. Able to embark a helicopter or large drones.
Going from a OPV80 to A140 or a Burke, or a Ford class carrier was never an option. Going with a different designer, prime contractor was never an option.
The OPV's are costing $3.5b if we build them or not. So we are getting 12 ships from NVL built at Civmec.
Share the post "$3billion contract for 12 offshore-patrol vessels signed" FacebookLinkedInPinterestTwitterShare…Email A multi-billion dollar offfshore-patrol vessel contract with Lürssen of
www.contactairlandandsea.com
To select a new platform like a destroyer or frigate, it will cost ~$3billion and 5 years just to select it before any steel is cut. That is how much money is required to assess, specify, contract, bring on SMEs, tool them up, bring everything up to modern codes, configure the existing yard to build the design, etc. So when someone suggests why don't we build some Arrow140's, it takes 5 years and $3b to make that decision. Before making any ships. So if we are suggesting, just quickly build 4 A140's, that is 5 years and $3b to decide to do that, then probably $1b per ship and 2 years. So that 4 ship build now costs $7 billion and 9 years.
The Hobarts/F-105 are designed to be in a 4-6 ship class. Norway built 4 mini-Hobart's. Spain planned for 6, built 5, they were meant to replace their FFG's. Australia planned 4, built 3. There is no point in building 6 as the ship is compromised for a navy with that number of those ships. It also makes no sense to build less than 4 as you will loose capability when you upgrade, deep maintenance the ships. Everyone involved with that project was hoping, expecting 4 ships, so cutting it down to 3 is a huge loss. You can build new Hobarts, yes, its a pain and expensive, and they won't be the same. Alvaro de Bazan was laid down in 1999. The last Crtiobal Colon, F-105 was 8 years later and is a very different ship to the first of class. It has different engines, a bow thruster, different small guns, different radar, different hangar, different flight deck, different ASW, different layouts in part of the ship, different contractors, slightly different fitout.
The Hunter is a general purpose ship. Cutting numbers and selecting a new platform will waste the more than $3billion we have spent so far. We can work with BAE about building a bigger evolved version of the ship, but killing the project, shooting BAE and building A140 will cost Australia ~$20 billion in broken contracts, will make all Australian supplier hit the wall and result in another ~6 years before a ship appears. If anything we should build more Hobarts from an
Industry point of view.
Fundamentally with 3 destroyers, we are underequipped with destroyers 3 DDG's effectively replaced with 6 FFG's replaced with 3 Hobart's. With the Anzacs, we are under equipped with old ships and few in number. We knew that getting away from a peacetime fleet would require naval growth.
CIVMEC is a steel shaping business. Ship making is something they are actually fairly new at. They are great at oil and gas projects, and it makes sense that minor ships get built there, and they can take on oil and gas and mining projects between ship building contracts or alongside ship building contracts. They bought Forgacs, but most of their experience was well in the past, and on the east coast at Newcastle. But their SME support networks are mostly based around Newcastle. Companies aren't islands unto themselves. Getting them to setup WA offices or relocate to WA would require surety of work. Given how chaotic defence procurement and ship building in Australia, I doubt many would jump over to WA, where there is basically very little civilian work, while the east coast has all of Sydney, melb, surfers, Brisbane, all the of the pacific nations, New Zealand to provide work. Perth is an island effectively to itself, it is ultra remote.
They, CIVMEC could shape the steel for a Queen Elizabeth carrier, no worries. They would love that. They could probably do it faster than anyone on the planet. But they don't have the ship building experience, in all those other things like ship systems, specialist wiring, specialist plumbing, integrating all of those, have 30 different trades crawling all over them ships finishing them off. It is a metal fabricating yard with some ship building capabilities. Many of those finishing non-structural services are provided by SME's and contractors that are providing the item and its installation and its long term logistical support.
Small ships like OPV's, landing craft, AOR are ideal to build at CIVMEC Henderson. But Henderson doesn't have all the support stuff for destroyers and really, really complex ships. They would need support for something like a destroyer.
For a destroyer, it may be easier to tow the near finished hull or blocks to either Sydney/Newcastle, Osborne, or another country to finish it off in a reasonable time. Any destroyer at Henderson would have to be after the OPV's, and most likely require another yard to assist in finishing off, unless we are flying in flying out every single contractor.
For people who want to be reminded what an pain an overseas build can be, look at Antarctic ship Nuyina built by Damen.
The bad news is Australia's Antarctic icebreaker ship, which cost over half a billion dollars, is still in the repair shop and won't be available for this season's expeditions — the good news is, it is still under warranty.
www.abc.net.au
At least with the OPV90 will have a ship in the water, it won't cost a lot, it won't take long and it will be cheap to operate. Many of these other ideas won't work.
Government appears to require education on this issue. I can't seem to see a solution in their multi tier solution.
IF you don't like the Hobart then get a time machine. If you don't like the hunter, get a time machine. If you want to blame someone for the lack of 4th, we need a time machine If you don't like the OPV's and NVL, we need a time machine. IF you want to get the 10 years and $3billion+ we wasted on the French with the attack class, get a time machine. Sure there is a lot of people I think we should take out the back and shoot, but it won't change now. We are stuck where we are now. No other designs can just appear out thin air with SME's and new primes that make delivery of any ship in <10 years, particularly something like a destroyer, possible.
If we want to significantly change the RAN, we will have to do it with what we have, with the actors whom we have poured billions and years into and are now features of the landscape like the Sydney opera house is.
The good news is, Navantia, BAE or NVL are willing to help. That most (95%) of the blame for disasters/costs in naval planning and ship building lead directly to political interference and decision making rather than engineering or manufacturing issues.
There are solutions, but they are unsexy. They are platforms we basically already have made by primes/yards/contractors/smes who are already making ships. To change those takes 5-10 years and billions, and the SME's are already against the wall because of all the changes that have affected them.
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
