The idea is to expand the allied defence industry, not cut it down and split it up across members. From the US perspective they don't see why Australia wouldn't invest fully in domestic industry and local production. They don't understand why when we have the money, we can support the industry, we choose not to do that. In the US, doing military things locally is generally bipartisan, probably one of the few things left that is. For example the F-35 workshare program has come under heavy criticism because countries like Canada have taken advantage of it, getting workshare, but not buying the plane. Turkey, who was using it for their own political aims caused significant difficulty. There would be no want to replicate that with ships and other programs.
The Americans are more than happy for allies to license build basically, anything. Australia's local missile production is something they support and understand. Skorea and Japan, license build many, many items.
Australia's governments spend billions supporting overseas yards and the ship yards of our (trade?) enemies.
Comment by Peter Roberts The New South Wales government has confirmed its love affair with importing expensive transport equipment with the purchase of 13 Sydney harbour ferries for a reported $1.3 billion. Writing in MichaelWest.com, maritime commentator Neil Baird said Northern NSW company...
www.aumanufacturing.com.au
$1.13 billion to China on what could have been directed at building better boats locally.
Over $2.7 billion in rail assets.
Not only that, the boats were defective. Delayed, required extensive rectification locally.
A number of cracks have been discovered in the hull of one Sydney’s new Manly ferries, with an independent report identifying several welding defects on the vessel.
www.smh.com.au
Sydney’s new River Class ferry fleet won’t be able to operate at night this summer, with the problem-plagued vessels yet to undergo substantial remediation of design faults.
www.smh.com.au
Commuters would be "severed from the waist up" if they were on the top deck of Sydney's 10 new ferries.
www.smh.com.au
The government is now apparently taking a different approach. Understanding the issue with overseas builds.
The NSW Government will buck a recent trend of overseas shipbuilding with two new $10 million firefighting vessels to be produced in the state.
www.smh.com.au
Why would Australian governments be buying ships non-allied countries deconstruct their own industry? Why would the US government then sacrifice their own military build capability to support Australia's parasitic attachment? While we then go off and order more boats from China and under order on our own local builds?
To the Americans, our strategy seems confusing. Again, if we want something, license build it. There has been plenty of reviews and reports. The RAND report the Economic References Committee, etc.
If we wanted more capable ships, we could instead of upgrading the Hobart's, build 3 more, replacing 3 anzacs.
- The money for this is already ~60% there - due to the extensive nature of this upgrade we are replacing nearly all major systems radar, combat, consoles, power, cooling, etc
- Most of the systems are already being ordered and manufactured
- Some of the design work is already being done as it is required to upgrade the existing ships,
- The F-100 design was refreshed for the US FFGX bid and has been used in other bids for other navies (Poland). It is also a design we are very familiar with and have spent a lot on.
- The crew is already there, as the new ships would replace existing Anzac ships.
- The training systems are already in place and the hull is in service currently.
- Block work can be conducted at Civmec/Foracs Henderson/Newcastle and consolidation at Osborne or hull consolidation at Henderson and final fit at Osborne dockside. The project could be done through ASC, Navantia. and Civmec.
- Because this work would be de-risked on the new ships, the existing hobarts could go through with an upgrade later, or a less significant upgrade or be retired earlier and sold. By doing this for all 6 the per ship cost will likely decrease. This happens in other navies. We will still have 3 new latest platform DDG's either way.
But it still costs money. It requires another change of direction from an existing plan. Again it would be a small run of 3 ships, an inefficient build, and is more demanding on ship yards than waiting. It has political risk, because its a project with tangible outcomes. The RAN would need to work out what is more valuable, 3 older Hobart's or 3 Anzac's. Given the US would be operating similar non-upgraded Burkes for a few years, as will Spain, it would seem a moderate compromise. Difference operating costs between a Hobart class and an Anzac class. Difference in various mission capability between them. How survivable either will be ~2040.
Typically we spend a lot on upgrading existing ships, even if its not economically viable to do so (FFG up?), or if new platforms are only fractionally more expensive. We try and adapt ships that were not designed for one purpose, into another (Kanimbla), under some idea of reduced cost.
You could in theory build another design like the A140 or heck something like the Meko300. But its a new hull type, with design and systems not in process with a type not in service with the RAN and the project would start further back with less people on the ground and less familiar with the design. As a build process it would take ~10 years. So the idea of quickly plugging gaps is not possible. Why building new ships does is allow the existing ships to continue to serve for the next few years without being pulled out of the water for long, complex, expensive upgrades. With only 3 DDG's in the fleet, that is a huge capability loss.
There will already be a global shortage of western destroyers/cruisers. Due to decommissioning's and upgrades. Australia needs to understand, that if we pull our DDG's out for significant upgrades, that will further compound this global problem. By deficit, I am talking 30-50+ ships less than now. A deficit that won't be resolved for decades.
With the PLAN presence in our own waters now a thing, that means ships like the LHD, AOR and the Anzacs may not be able to deploy in our immediate region, even for HDAR to friendly areas. We may have to curb our participation in RIMPAC and other activities.