Agree, wouldn’t trust any Spanish or Aus company to design/build it.
If we are going to replace Choules, we will likely add on to the uk order. Maybe Japan/Korea is an option also, they have potential replacements upcoming.
More numbers of small platforms could be another option, Fassmer + Damen have a few eg.
The Multi-Purpose Support Ship range is a response to the increasing use of drone technology that we see in modern combat situations.
www.damen.com
100+120 fassmer designs can also move the bridge to one side it seems for stovl operation.
Are you an expert shipbuilder or are you just going off what you've been told by the expert shipbuilders in the Murdoch media and parliament?
People like to knock Australian shipbuilding, well let's look at the reality.
Melbourne and Newcastle were probably the best built FFGs out of the entire class, definitely better built than the RANs US built ships.
The ANZACs were so well built they have lasted almost 30 years without major life extension work. They have also received massive capability upgrades far beyond what they were designed or intended to receive.
The Hobart's have been very trouble free, the issues they had in build relating to the identification and rectification of design issues.
There have been issues with the LHDs, relating to the hulls and system built in Spain, not the superstructure and systems built in Australia.
The AORs, totally built in Spain, have been a problem since day one.
The Arafuras suffered delays due to the designer not undertaking an appropriate level of certification work. The government took their eye off the ball because they assumed overseas designers know what they are doing so didn't provide the required level of oversight.
Then there's the Collins Class. Derided for their entire career as useless as failures but they are being life extended to forty years plus, and are still regarded as among the most capable conventional submarines ever built.
It's pretty obvious the problem isn't Australian shipbuilding. Imagine where we would be had we supported continuous building in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s? Hell imagine where we would be if we achieved and maintained it from the 40s?
The issue is cost, the reason it costs more here is our boom and bust cycle, combined with switching locations ever couple of decades. Every second generation we shut up shop and start fresh in another state, while other nations build ships in the same locations for decades and in some cases centuries.
Despite that we still build good ships, there is just a price premium due to government inconsistency.
Don't believe me, just look at the US, UK, and Europe where they let their industries contract since the cold war.
Stop knocking Australian shipbuilding.
