Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
In a Halt till start of business Friday, looks like an announcement tomorrow.
I notice that Austal's share price dropped 2.6% today prior to the trading halt being announced at 1:46pm. Maybe this indicates that tenders associated with Austal are unsuccessful.
If that's the case someone will probably get done for insider trading...I notice that Austal's share price dropped 2.6% today prior to the trading halt being announced at 1:46pm. Maybe this indicates that tenders associated with Austal are unsuccessful.
I notice that Austal's share price dropped 2.6% today prior to the trading halt being announced at 1:46pm. Maybe this indicates that tenders associated with Austal are unsuccessful.
The outcome of the tender should not have leaked and the would be hell to pay if it did.
Given nobody is screaming it is more likely to be that some in the stock market are doubtful of their chances, or don't want to take the risk, so they decided to sell beforehand.
Sales volumes were low so it probably doesn't mean anything.
Aren't unsuccessful tenders advised just prior to the announcement?
I remember there used to be a saying in Defence - "there's no such thing as a secret in the Department of Defence". At least not in procurement areas.
They have just started on the Pacific Patrol Boat so they have a bit of work for a few years. They number of HSC order were also up but most of this is done in the Phillipines
Share price drop is nothing, 2.6% isn't anything to be concerned about. As mentioned they have plenty of work in the pipe line with Henderson even being to build sections for civilian ships due to demand exceeding capacity at the Phillipines yard, add in the build process for the LCS type ships has been mostly finalised they are also showing profit improvements there.
Financially speaking they are in a decent position with no risk of the company going bust if they dont win this bid, I reckon the share trade halt is more as a security measure legally to protect them selves if people start buying or selling the shares eradicatly and then going back and blaming Austal if they lose out.
Financially speaking they are in a decent position with no risk of the company going bust if they dont win this bid, I reckon the share trade halt is more as a security measure legally to protect them selves if people start buying or selling the shares eradicatly and then going back and blaming Austal if they lose out.
They actually do a lot more in WA than many people realise. By way of example all the electrical systems and cabinets are constructed there, even those destine for the LCS. This is a significant undertaking.
The PCB-R will carry on for a while as well as there are options for further hulls in the line.
I'd say the drop in the AUD has also helped to reverse there previous decision of only doing defence related work there. Now becoming cost effective to build the ships in Australia as much as the Phillipines.
And the PCB-R has already seen an increase with East Timor picking 2 extra boats up bringing total order to 21.
I have a feeling we will know who won this tomorrow so there isn't much time to speculate.
https://thewest.com.au/business/con...s-patrol-vessel-selection-looms-ng-b88667907z
One thing I found interesting however was the bit at the bottom of the article that suggested that the assessment panel might have preferred the designer from one bid and the builder from the other or that all three offerings had critical flaws.
https://thewest.com.au/business/con...s-patrol-vessel-selection-looms-ng-b88667907z
One thing I found interesting however was the bit at the bottom of the article that suggested that the assessment panel might have preferred the designer from one bid and the builder from the other or that all three offerings had critical flaws.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One thing that has puzzled me for some time, is why some of the Australian naval submissions are pairings of designers and yards. Given that there does not really seem to be a company that has an "in-house" design as well as manufacturing capability in Australia, I would have thought having two distinct bidding processes would be a better way to go. The first process would be the selection of the design, and then the interested shipyards could then submit bids to produce the chosen design.
The process now seems to force decision makers into a position where they might have to chose a less favourable design to get the preferred shipyard, or vice versa by selecting a less well regarded shipyard to get a more favourable design. The only time things would be entirely in the right direction is if the preferred shipyard also had the preferred design.
I could not agree more - the same thoughts went through my head.
We could very well end up with the preferred builder for political purposes and a design that is not optimum simply because that was the one paired with that builder.
For example - the Fassmer offering looks to be the best to me from what has been shown to the public, but Austal already have a good book of orders from other projects. Forjacs could probably use the work but maybe have the less desired ship offering
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I doubt we will see an announcement today, the Government is releasing a Foreign Policy White Paper today.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A Defence procurement selection based upon what is politically advantageous for the decision makers and/or the gov't of the day? No, that would never happen.
<ducking now before GF shows up and slaps me upside the head...>
Could be a combined announcement. The OPV's will be essential for engagement in the indo-pacific.
The first two, it doesn't matter. ASC will be building those.
The government isn't going to be forced into a partnership its not happy with. WA needs to stop fighting among itself. I don't know how tight these partnership arrangements are, I guess when its announced more details will flow.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Gov't might not be forced into a partnership it is unhappy with, but Defence might...
The selection of then ADI's Bushmaster IMV over Tenix's S-600 comes to mind. The Bushmasters produced in Bendigo vs. the Tenix production location which was in a seat firmly held by the opposition.
IIRC the protect levels between the two vehicles both met the required specs, although the S-600 did slightly better in testing the mine protection. Where the real advantage for the S-600 was IMO was the logistics support. The S-600 being based off a Unimog chassis could plug into the worldwide Unimog supply chain for parts to reduce costs and downtime. The Bushmaster OTOH does not have such a user base that it can leverage.
It seems Navantia have been playing with camera drones.
A straightforward but well made video of the keel-laying here - https://youtu.be/3ZegPGenzG0InterestedParty
Active Member
Could someone explain the significance of the coin and the plate with what I presume are welded initials.
I understand that they used to put a coin under a ships mast when it was positioned, is this a modern interpretation?
I understand that they used to put a coin under a ships mast when it was positioned, is this a modern interpretation?
- Status