Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is a bit more complicated than that. However, that is similar to what was done with the Collins-class SSG ANZAC-class FFH, the Hobart-class DDG, will be done with the SEA 1180 OPV, and so on.
As I understand it, the CoA purchased the IP rights to build a certain number of each of the classes of vessel that were (or are to be) built in Australia, as opposed to complete IP rights. The principal difference AFAIK is that complete ownership of the IP rights would permit the CoA (or any other IP owner for that matter) to build and/or modify the IP/designs as much as they would like.
Using the SEA 5000 Future Frigate programme as an example, whichever design (British, Italian, or Spanish) gets selected, the vessels themselves will be assembled in an Australian facility (Techport) in Osborne. The company which is operating the facility might change, but it will still be an Australian facility, as will the other shipyards in Australia which might get block work.
Unlike Navantia's involvement in the Canberra-class LHD builds, or the upcoming replenishment oiler, during the Hobart-class AWD build Navantia was just involved in the design and ship plans though Volk would be much better at explaining what they did. For the Canberra-class LHD, the basic vessels were built in Spain, because Australia has not had a yard available for constructing naval vessels of such size since the Cockatoo Island yards shut down in 1992. Once the vessel's hull, machinery and superstructure were built and assembled, the vessels were transported to Australia for fitout.
With that in mind, what the RAN seems most interested in is the design work, and how suitable a design is within the Australian context for the SEA 5000 Future Frigate. The state of a foreign company's overseas shipyards, yard workforce, or balance sheet is irrelevant, unless it impacts the ability of the design team to put together plans for the type of frigate Australia is seeking, fitted with the kit Australia desires.
From my outsider's non-industry perspective, a design team that already has significant experience putting together designs which Australia is already somewhat familiar with, that also tends to feature much of the same kit Australia is going to use, is likely to have an edge.
With respect to comments regarding the EU, I do not see how they are realistically applicable. Aside from the assumption that any EU competition rules also include national security exemptions, none of the actual SEA 5000 build work is going to occur outside of Australia. So unless someone could make a credible claim that Italy, Spain, or the UK were going to subsidize (to one degree or another) an Australian frigate build programme, provided their respective national design was selected, then the EU competition rules should not matter.
This is not like the trade disputes which have been occurring between Airbus and Boeing over the cost of civilian airliners and resulting competition for orders. In the Airbus/Boeing trade disputes, civilian airlines have sought certain classes of airliners which both companies produce, and therefore the airlines have at least partially based their selection decisions on the initial acquisition and operating/support costs. These costs (initial acquisition especially) can be influenced or impacted by gov't policies on taxes, subsidies, etc. which impact the cost to either Airbus or Boeing to actually produce an individual aircraft or part. With the Australian National Shipbuilding plan having RAN ships built in Australia except for vessels too large to be built in current Australian yards, all those production costs which can be subject to influence from gov't policies are subject to Australian gov't policies, not those of the various national gov'ts belonging to the home countries of the designers.
and thanks to Jonh Fedup for correcting me
