Wasnt Eurocpoter pacific and ASC also full Austrlian companies under your law?
It didnt stop the programs to end as they did.
That was my analogy. Celsius sold Kockums to HDW because it wasnt making enought money (just like Navantia). Other than development you ended up setting the logistic support just in 2008.
Perhaps it is just me not understanding something, but I do not see the relevance of what I assume is the attempt to make an analogy between Airbus Group A-P, ASC, and the current situation with the SEA 5000 project.
The old Australian Aerospace Ltd. has now been re-named Airbus Group Australia Pacific, is still in operation and is involved in both the Australian Tiger ARH and MRH-90 Taipan programmes, both of which are still very much running. For those that follow Australian procurement programmes, both helicopters have had (still have?) a number of issues, however these issues have to do with the actual helicopter design and not with the company's (subsidiary or parent) finances or economic situation. From my outsider's POV, it looks as though slick marketing on the part of Eurocopter & NH Industries sales reps along with performance data that was much more projected than actually based on real-world data managed to sell Australia helicopters still undergoing development, when at least some in Australia seemed to think a finished product was what was being purchased. As a side note, this is also sort of why some on DT are a bit leery of some of the SEA 5000 and SEA 1000 (the
Collins-class SSG replacement) project contenders since until there are actual units that have been finished which can serve as examples, there is a lack of real-world data to support estimates.
As for ASC, that company still exists and is in operation, providing maintenance support of the
Collins-class SSG, as well as going to have a part in production of the SEA 1180 project OPV's in addition to the having built both the SSG's and the
Hobart-class AWD's. IMO there is no relevance in the history of what happened to Kockums being taken over by HDW which in turn was taken over by ThyssenKrupp and the SEA 5000 project because those takeovers seem to have been more about competitors taking each other over to eliminate business rivals. In fact, by the time Kockums was taken over by HDW, the last Australian sub had already been laid down. Now if there was an expectation that Australia would have naval vessels built (and modified, supported and upgraded) in overseas yards, and that whoever was awarded the SEA 5000 project would be using their yards in their home country, and then there was concern that a rival shipbuilder might do a hostile takeover and then close the shipyards belonging to the company recently taken over, the situation could have relevance.
Given that the SEA 5000, SEA 1180 and SEA 1000 projects are all involved in raising and then sustaining a sovereign, Australian naval shipbuilding industry, then I do not see the relevance of whether a foreign designer/builder of naval vessels is profitable or not. After all, Australia is working towards creating a sustainable domestic warship production capability for strategic reasons, and not as a business venture seeking to make a profit.