Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Agree as there appears to no bad options in the contenders form both the vessel capability and the proposed industry packages. But, like others, I refuse to predict the outcome.

Hi Alex, agree with what you have said.

Just my opinion, I don’t think there is a ‘dud’ amongst the three contenders, no doubt they all meet (or are capable of meeting) the minimums of the RFT, otherwise why would they have been shortlisted?

I wouldn’t be surprised in the least that when the NSC of Cabinet meets to make the decision, that it is a split decision.

And I also wouldn’t be surprised if Navy (and Defence) put forward their preferred option and their preferred option is different to the one that Government makes.

Why would I suggest that?

The Navy will no doubt put forward the ship design that it sees as best to fulfil the role that Government is asking it to perform, but equally the Government may well be looking to the potential of the industrial packages (eg, jobs, jobs, jobs!) as the best option.

I’m not just talking about the percentage of Australian content in the local build of the three contenders, but also the ‘potential’ for a bite of the cherry if one of those designs is also chosen by Canada or the US in their respective Frigate competitions, we may well see the winning designer of those competitions offer to throw some of their work share our way.

But again that is still a bit ‘pie in the sky’, we could well see Australia, Canada and the US select three different designs.

The ‘dark horse’ in this competition (to me at least), has been FREMM, now not suggesting that it is a better design or not, but one ‘ace up the sleeve’ to me, from an industrial (jobs) point of view is that Fincantieri has a huge commercial cruise ship order book, which I believe they have recently awarded a couple of contracts to SA companies for a number of blocks/modules for those ships.

Bottom line? Too hard to pick, and maybe I’m too cynical, Navy might get its first choice, or Government might get its way, Navy gets a ship that will do the job and Government gets two wins.

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

Cheers,

 

[StobieWan]

Yes. During the week we have had the Sydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times say the winner will be the T26 with an announcement next Friday. Then, a day later, the Financial Review stating the F-5000 with an announcement due yesterday. Now an Italian forum allegedly saying its the FREMM. The fact is we will just have to endure the suspense. I remember now we were all blindsided by the French submarine announcement!

That's a very good point - most of us would have put money on the winner being the Soryu right up to the point it wasn't.

I guess til it's announced, it's not announced.

 

[t68]

looks like the WA Mafia strike again.

$35 billion warship announcement delayed

I know there has to be balance between industry and defence, but what is so special about Austral

 

[Boatteacher]

looks like the WA Mafia strike again.

$35 billion warship announcement delayed

I know there has to be balance between industry and defence, but what is so special about Austral

I must admit that I read the Austral diversion as more of an ABC beat-up than indicative of what was happening within the bid process.

 

[hauritz]

Hi Alex, agree with what you have said.

And I also wouldn’t be surprised if Navy (and Defence) put forward their preferred option and their preferred option is different to the one that Government makes.

Cheers,

Absolutely ... with all that money involved, there will be a lot more to this than just picking the best ship.

With $35 billion involved there will be a lot of people lining up to the trough to get their share. It sounds like Austal want a share of the goodies ... which in my opinion could push Fincantieri's case. If any company is in a position where they can throw work at Australian industry it is probably Fincantieri.

On the otherhand, the F-5000 may be the least risky and cheapest option ... and that will always pick up supporters. As far as long-term strategic alliances are concerned purchasing the Type 26 would shore up relations with its oldest ally.

There is a lot to consider before you even start to look at the capabilities of each design.

 

[Stampede]

Absolutely ... with all that money involved, there will be a lot more to this than just picking the best ship.

With $35 billion involved there will be a lot of people lining up to the trough to get their share. It sounds like Austal want a share of the goodies ... which in my opinion could push Fincantieri's case. If any company is in a position where they can throw work at Australian industry it is probably Fincantieri.

On the otherhand, the F-5000 may be the least risky and cheapest option ... and that will always pick up supporters. As far as long-term strategic alliances are concerned purchasing the Type 26 would shore up relations with its oldest ally.

There is a lot to consider before you even start to look at the capabilities of each design.

Sunday Fun

$35 billion warship announcement delayed as MPs push for role for WA shipyard

And so it continues.

Lets just wait for the announcement............................................"Whenever"


Enjoy

Regards S

 

[Aussie optimist]

The suspense is killing me!! TBH I don’t care who wins, just as long as the navy gets the kit that they want. I am however abit partial to the Spanish offering, the Hobarts are a good looking boat with plenty of combat power.

 

[oldsig127]

I know there has to be balance between industry and defence, but what is so special about Austral

No idea. Remind me again who is "Austral"

(And now my apology. It's probably a typo, but I do wish that people used the proper name for the company)

oldsig

 

[Milne Bay]

Well, Lürssen didn't want to have anything to do with Austal for the patrol boats.
Why would any of the tenderers want to have anything to do with them for the frigates?
MB

 

[Jack Wyatt]

Having taken your advice and read that forum, I'm going to put it in the same category of authoritativeness as the average world cup dive. Reading back a couple of weeks, it's fairly clear that much of the "knowledge" is based on poor understanding of already poor Australian press reports and selective quotes from manufacturer's fluff and from posts on this forum - including the idea that the result WOULD be announced yesterday and the inevitable invention of conspiracy theories over undue UK influence when the FREMM unaccountably WASN'T announced as winner as "expected"

oldsig

Allegedly, a possible free trade agreement is being used to attempt to influence the outcome of SEA 5000. Then we have allegations of the WA Mafia wanting some of the pork. I would like to believe these reports are false, that politics won't play a part in the decision and that Australia will acquire a ship which is most capable, affordable (lowest cost) and the least risk.

 

[oldsig127]

Allegedly, a possible free trade agreement is being used to attempt to influence the outcome of SEA 5000. Then we have allegations of the WA Mafia wanting some of the pork.

You left out the possibility of civilian ship blocks for Fincantieri, but that's fair enough. The web is hardly big enough for all the theories on what deals might affect the outcome - or the theories on why the eventual winner wasn't <insert whinger's favourite here>

I would like to believe these reports are false, that politics won't play a part in the decision and that Australia will acquire a ship which is most capable, affordable (lowest cost) and the least risk.

And so say all of us. With the caveat that defence purchasing is not, cannot, and should not be seen in isolation from the politics of the day. As painful as it is to service people and their supporters, the government answers to the electorate first.

If the people of Australia were as utterly unconvinced that we need a Navy at all as the majority of New Zealanders (for example) seem to be, the politicians would more likely be discussing whether we should abandon all but Coast Guard and Fisheries support. The optics, and the surrounding less tangible benefits are important. They help justify to the voters the stuff we really want and need. In this we just have to pray that they get good advice from their permanent bureaucratic support, take less notice of panicky or disaffected back-benchers, and that the opposition continues to provide a bipartisan support of the core requirements even though they must quibble over the details for political effect.

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

Allegedly, a possible free trade agreement is being used to attempt to influence the outcome of SEA 5000. Then we have allegations of the WA Mafia wanting some of the pork. I would like to believe these reports are false, that politics won't play a part in the decision and that Australia will acquire a ship which is most capable, affordable (lowest cost) and the least risk.

Jack, hope that politics won't play a part? Sorry (but no offence), politics in our system will always play a part in Government decisions.

Yes I'm sure that all of us here on DT would hope to see the Navy receive the best of the best when the decision is made, and that may or may not happen.

On the one hand we are lucky here that both sides of politics are pretty much on the same page when it comes to defence policy, spending, etc, the current opposition has said it won't overturn the decision if it wins government in the future, which is they way it usually is.

Decisions on defence equipment don't win or loose elections here these days, the average punter in the street has no idea of the three contenders, and when the media reports on the decision they will probably call them 'Battleships'!!!

What the punter in the street cares about is jobs, and especially in those marginal electorates (that is where Governments win or loose elections).

It may well be that Navy gets the one it wants, but it may get the one that will still do the job, again the average punter won't have a clue.

But if the Government can say that the winner is 'also' going to provide work above and beyond (for those marginal electorates), well that is win for the Government that may keep them in office for another three years, or beyond.

 

[Stampede]

Ah yes a complicated bit of fun this big defence projected stuff. Lots of conflicting interest and at the end of the day someone has to make a call and a decision is made.
The outcome for SEA 5000 holds much interest for both Navy and our Manufacturing sector.......... As well it should
Apparently our politicians also have some interest as well !
"Fancy that!"
But jokes aside we are all adult enough to appreciate how it works or doesn't work depending on your point of view.
Testing the memory, but I recall some concern back in the day when we selected the F18 Classic Hornet in the 70's, that some 48 of the 50 states of the USA had some supply commitment to the build of this aircraft. Now maybe this is not the most efficient way geographically to build a complicated piece of flying machinery but somehow it has worked to produce a good aircraft platform that has served not only the RAAF but many other defence forces as well.
Capability and price coming together to also satisfy the domestic US political landscape.
Sometimes it looks crazy and yet it achieves an end.
As to SEA 5000 I wonder what we will be saying about it in a generations time.
The ship selected: the manufacturing program and all those involved; not to mention the political ramifications.
We don't have the answers today but as a decision has to be made, I trust the balance of conflicting interests produces a decision whose outcome is regarded in the future with acclaim.

Best wishes to the decision makers

Regards S

 

[76mmGuns]

My personal wish is that they choose a vessel, and up the numbers, from 9 to whatever-12,15,18 etc. From a budgeting point of view, giving the discussions here, the f5000 appears best placed to allow this.

( I know... What about crewing, port facilities etc. Just let me dream, dammit!)

 

[hairyman]

Well in my dream we build three additional updated better armed AWD's then the nine frigates. Thus giving the RAN 15 ships.

 

[mrberry]

Realistically when would the decision need to be made in order for a 2020 commencement of construction? I would have thought the sooner the better as delaying it would either delay the start of construction or increase risk with the shortened design process.

 

[hauritz]

I have no problems with political involvement in this project. We are talking a lot of taxpayer money and it must be seen to be spent in the right way. There are obviously other issues such as free trade, strategic alliances and generating work which should be taken into consideration.

On the other hand holding up a project simply to accommodate Austal isn't acceptable. The three contenders have put together plans and have already nominated many of their partners. A lot of these partners have taken risks in aligning themselves with one bidder or another. It will be a win or lose proposition for many of them.

Austal, on the other hand, wants simply be handed work regardless of whoever wins.

No doubt there will be work that Austal can bid on. I can't see why they think they should be a special case.

 

[Jack Wyatt]

I have no problems with political involvement in this project. We are talking a lot of taxpayer money and it must be seen to be spent in the right way. There are obviously other issues such as free trade, strategic alliances and generating work which should be taken into consideration.

On the other hand holding up a project simply to accommodate Austal isn't acceptable. The three contenders have put together plans and have already nominated many of their partners. A lot of these partners have taken risks in aligning themselves with one bidder or another. It will be a win or lose proposition for many of them.

Austal, on the other hand, wants simply be handed work regardless of whoever wins.

No doubt there will be work that Austal can bid on. I can't see why they think they should be a special case.

I have a problem with political involvement if the eventual winner is not the design selected by the panel of experts employed to undertake a merit based assessment of the bids. If issues such as strategic alliances, free trade agreements, main fleet to Singapore Vol 2 etc compromise the merit selection process I fail to see how the outcome is in the best interests of taxpayers or the RAN.

And on occasion I have read complaints on this very forum about how major procurement of the RAN is dogged by politics in comparison to say the RAAF.

 

[John Fedup]

On the one hand we are lucky here that both sides of politics are pretty much on the same page when it comes to defence policy, spending, etc, the current opposition has said it won't overturn the decision if it wins government in the future, which is they way it usually is.

Agree John, and as you know, this is a major difference between Australia and Canada. Our pollies care more about sticking it to each other, regardless of how much it damages the national interest.

 

[t68]

I have a problem with political involvement if the eventual winner is not the design selected by the panel of experts employed to undertake a merit based assessment of the bids. If issues such as strategic alliances, free trade agreements, main fleet to Singapore Vol 2 etc compromise the merit selection process I fail to see how the outcome is in the best interests of taxpayers or the RAN.

And on occasion I have read complaints on this very forum about how major procurement of the RAN is dogged by politics in comparison to say the RAAF.

I guess the main difference here are that most of the RAAF buys are MOTS and not built here, so they generally get what they want. Unlike RAN/Army its either built or assembled here and politicians being politicians pointing to jobs is a political tool to big to ignore.

If F35 was not selected and we went with say Typhoon/Super Hornet it makes economic sense to build overseas, ain't no Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) anymore