Don't need to read the article, Buckleys and none !
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
the road runner
Active Member
I have always been under he impression that ASC would never be sold.
As gf has stated a number of times ...sub tec is the crown jewel's of a number of countries.If the Commonwealth owns ASC ,integration of US(and other country's) tech can be done with no 3rd party involved.
I wonder.. if ASC was made a public country how keen the US would be to share their sub tech with Australia?. If ASC was bought by a US company like Electric Boat,GD ect this would be less of an issue.But if a European company bought ASC i would bet, the US would not share their tech!
Aussies link to the paper from ANI on Sea 1000 seem like Australia,the US and japan could co develop a future sub for both Australia and Japan for use in the Asia pacific region.This is what i hope will happen. It dose make sense for us to co develop a sub and share the costs of a joint development program.
Cheers
As gf has stated a number of times ...sub tec is the crown jewel's of a number of countries.If the Commonwealth owns ASC ,integration of US(and other country's) tech can be done with no 3rd party involved.
I wonder.. if ASC was made a public country how keen the US would be to share their sub tech with Australia?. If ASC was bought by a US company like Electric Boat,GD ect this would be less of an issue.But if a European company bought ASC i would bet, the US would not share their tech!
Aussies link to the paper from ANI on Sea 1000 seem like Australia,the US and japan could co develop a future sub for both Australia and Japan for use in the Asia pacific region.This is what i hope will happen. It dose make sense for us to co develop a sub and share the costs of a joint development program.
Cheers
It's a 50/50 if it's to be privatized when coming to foreign ownership.
The European companies generally know more and have more experience in conventional submarines while the US yards tend to know plenty about nuclear boats (A benefit if we decide to get them down the track).
If we went with a US option they would have to invest heavily into acquiring the knowledge into the field.
If we went for a European company then I'd prefer TKMS as they are pretty successful, Have idea's about turning it into there regional centre which taking into account the growth in naval and submarine vessel in the region means potentially a lot of business (Jobs) and the way they run there yard in Germany work's out well for those worried about there tech being fitted by a foreign company, They have a separated shed where that nation's employee's (or in our case that companies Australian employees) could fit out the sensitive tech.
Though personally as an Australian if it's to be privatized I'd like to see Austal get it and see an Aussie company expand it into a 100% Aussie brand.
Another option rather then selling it outright, Has any one considered a lease?
Technically keep' it a government asset. Allow's another company to have a stake in wanting to make it run more efficiently and if I'm not mistaken we already have a number of defence related sites around Australia leased out...
The European companies generally know more and have more experience in conventional submarines while the US yards tend to know plenty about nuclear boats (A benefit if we decide to get them down the track).
If we went with a US option they would have to invest heavily into acquiring the knowledge into the field.
If we went for a European company then I'd prefer TKMS as they are pretty successful, Have idea's about turning it into there regional centre which taking into account the growth in naval and submarine vessel in the region means potentially a lot of business (Jobs) and the way they run there yard in Germany work's out well for those worried about there tech being fitted by a foreign company, They have a separated shed where that nation's employee's (or in our case that companies Australian employees) could fit out the sensitive tech.
Though personally as an Australian if it's to be privatized I'd like to see Austal get it and see an Aussie company expand it into a 100% Aussie brand.
Another option rather then selling it outright, Has any one considered a lease?
Technically keep' it a government asset. Allow's another company to have a stake in wanting to make it run more efficiently and if I'm not mistaken we already have a number of defence related sites around Australia leased out...
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Couple of items ex Janes website that may be on interest on the sunny side of the Tasman.
Australian Pacific patrol boat 'not economically viable' for BAE - IHS Jane's 360
Williamstown not bidding for PPB contract.
Austal in talks with Saudi navy over LCS-type ship - IHS Jane's 360
Austal chasing work with the Saudis.
Australian Pacific patrol boat 'not economically viable' for BAE - IHS Jane's 360
Williamstown not bidding for PPB contract.
Austal in talks with Saudi navy over LCS-type ship - IHS Jane's 360
Austal chasing work with the Saudis.
Joe Black
Active Member
Some interesting arguments about the perception that building warships in Australia is 30% more expensive:
"A perception that building ships in Australia involves a cost premium of 30% to 40% is a myth, he said. With the Australian dollar at USD 0.75-0.80, the Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) under construction for the US Navy in Mobile and similar high-speed support ships being built for the Omani Navy at Austal's West Australian facility near Perth are similar in cost, he said."
Austal in talks with Saudi navy over LCS-type ship - IHS Jane's 360
If I may translate the comment to layman's term, yes, we are building ships here more expensively but because of the currency conversion rate (back to USD), we are actually on par with the rest of the world. It makes sense. So when AUD is high, it appears that it is costlier to build ship on shore, but when AUD is low, then it could be cheaper or cost just as much to build them onshore.
"A perception that building ships in Australia involves a cost premium of 30% to 40% is a myth, he said. With the Australian dollar at USD 0.75-0.80, the Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) under construction for the US Navy in Mobile and similar high-speed support ships being built for the Omani Navy at Austal's West Australian facility near Perth are similar in cost, he said."
Austal in talks with Saudi navy over LCS-type ship - IHS Jane's 360
If I may translate the comment to layman's term, yes, we are building ships here more expensively but because of the currency conversion rate (back to USD), we are actually on par with the rest of the world. It makes sense. So when AUD is high, it appears that it is costlier to build ship on shore, but when AUD is low, then it could be cheaper or cost just as much to build them onshore.
Joe Black
Active Member
French open to joint bid with Japan on submarines for Australia
Sid Maher
National Affairs Editor
Paris
The French government is *exploring the possibility of a collaboration with Japan to land Australia’s $20 billion future submarine contract.
A senior French government source floated the possibility that France and Japan could offer something together for a contract seen as “strategically important’’.
It is possible French-Japanese collaboration could be discussed when French Prime Minister Manuel Valls visits Japan in October. French President Francois Hollande and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Germany last week and declared their relationship was strengthening.
The nations have signed an agreement on the transfer of *defence equipment and technol*ogy. Mr Abe has legislation before the Japanese parliament which would allow further defence co-operation.
Japan, France and Germany are engaged in a competitive evaluation process to win the contract to build the replacement for Australia’s six Collins-class submarines. The French are following progress of the evaluation in Australia very closely.
“We think we have a reasonable chance,’’ the source said. “We have one chance out of three.’’
The source said the French understood the *importance of saving Australian jobs, indicating a significant amount of work could be carried out in South Australia. Tony Abbott promised at the last election to build 12 sub*marines in South Australia.
Speculation has since centred on at least some of the submarines being built offshore. However, some could be built in Australia with all maintenance being conducted in South Australia.
The French source said it was believed the Australian preference was, for strategic reasons, to award the contract to Japan. France sees itself in competition with Germany but believes there is room for co-operation with Japan.
It is understood there is greater compatibility between the French and Japanese submarines than with the German vessels.
A decision is expected to be *announced late this year.
Japan is offering its Soryu submarine while the French are *offering a conventional version of the Barracuda nuclear submarine.
--------------------
In Other news:
Australia's $50 billion submarine project still dogged by uncertainty
Australia's $50 billion submarine project still dogged by uncertainty | afr.com
by John Kerin
The uncertainty over the Abbott government's $50 billion new submarine project has only deepened since the announcement of a much-criticised competitive evaluation process.
On the surface three contenders – Japan, France and Germany – are vying to build the new fleet as part of a 10-month competitive evaluation process.
Japan-based Kawasaki/Mitsubishi is proposing its 4200-tonne Soryu diesel electric submarine, France-backed DCNS is offering a non-nuclear version of its 4700-tonne Barracuda submarine and Germany is offering its 4000-tonne Type 216.
Australia is after up to 12 submarines larger than the existing Collins class, with greater endurance and firepower.
The competitive evaluation process involving the three bidders was outlined by Defence Minister Kevin Andrews in February, but the process has been plagued by Labor accusations the process is a "sham" and Japan is in the box seat to win.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has expressed a clear preference for the Japanese option, as a means of strengthening defence and security ties between the two countries and amid fears over China's sabre-rattling over its territorial disputes.
Germany has been stressing that not only does it have the export experience but there isn't the political risk in buying from Europe that there is in buying from Japan, given its rivalry with China.
BACKED AWAY
A furore over whether the submarines will be built in South Australia has also plagued the project since the government backed away from a pre-election promise to build the new fleet in Adelaide.
"I would agree that because the facilities exist in South Australia at the ASC site that the infrastructure and the workforce is the only current workforce that could assemble the submarine [but] whether it is the right place to assemble a new design is up for question," said David Gould, general manager submarines of the Defence Materiel Organisation.
South Australian Defence Teaming Centre chief executive Chris Burns said if Japan was chosen most of the work could go to Western Australia, where lighter maintenance is carried out, rather than the overhauls carried out in Adelaide because Japanese submarines had a shorter lifespan.
Defence officials also admitted winning the competitive evaluation process didn't mean the winner would get the contract.
The admission came after independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon brought up a previous example where a bidder for a submarine system on the current Collins class submarines had been successful in a competitive evaluation process only to be over-ruled by the federal cabinet.
Japan has also been muddying the waters, with the former commander of the Japanese submarine fleet Masao Kobayashi expressing doubts the submarines could be built in the Adelaide shipyards.
Captain Hisayuki Tamura, of the Japanese Ministry of Defence, insisted Japan had the best technology to build the submarines but another former Japanese submarine commander, Captain Toshihide Yamamuchi, expressed concern that if Japan shared its most sensitive technology with Australia, China might try to steal it.
CAPTAIN'S PICK
Labor's defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said Mr Abbott has already made Japan his "captain's pick" and the "fix is in".
Mr Xenophon, who has campaigned tirelessly for the submarines to be built in Adelaide, said German and French submarine builders used "high-yield steel similar to that cited by the Japanese and have exported to other countries the skills and expertise to enable local submarine fabrication".
Mr Xenophon accused the Japanese of offering "excuses to have $50 billion worth of Australian taxpayers' money spent almost entirely in Japan".
Defence Minister Kevin Andrews continues to insist the competitive evaluation process will be a fair and equitable process that will treat the bidders fairly.
The government has appointed an expert panel to oversee the process, including Professor Donald Winter, who was co-author of a report into the troubled $8 billion air warfare destroyer project, former Federal Court justice Julie Anne Dodds-Streeton, infrastructure specialist Ron Finlay and former BAE Australia chief executive Jim McDowell.
Mr Andrews said "significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of the submarine, including combat systems integration, design assurance and land-based testing".
--------------
Interesting time ahead. Awaiting the roll out of the DWP!!!!
Sid Maher
National Affairs Editor
Paris
The French government is *exploring the possibility of a collaboration with Japan to land Australia’s $20 billion future submarine contract.
A senior French government source floated the possibility that France and Japan could offer something together for a contract seen as “strategically important’’.
It is possible French-Japanese collaboration could be discussed when French Prime Minister Manuel Valls visits Japan in October. French President Francois Hollande and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Germany last week and declared their relationship was strengthening.
The nations have signed an agreement on the transfer of *defence equipment and technol*ogy. Mr Abe has legislation before the Japanese parliament which would allow further defence co-operation.
Japan, France and Germany are engaged in a competitive evaluation process to win the contract to build the replacement for Australia’s six Collins-class submarines. The French are following progress of the evaluation in Australia very closely.
“We think we have a reasonable chance,’’ the source said. “We have one chance out of three.’’
The source said the French understood the *importance of saving Australian jobs, indicating a significant amount of work could be carried out in South Australia. Tony Abbott promised at the last election to build 12 sub*marines in South Australia.
Speculation has since centred on at least some of the submarines being built offshore. However, some could be built in Australia with all maintenance being conducted in South Australia.
The French source said it was believed the Australian preference was, for strategic reasons, to award the contract to Japan. France sees itself in competition with Germany but believes there is room for co-operation with Japan.
It is understood there is greater compatibility between the French and Japanese submarines than with the German vessels.
A decision is expected to be *announced late this year.
Japan is offering its Soryu submarine while the French are *offering a conventional version of the Barracuda nuclear submarine.
--------------------
In Other news:
Australia's $50 billion submarine project still dogged by uncertainty
Australia's $50 billion submarine project still dogged by uncertainty | afr.com
by John Kerin
The uncertainty over the Abbott government's $50 billion new submarine project has only deepened since the announcement of a much-criticised competitive evaluation process.
On the surface three contenders – Japan, France and Germany – are vying to build the new fleet as part of a 10-month competitive evaluation process.
Japan-based Kawasaki/Mitsubishi is proposing its 4200-tonne Soryu diesel electric submarine, France-backed DCNS is offering a non-nuclear version of its 4700-tonne Barracuda submarine and Germany is offering its 4000-tonne Type 216.
Australia is after up to 12 submarines larger than the existing Collins class, with greater endurance and firepower.
The competitive evaluation process involving the three bidders was outlined by Defence Minister Kevin Andrews in February, but the process has been plagued by Labor accusations the process is a "sham" and Japan is in the box seat to win.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has expressed a clear preference for the Japanese option, as a means of strengthening defence and security ties between the two countries and amid fears over China's sabre-rattling over its territorial disputes.
Germany has been stressing that not only does it have the export experience but there isn't the political risk in buying from Europe that there is in buying from Japan, given its rivalry with China.
BACKED AWAY
A furore over whether the submarines will be built in South Australia has also plagued the project since the government backed away from a pre-election promise to build the new fleet in Adelaide.
"I would agree that because the facilities exist in South Australia at the ASC site that the infrastructure and the workforce is the only current workforce that could assemble the submarine [but] whether it is the right place to assemble a new design is up for question," said David Gould, general manager submarines of the Defence Materiel Organisation.
South Australian Defence Teaming Centre chief executive Chris Burns said if Japan was chosen most of the work could go to Western Australia, where lighter maintenance is carried out, rather than the overhauls carried out in Adelaide because Japanese submarines had a shorter lifespan.
Defence officials also admitted winning the competitive evaluation process didn't mean the winner would get the contract.
The admission came after independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon brought up a previous example where a bidder for a submarine system on the current Collins class submarines had been successful in a competitive evaluation process only to be over-ruled by the federal cabinet.
Japan has also been muddying the waters, with the former commander of the Japanese submarine fleet Masao Kobayashi expressing doubts the submarines could be built in the Adelaide shipyards.
Captain Hisayuki Tamura, of the Japanese Ministry of Defence, insisted Japan had the best technology to build the submarines but another former Japanese submarine commander, Captain Toshihide Yamamuchi, expressed concern that if Japan shared its most sensitive technology with Australia, China might try to steal it.
CAPTAIN'S PICK
Labor's defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said Mr Abbott has already made Japan his "captain's pick" and the "fix is in".
Mr Xenophon, who has campaigned tirelessly for the submarines to be built in Adelaide, said German and French submarine builders used "high-yield steel similar to that cited by the Japanese and have exported to other countries the skills and expertise to enable local submarine fabrication".
Mr Xenophon accused the Japanese of offering "excuses to have $50 billion worth of Australian taxpayers' money spent almost entirely in Japan".
Defence Minister Kevin Andrews continues to insist the competitive evaluation process will be a fair and equitable process that will treat the bidders fairly.
The government has appointed an expert panel to oversee the process, including Professor Donald Winter, who was co-author of a report into the troubled $8 billion air warfare destroyer project, former Federal Court justice Julie Anne Dodds-Streeton, infrastructure specialist Ron Finlay and former BAE Australia chief executive Jim McDowell.
Mr Andrews said "significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of the submarine, including combat systems integration, design assurance and land-based testing".
--------------
Interesting time ahead. Awaiting the roll out of the DWP!!!!
As I recall there was discussion at the time that ADI was awarded the FFGUP over the more logical (and perhaps superior) Tenix bid primarily because ADI was on the market and needed a decent sized contract to attract a buyer. With ADI sold to Thales ASC was next in line to go (ironic as it had only been nationalised several years earlier) and a major contract was needed to grease the deal.
Tenix's Williamstown yard, modernised and brought up to world standard from the late 80s, was starved of work, not because they weren't good enough to win contracts, but apparently because the government of the day wanted to flog off ADI and ASC. This, on top of a shipbuilding black hole, saw Australia's most experienced and capable shipbuilding workforce (production, engineering, supply chain, support systems) hung out to dry, Tenix sold out to BAE who then made most of these experienced and capable workers redundant for the simple reason their was no work for them to do. End result we have to rebuild a capability we had already modernised and developed only a decade earlier.
Tenix's Williamstown yard, modernised and brought up to world standard from the late 80s, was starved of work, not because they weren't good enough to win contracts, but apparently because the government of the day wanted to flog off ADI and ASC. This, on top of a shipbuilding black hole, saw Australia's most experienced and capable shipbuilding workforce (production, engineering, supply chain, support systems) hung out to dry, Tenix sold out to BAE who then made most of these experienced and capable workers redundant for the simple reason their was no work for them to do. End result we have to rebuild a capability we had already modernised and developed only a decade earlier.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Interesting move by BAE to come out and state they are not bidding for the replacement Pacific Patrol Boats.
No Cookies | Herald Sun
(I'll get this out of the road first, the AMWU, what a joke, what an absolute joke, blaming the current Government for this situation, where was all the noise from that union about saving the jobs of the workers when their mates in the Federal Labor Party were in Government for six years and not 'one' ship was ordered, what a load of garbage!). Anyway, back to BAE.......
It's also interesting when BAE says, even if the Federal Government was to award the Pacific Patrol boat contract to build 21 ships in the first half of 2017 that production was unlikely to start until the end of next year or early 2018. And that it 'would not be economically viable' to 'rehire' a workforce, despite the 'hope' of retaining some of the existing workforce for the project.
The replacement Pacific Patrol Boats are without doubt the 'least complex' of any of the future naval shipbuilding projects and if BAE says it can't wait for a winner to be announced (assuming they did win it of course!), then if they are going to knock back the opportunity to bid for the PPB's, it would appear that any other project would be way way too far down the track to keep the yard going regardless.
The only exception (and maybe there is a bit of BAE politicking going on here too), is if the Government were to announce in the new DWP and Naval Shipbuilding program that a 4th AWD is to be procured and that block work would start immediately too, that is the only way I see that BAE would continue to operate Williamstown after this statement from them.
The cynic in me says that there is definitely some 'politics' being played at by BAE Australia (and the parent company) with this announcement, it may well be that the company has 'crunched' the numbers and decided that to 'appear' to be prepared to be pulling the pin on Williamstown it will force the Federal Government into either directly immediately award some work for the yard (where exactly the Government is going to pull that work out of 'thin air' apart from the 4th AWD I have no idea?) or it will try and force the Federal and State Governments into 'subsidising' the workforce 'until' there is actual work for the workforce to do (such as block work on the Future Frigate).
The other possibility (the cynical part of me thinks), is that BAE is prepared to walk away from operations at Williamstown, does BAE actually own the Williamstown site? If it does, well there are many 100's of millions of dollars to be recouped if the site was redeveloped for future residential and commercial use, or if it only leases the site, then it can probably walk away without having to worry about recouping it's investment in the site.
Is this the end of BAE's involvement in Naval shipbuilding in Australia? Not at all, there is of course it's site in WA and probably the 'big' prize it could be looking to obtain is ASC, at least for the beginning, the part of ASC that is building the AWD's and will probably build the Future Frigates and other Naval shipbuilding projects too, and that is where BAE's future probably lies, being based at the Techport site, out with the old and in with the new!!
Call me a cynic, but I wouldn't mind betting that there is more to BAE's announcement than meets the eye!!
And talking of ASC, it was interesting earlier in the week when Austal announced it was interested in ASC (at the right price too!), I wondered why at first, but as a report later in the week surfaced, it was announced that Austal was chasing the possibility of selling LCS type ships to Saudi Arabia, well then it made sense. Obviously if Austal was looking at another site to build LCS type ships in Australia (other than the WA facility that might be busy with other work, especially commercial work), then having a foothold at Techport makes sense, purchase ASC shipbuilding division and you have ready made infrastructure in place, of course if Austal wins the Saudi contract, it doesn't necessarily have to have procured ASC, there is plenty of space and scope for enlargement of the Techport site regardless!!!
Anyway, interesting moves and announcements this week by both BAE and Austal, just have to wait to see what happens in both cases.
And of course if will be interesting to see when the DWP is handed down what the Government's Naval shipbuilding plan is and how it may, or may not, involve or affect both Austal and BAE.
Cheers,
No Cookies | Herald Sun
(I'll get this out of the road first, the AMWU, what a joke, what an absolute joke, blaming the current Government for this situation, where was all the noise from that union about saving the jobs of the workers when their mates in the Federal Labor Party were in Government for six years and not 'one' ship was ordered, what a load of garbage!). Anyway, back to BAE.......
It's also interesting when BAE says, even if the Federal Government was to award the Pacific Patrol boat contract to build 21 ships in the first half of 2017 that production was unlikely to start until the end of next year or early 2018. And that it 'would not be economically viable' to 'rehire' a workforce, despite the 'hope' of retaining some of the existing workforce for the project.
The replacement Pacific Patrol Boats are without doubt the 'least complex' of any of the future naval shipbuilding projects and if BAE says it can't wait for a winner to be announced (assuming they did win it of course!), then if they are going to knock back the opportunity to bid for the PPB's, it would appear that any other project would be way way too far down the track to keep the yard going regardless.
The only exception (and maybe there is a bit of BAE politicking going on here too), is if the Government were to announce in the new DWP and Naval Shipbuilding program that a 4th AWD is to be procured and that block work would start immediately too, that is the only way I see that BAE would continue to operate Williamstown after this statement from them.
The cynic in me says that there is definitely some 'politics' being played at by BAE Australia (and the parent company) with this announcement, it may well be that the company has 'crunched' the numbers and decided that to 'appear' to be prepared to be pulling the pin on Williamstown it will force the Federal Government into either directly immediately award some work for the yard (where exactly the Government is going to pull that work out of 'thin air' apart from the 4th AWD I have no idea?) or it will try and force the Federal and State Governments into 'subsidising' the workforce 'until' there is actual work for the workforce to do (such as block work on the Future Frigate).
The other possibility (the cynical part of me thinks), is that BAE is prepared to walk away from operations at Williamstown, does BAE actually own the Williamstown site? If it does, well there are many 100's of millions of dollars to be recouped if the site was redeveloped for future residential and commercial use, or if it only leases the site, then it can probably walk away without having to worry about recouping it's investment in the site.
Is this the end of BAE's involvement in Naval shipbuilding in Australia? Not at all, there is of course it's site in WA and probably the 'big' prize it could be looking to obtain is ASC, at least for the beginning, the part of ASC that is building the AWD's and will probably build the Future Frigates and other Naval shipbuilding projects too, and that is where BAE's future probably lies, being based at the Techport site, out with the old and in with the new!!
Call me a cynic, but I wouldn't mind betting that there is more to BAE's announcement than meets the eye!!
And talking of ASC, it was interesting earlier in the week when Austal announced it was interested in ASC (at the right price too!), I wondered why at first, but as a report later in the week surfaced, it was announced that Austal was chasing the possibility of selling LCS type ships to Saudi Arabia, well then it made sense. Obviously if Austal was looking at another site to build LCS type ships in Australia (other than the WA facility that might be busy with other work, especially commercial work), then having a foothold at Techport makes sense, purchase ASC shipbuilding division and you have ready made infrastructure in place, of course if Austal wins the Saudi contract, it doesn't necessarily have to have procured ASC, there is plenty of space and scope for enlargement of the Techport site regardless!!!
Anyway, interesting moves and announcements this week by both BAE and Austal, just have to wait to see what happens in both cases.
And of course if will be interesting to see when the DWP is handed down what the Government's Naval shipbuilding plan is and how it may, or may not, involve or affect both Austal and BAE.
Cheers,
Actually John the "noise" about the need for work started back in 2011 when Gillard reneged on the key tenets of the 2010 DWP, moving away from the OCV and LCHR, but subsided with the start of the sub project (including a life extension of Collins) and the kick off of the AOR project. The change of government saw the AORs sent off shore and the indigenous sub design canned and a MOTS solution, almost certainly involving an overseas build of fewer hulls. Basically the unions, industry, the ADF, DMO, non union staff and management, related and supporting industries, universities, TAFE colleges, etc. all have a lot more to worry and complain about now compared to 18 months ago.
From what I know, those LCS are aluminum hulls so it is better off to build them on Austal's yard in Perth (which has lots of experiences on aluminium hulls) rather than on Williamstown or ASC facilities.
On the other hand, it seem more and more likely that Australia is going to keep only ONE yard for future surface combatants (and no local submarines), so it is a winner takes all situation and seems ASC will be the one for political reasons.
No offense to anyone from SA or ASC, but I would really prefer a shipbuilding hub in NSW rather than SA. IMHO, setting up the naval yard 2000km from FBE (just imagine if the base of RN's fleet is in Scapaflow Scottland but the yard is in St Petersburg, Russia) is just ..... not a really good idea.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Unless/until the requisite funding and permissions are obtained to either restart Cockatoo Island, or purchase and develop either a greenfield or brownfield site in Sydney Harbour it is not going to happen. Given the noise that has been put out about FBE being a 'problem' for Sydney, with the eyesores that certain people who are starting to live on the water have to look at RAN vessels in port, and/or the 'need' for more space for cruise ships to berth alongside...
I just do not see naval shipbuilding being restarted in Sydney. If Australia is going to keep a domestic naval shipbuilding capability, then either more (and more consistent) orders need to be booked, and/or some yard rationalization needs to occur.
From what I understand, of the currently active sites which are capable of undertaking shipbuilding/naval shipbuilding, these are BAE Australia's facilities in Henderson WA, and Williamstown VIC, ASC/Techport in SA, and Forgacs in NSW. I am deliberately leaving Austal out because they currently specialize in marine aluminum-hulled vessels built according to HSC standards, not naval vessels/warships.
Of these, IIRC the BAE Williamstown is an older and rather small facility, and the actual site lacks room for expansion if it was decided that larger naval vessels were to be built in Australia. Williamstown I believe can fitout completed hulls, but would not be able to assemble a large-hulled vessel, the facility just lacks the room and needed resources.
Forgacs in Newcastle I believe is doing some bloc work, but is not really configured for naval construction, and IIRC much of the current non-bloc work construction is for the offshore gas and petroleum industry, leaving little in the way of spare capacity for building vessels for the RAN. Also, the site itself I believe has issues in terms of how viable it would be to actually expand the site.
BAE in Henderson WA I believe has room/space for expansion if needed for larger vessels, and could be configured to build frigates and destroyers. Not sure though just how much upgrading and/or expansion would be required
ASC and Techport in SA has a modern facility, and while it currently is not large enough to build some of the larger (LHD or AOR-sized RAN vessels) there is space to upgrade and expand the site, plus Techport itself is not owned by ASC which means the decision to expand (or not) it not determined by the company. Depending on who decision-making authority rests on though, this could go either way in terms of good/bad.
Again, if Cockatoo had not been shut down after completion of HMAS Success, then I would say focus resources on keeping it in operation. Given that it is now about a generation too late for that... ASC and/or the Techport site seems the best choice for what is in the national interest.
Given the degree that politics has and will continue to have on procurement decisions based upon what is good for the party/party-members and not Australia as a whole, then I really am not sure which way such a decision would go.
peterAustralia
Member
In an ideal world it would be nice in Williamstown stayed on building ships for many many decades to come. Whether it will is another question.
Williamstown builds ships on a 7 degree slope slipway, whereas ASC builds them on the flat. Forgacs and Henderson I dont know.
Looking decades and decades into the future, how many ships are likely to be built, maybe the amount of work economically only fits into two or three yards? The skilled metalworkers, electriciains etc have very good chances of being employed elsewhere on very big money without amazingly difficulty. BAe is a massive mulitnational company, if they lose a small portion of their money if Williamstown folds, just maybe that is part of the ups and downs of being a massive mulitnational defence contractor.
I am not saying I want Williamstown to close, but are we going to keep looking back to errors made 20 years ago (and maybe even more recent), or think about what makes sense in decades to come
Williamstown builds ships on a 7 degree slope slipway, whereas ASC builds them on the flat. Forgacs and Henderson I dont know.
Looking decades and decades into the future, how many ships are likely to be built, maybe the amount of work economically only fits into two or three yards? The skilled metalworkers, electriciains etc have very good chances of being employed elsewhere on very big money without amazingly difficulty. BAe is a massive mulitnational company, if they lose a small portion of their money if Williamstown folds, just maybe that is part of the ups and downs of being a massive mulitnational defence contractor.
I am not saying I want Williamstown to close, but are we going to keep looking back to errors made 20 years ago (and maybe even more recent), or think about what makes sense in decades to come
Trackmaster
Member
The largest dock site available for redevelopment/refurbishment is Cairncross in Brisbane, recently mothballed by Forgacs.
The dock is big enough to take an LHD....there is plenty of land available for major fabrication sheds and there is a large fitting out wharf. (I suspect there is an Arleigh Burke tied up there at the moment.)
But it would take a huge leap of faith, contracts and bucket of money to put some life back into the place.
The dock is big enough to take an LHD....there is plenty of land available for major fabrication sheds and there is a large fitting out wharf. (I suspect there is an Arleigh Burke tied up there at the moment.)
But it would take a huge leap of faith, contracts and bucket of money to put some life back into the place.
Last edited:
Closing Cockatoo was one of the stupidest decisions in the history of Australian shipbuilding. In quite similar circumstances to today the government of the day (Labor ironically), determined that the performance of the yard was unsatisfactory due to problems with the construction of Success which led to the government deciding not to order the planned sister ship, close the yard and modernise Williamstown instead.
The problems with Success were poor quality build data, much still in French, lack of support from the designer and the fact the yard was coming out of a black hole and was still getting back up to speed. Sound familiar? During the 60s the DDGs had been built off shore, as were the following FFGs, with only minor vessels being ordered from Cockatoo between the last of the River class DEs and Success.
The sad thing is Cockatoo could easily and quite efficiently built all the Battles, Darings and Rivers, the DDGs, DDLs (the cancelled design replaced by the FFGs), converted the Battles and Darings into DDGs (as originally planned). Instead of Success one or two locally designed AOEs (Protector class) as well as the planned carrier replacement and the logistics ship to replace Sydney as a fast troop transport. It was also the most logical place to build submarines.
Politics, probably more pork barrelling than anything else, saw work being divied up around the country as well as being sent off shore for the sake of short term savings. IMO had we simply made use of and expanded the facilities at Cockatoo Island we could have economically constructed every major post war RAN combatant and support vessel for the same or less money than we spent in our hodge podge reality.
Rumour has it Johnston was looking to appoint BAE to manage ASC, i.e. the government was going to pay BAE, the source of the single biggest cost blowout and delay of the AWD program, to take ASC off their hands. With a brand new state of the art yard built to the latest specs by specialists from BIW (who are years ahead of BAE) as well as the most highly trained and skilled shipbuilding workforce in the southern hemisphere (the people who found and fixed what BAE stuffed) why would they bother keeping Williamstown?
Mate, I am not talking about restarting Cockatoo, I am talking about upgrading Forgacs in Newcastle. If we are having the shipbuilding yards in SA or Victoria, RAN still have to keep an extra yard in NSW for light maintenance works. So why don't we establish the shipbuilding based in NSW as well so we can have a sustainable industry as all shipbuilding, major overhaul and light maintenance for the surface fleet can be done in the same yard and fully utilize/retain the skilled personals?
NC has a good industrial base, and there are plenty of space to expand the dock over there. Yes, it is not right over Sydney harbor, but it is just 200km rather than 2000km from FBE (in fact, NC is a little bit closer to FBE than HMAS Albatross in Nowra).It is close enough so RAN personals from FBE can drive up to NC (just a 2hr drive)for work and back Sydney for dinner (so, no need to relocate to SA for major projects), which is good for crew retention. If we are getting F-35B for the LPD, Willimstown AFB is just next door, perfect.
All thing considered, in long term, it is better and cheaper for RAN to have the yard in NC (or anywhere on the coast of NSW) rather than in SA or Vic. The only "problem" I can think of, is that Newcastle is an ALP's stronghold.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Canada's national ship building program decided only two yards would be allowed to build future naval ships (Vancouver and Halifax). The decision was part politics, part geography, and not in Quebec. As our future naval needs will likely continue to diminish due to an apathetic electorate, two yards is likely one too many for us whereas two to three seems reasonable for Australia.
John, as our navy has 2 major naval base (FBE in Sydney and FBW in Perth), we are going to have 2 yards in close proximity to those naval bases.
The only question is, does it make sense to have an EXTRA shipbuilding hub in Australia that is 1000km (Victoria) or 2000 km (SA) from our major customer (the navy)?
For all those extra cost for fuel, relocation, short term accommodation and crew retraining (due to poor crew retention) that our navy has to pay up for their ship works in ASC, or Willimstown in 20 years, we may better-off relocate all the technicians and engineers from those yards and re-establish a new yard in NSW.
peterAustralia
Member
If Canada can build all the ships it needs with only 2 yards,,, then maybe here in Oz, we could do the same. Then each yard would be more viable, as there would be more work per yard. Of course not having a single ship ordered in going on 7 years does not help anyone. Canberra class fitout was a little bit of work I guess. Canada has 35 million people,,, 2 naval shipyards,,, Oz has 23 million (guesstimate),, so maybe 2 shipyards is all we need?
If Labor had ordered four OPVs, an off the shelf design of say 1800t, that would have been a quite useful capability, I am sure unit cost would be pretty modest as long as the navy avoided the temptation to add all sorts of stuff to make them into corvettes. A quite nice, modest project that would have fitted right in the middle of the larger destroyer/frigate builds, and given a steady stream of work to keep people busy
If Labor had ordered four OPVs, an off the shelf design of say 1800t, that would have been a quite useful capability, I am sure unit cost would be pretty modest as long as the navy avoided the temptation to add all sorts of stuff to make them into corvettes. A quite nice, modest project that would have fitted right in the middle of the larger destroyer/frigate builds, and given a steady stream of work to keep people busy
- Status