It is interesting. Looks like Incat wants to expand its capability. Looks like a partnership with Haywards. Incat just invested a lot into its dock and capability. By partnering with a steel fabricator they can offer a fairly substantial range of expertise. Haywards have a slip (margate) but only of 600t and 80m capability.
IMO - and this seems silly, I don't think all the OCV/OPV all need to be exactly the same type.
Its quite likely they be either steel hull but aluminium superstructure or all aluminium.
I like JHSV type ships, I think they can definitely offer something in many areas. But others have pointed out, these ships are expensive to buy and operate. Any requirement could be leased relatively easily. Like HSV-2 "Swift" which is available for hire right now.
HMAS Jarvis Bay cost Australia $16m for the lease (two years). Given it pretty much saved Australia's arse and lifted a significant amount to and from ET it seems like it was money well spent. It still operates as a commercial ferry. So unlikely other types, these types can flip between Military and Civilian service relatively quickly. Jarvis was leased in May and commissioned on the 10th June and sailed into Dili as the first RAN ship in early September.
Imagine if all our ship procurement was purchased and then in the area of operations within 5 months of inking the deal.
Regarding the valley of death the only way it would work is if the hulls are unmodified. The project would need to treat the F-105 hull as an existing ship. If that was the case orders could be placed today and steel cut, soon, in a few weeks?
Hi Mate, yes it is interesting the tie up of TKMS and Incat for the PPB's, especially bidding for steel hulled boats when Incat's history has been aluminium.
I think we will see a lot of shipbuilders 'positioning' themselves for a slice of the action with the upcoming Naval shipbuilding bonanza that the Government is soon to announce.
We've had Austal come out and say it interesting in taking over ASC as an example of that too, it will be interesting to see where BAE ends up in the mix, especially since they said they wouldn't bid for the PPB's, no doubt they are after bigger fish! Lots of politics to play out in the coming months!!
As to your point about the future OCV's not all 'needing' to be all exactly the same type, I disagree, I'll explain why.
If we are talking about SEA1180 and it's plan to replace the four different classes that are the current ACPB's, mine warfare and the two Hydrographic classes, then I definitely think that a single class of 20 OPV's of a same class (for example the Damen OPV-2 80+m and 1800 to 2000t version, being my pick).
To me the big advantage of picking a same/single class of 20 OPV's to cover the roles mentioned above, is that each ships will be the same and have the same 'core' crew that understands their ship well, plus obviously the specialist additional crew for mine warfare and hydrographic tasks, etc.
The big benefit to me would be the ability of Navy to 'rebalance' the roles at any given time, eg, the Navy needs extra hulls deployed for mine warfare, just add the 'core' crew and the mission specialist to a ship that may have been performing hydrographic or patrol duties day's before and you are operational almost immediately.
There are a whole range of examples, need a replacement in any of the areas that SEA1180 intended then it's just a matter of one or more hulls being reallocated to that particular role, same core crew, add or subtract the mission specific crew, the only different to any crew performing any role is the number painted on the side of the hull!
If on the other hand you are talking about OPV/OCV's in other 'expanded' roles, then yes, I agree that multiple types are probably more relevant to that specific task, but maybe that should be additional hulls above the stated need for the 20 SEA1180 hulls planned to replace the 26 hulls of the four classes that SEA1180 is proposed to do.