Yep a lot of building is off to WA but it is not a given that "WA" means Austal and no other. The three builder shortlisted for the OPV have a say in this process and the future frigate may also have a distributed build process.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Yep a lot of building is off to WA but it is not a given that "WA" means Austal and no other. The three builder shortlisted for the OPV have a say in this process and the future frigate may also have a distributed build process.
As unpopular and unsupported as Rudd was, the paper that came out under Rudd was the right paper. While Rudd as a leader may have been a disaster, for what ever reason his WP team didn't underestimate some of the situations that are now very much realities.
Things that seemed positively fanciful in 2010 like 12 large subs, 8+ 7,000t anzac replacements, 20 very large OCV/OPV's are now very much coming to life. There were a few good ideas in that paper that both sides have adopted. I would imagine it gave some of the US liaisons with Australia some interesting talking points.
6/7 years later and those things are happening. Of course, it would have been better if we were just about ready to cut steel on the new frigates and submarines, and had very tangible OPV design selected.
But the paper did give everyone a pretty good heads up and identify needs.
ASC is going to be pretty busy between subs and frigates. I see this as a good thing as it gets the WA mafia out of tearing apart ASC and derailing those projects, and WA can then focus on ships like the OPVs which no doubt they will lobby for as many as possible.Being and east and west builder will be very interesting.
Big facility. It fits a destroyer and a frigate/opv with all the sub assembly sheds surrounding it. They aren't messing around. If Australia ever wanted to accelerate a ship building program, having a large yard like this dedicate to military builds and maintenance would be a good start.
End of the day we have to stop the cannibalisation where major infrastructure and established workforces are sacrificed in favour of rebuilding in another state. Its a waste of tax payers money and eats into defence capability. Forgacs, Tenix, ADI and ASC all had superior designs to Austal but they got the work. Cockatoo was better than Williamstown but they were shut and Williamstown redeveloped. Once Williamstown was upto speed and performing well they were starved of work and a new facility was built in Adelaide. On and on it goes.
the road runner
Active Member
Launch ceremony of Brisbane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VkbCagyn9Y&t=0s
Seemed like Brisbane got no love.... hip hip,,,,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VkbCagyn9Y&t=0s
Seemed like Brisbane got no love.... hip hip,,,,
basically because that muppet xenophon distracted the media with his french sub stunt
tosser
FREMM and MILAS
FREMM would give us an integrated MU-90 air delivery option (MILAS cannister-launched ASW missile) after the failed efforts to integrate the torpedo with Sea Sprite, Seahawk and AP-3C. Shallow water is still the ASW challenge. Believe the Italians also have an integration solution for MU-90 in the P-8?
FREMM would give us an integrated MU-90 air delivery option (MILAS cannister-launched ASW missile) after the failed efforts to integrate the torpedo with Sea Sprite, Seahawk and AP-3C. Shallow water is still the ASW challenge. Believe the Italians also have an integration solution for MU-90 in the P-8?
Not helped by the complete lack of any PR by Defence or ASC in the build up to launch. All in all a dismal effort for what should have been a great day......... utterly pathetic.
this is a really dumbed down article, but gives an appreciation of the DCNS approach.
the comment about acoustics being managed on 3 primary vectors is really basic and misses a whole pile of things, but, beggars can't be choosers....
http://pacificsentinel.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/think-tank-designing-shortfin-barracuda.html
the comment about acoustics being managed on 3 primary vectors is really basic and misses a whole pile of things, but, beggars can't be choosers....
http://pacificsentinel.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/think-tank-designing-shortfin-barracuda.html
Maybe they have their sights set higher than OPVs?
Huntington Ingalls set up shop in Australia recently, presumably because the Americans are thinking how nice it would be to have some fleet repair capabilities at the southern end of the Asian achipelago. Given the Lombok Straight is vital for the PLAN to access the Indian Ocean, Fremantle would be a sensible place to develop a USN base.
The fellas at Forgacs might get rich if they team up with HI.
I suspect they are initially after the follow on OPVs as well as the sustainment and upgrade work currently conducted by BAE. Being an alternative to Austal and BAE is smart if things change and they go for a distributed build on skimmers and subs, or maybe even future amphibs and support vessels.
So far we have SAC in Adelaide, Forgacs, BAE, Thales, all foreign owned, Austal, the Tassy firm whose ship we used during the Timor crisis, and several other smaller Australian owned yards all competing for a limited amount of work. Now the Yanks want to get involved.
Is there enough work for the shipyards already established?
Is there enough work for the shipyards already established?
There actually is enough work for all involved if performed appropriatly. Austal and Incat are set up well to perform export's not actually relying on Australian work, Forgac's and BAE would both be best off aiming for block assembly work with ASC being the main yard putting togethor the final product.
With the ship's getting larger along with an increase in submarines there will be a larger amount of individual blocks to be built amongst all involved, Add in that it appears we are moving from a 30 year life span towards a 20 year life span then you actually get a 50% increase in work per a year under the new method.
So lack of work for all existing facilities is not an issue, As to the Americans setting up shop I don't think they are so much aiming to build a new yard rather then work with existing yards, or possibly take over an existing yard. With how intergrated the RAN is with the USN the US firms setting up shop permantly in Australia makes perfect sense as we are moving to supply them garaunteed work, better for business.
Well the advantages for foreign owned ship yards in Australia depending on how you look at it. The first being a 'peace time' (i.e. not a World War). The second being a 'non-peace time' (i.e. a world war or Australian mainland being threatened.
The first being the current period we are experiencing, we have a known demand and potent for more work due to gaining experience through the current plans, this allows multiple ship builders to compete for Australian local builds and high quality producing due to the experience of our current companies and industry. This is good for Australia because it creates a competitiveness for companies to low their prices and/or shorten their time frame of production, both good outcomes if you are trying to build ships (which Australia and other nations are currently doing). It can also create a competent maintenance force for Australian built ships.
The second way to look at it is in a war time environment, it could create a new ease of maintenance for Australian built ships going in and out of combat and needing their own fair share of remediation work, upgrades or damage repair. It also can create fall back bases in the case of Australia being invaded or fleet bases being destroyed (Yes i understand very unlikely and hard to do but it is better than nothing). Foreign owned shipbuilders can also bring their own hardships i.e. planning and communication errors, which can effect productiveness. Foreign owners can also take their investments back home, if their company is in danger of being over run or going into financial woes. It could also bring Australian jobs and new skills in our workplace's. Another possibility is of (only for imaginative purposes) say Spain was over run, Navantia would immediately move their base of operations and other parts of their company to Australia due to safety and current work in Australia.
These are some of the possibilities of foreign shipbuilder setting up shop in Australia , some possibilities many never come true.
I hope this answered your question Hairyman
The first being the current period we are experiencing, we have a known demand and potent for more work due to gaining experience through the current plans, this allows multiple ship builders to compete for Australian local builds and high quality producing due to the experience of our current companies and industry. This is good for Australia because it creates a competitiveness for companies to low their prices and/or shorten their time frame of production, both good outcomes if you are trying to build ships (which Australia and other nations are currently doing). It can also create a competent maintenance force for Australian built ships.
The second way to look at it is in a war time environment, it could create a new ease of maintenance for Australian built ships going in and out of combat and needing their own fair share of remediation work, upgrades or damage repair. It also can create fall back bases in the case of Australia being invaded or fleet bases being destroyed (Yes i understand very unlikely and hard to do but it is better than nothing). Foreign owned shipbuilders can also bring their own hardships i.e. planning and communication errors, which can effect productiveness. Foreign owners can also take their investments back home, if their company is in danger of being over run or going into financial woes. It could also bring Australian jobs and new skills in our workplace's. Another possibility is of (only for imaginative purposes) say Spain was over run, Navantia would immediately move their base of operations and other parts of their company to Australia due to safety and current work in Australia.
These are some of the possibilities of foreign shipbuilder setting up shop in Australia , some possibilities many never come true.
I hope this answered your question Hairyman
Just for context .....Austal have moved much of their civil production to the Phillipines and mainly build military and policing vessels in Australia. INCAT has low production rates and there is a lot of competition in this market. Add to that INCAT have specialist skills for a certain vessel type and, while the HMAS Jervis Bay was leased for Timor there are operating limitations on such vessels.
Err ..... really. You have wandered off into some interesting postulation that does not resinate with reality. Spain overrun..... fall back bases ...... mate if this is happening then the world really has gone to pot.
A few things that are worth noting:
- Commerical ship building and repair in Australia was in decline due to a combination of operating costs and administrative costs (you have to import a foreign ship to repair it here ..... and pay duty on it ..... unbelievable). The Naval shipbuilding will help stem the loss of skills.
- This has resulted in a lot of docks closing meaning Australian commercial vessel have to gove overseas for regular docking. The increase in facilities for naval needs is helping alleviate this issue. If you look at the ASC videos you will see tugs and coastal RO-PAX ferries on the stand.
- Increased international involvement in facilities may see additional work done in Australia for non-Australian projects.
It is worth noting that Techport itself (and AMC in Henderson) are both Common User Faclities owned by the respective state governments. The the infrastructure is Australian owned.
- Status