Why?
Haven't our current builds shown that we can't do it ourselves. Wouldn't it be better to just focus on a strong maintenance ability rather then hull construction. I appreciate that there is a lot of skills maintenance in construction that follows onto the support contracts laters but I think the shipbuilding industry has the wool pulled over governments eyes.
How many billions is Australian made worth? We seem to have committed 25-35 billion to produce our own subs so going off past DMO results that's likely to be 60-100 billion for 12 subs.
At what point do we say, it's too expensive as the money to build and maintain will have to be diverted from other strategic expense.
There has to be a tipping point, there was for Holden, but no one is willing to say what it is for each type vessel in shipbuilding.
Much earlier in either this RAN thread or one of the predecessors, there was discussion of a number of government reports on the cost-benefit of building in Australia. The numbers are from memory and could be off somewhat, or have changed a bit with time so please keep that in mind.
If two warships were under consideration for RAN service, with one being a foreign built vessel and the other being an Australian built vessel costing 30% more and everything else were exactly the same, the Australian built vessel would have a lower net cost to Australia. This is because despite the higher costs associated with materials, labor, etc with Australia, a much greater amount of money spent by the RAN/Australian Gov't would remain within Australia, and get re-circulated back into the Australian economy in the form of prices paid to (Australian) suppliers for materials, wages paid to shipyard employees, etc. Those suppliers would then go on to pay their suppliers and workers, the shipyard employees and other workers would pay taxes on those wages, and then pay their rent or mortgages, buy food and other goods and services from grocers and shops, and so on down the various chains and the money paid by the Gov't for the RAN warships re-circulates through the local, regional and national economies.
With that in mind, unless/until the RAN can purchase major warships from overseas yards which meet Australian service needs and cost something like 50% or more less than a comparable Australian-built vessel, then it is still better for the warships to be built within Australia when possible.
Given the current size limitations of Williamstown, Henderson and ASC and the closure of Cockatoo Island, I believe some vessels are better largely built overseas (or the hull at least) like the LHD's, and future AOR and other logistics, support and sealift vessels.
Keep in mind that due to the recurring planning problems different Australian Gov'ts have had in managing a ship building programme, that has only added to the difficulties and costs associated with building Australian warships. By allowing multi-year gaps between ships under construction, those skilled yard workers have their skills atrophy, requiring re-skilling, or replacement with new workers that require skilling. Either way, there is a learning curve before the yard workers are again skilled which can help increase production speed, reduce errors and lower cost. With the 'Valley of Death' in naval shipbuilding, different Australian shipyards keep having this boom/bust cycle.
Given the current capabilities of Australian shipyards, and the reasonable assumptions about future capabilities, then IMO future naval shipbuilding should focus one either ASC in SA, BAE in Williamstown or BAE in Henderson. Other yards and facilities could contribute with module construction, but one of those three should be the main/sole point of assembly. Austal (or Incat for that matter) could of course contribute to RAN and BPC vessels with smallcraft, and some minor vessels or landing craft. However, given Austal's specialty in marine grade aluminum hull construction, I do not see it as being reasonable to assume that Austal's Australian facility would switch to steel construction which most major warships require. I also do not think it likely or appropriate for Australia to follow the USN down the LCS route for some warships like the FFH replacement, given the range of operations RAN vessels require and the number of unknowns which still exist with the LCS designs in terms of capabilities, operational ranges, and initial and ongoing support costs.
Also given that due to the average timeline many Australia defence programmes have between programme start and first delivery (14 years IIRC) then if the ANZAC FFH replacement programme were to deliver the first vessel in 2022, the initial programme should have started in 2008 or thereabouts.
-Cheers
