Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

A senate committee wants to reopen tenders for replacing the navy's supply ships.

Committee says reopen ship tender

There may be some benefits in building in Australia, but I think the argument that these ships are probably too big to be built locally has a lot of merit. These ships will be getting up around the size of Australia's LHDs ... which of course were built overseas because of their sheer size.

Australia needs yet another budget blowout for a shipbuilding program like a hole in the head.

Unfortunately, unlike the UK, Canada has decided to build 2 supply ships (Berlin class design) locally whereas the UK is building 4 Tide Class ships in S Korea. The UK ships will be 10,000 tons larger and will take less time to build with a price equal to that it will cost us to build 2 ships. There is merit in building actual fighting ships locally if possible even with a price disadvantage but Supply ships, no way. Save the corporate and union welfare payouts for actual fighting ships.

 

[Volkodav]

A senate committee wants to reopen tenders for replacing the navy's supply ships.

Committee says reopen ship tender

There may be some benefits in building in Australia, but I think the argument that these ships are probably too big to be built locally has a lot of merit. These ships will be getting up around the size of Australia's LHDs ... which of course were built overseas because of their sheer size.

Australia needs yet another budget blowout for a shipbuilding program like a hole in the head.

Tech Port in SA was designed to be expanded and can easily build ships of this size, which are actually simpler than warships. I feel that the decision to build off shore was purely political and intended to punish Labor voting states and to further bash the manufacturing industry. It would not surprise me at all if any upfront savings made by building off shore were lost when the costs on employment, local businesses and lost tax receipts are factored in, not to mention the wasted billions in investment if we don't use the infrastructure and workforce so expensively grown over the last decade.

 

[John Newman]

A senate committee wants to reopen tenders for replacing the navy's supply ships.

Committee says reopen ship tender

There may be some benefits in building in Australia, but I think the argument that these ships are probably too big to be built locally has a lot of merit. These ships will be getting up around the size of Australia's LHDs ... which of course were built overseas because of their sheer size.

Australia needs yet another budget blowout for a shipbuilding program like a hole in the head.

Let's see if I've got this correct, we have a Labor dominated Senate Committee that is complaining about the current Government ordering the replacement replenishment ships from overseas yards? Correct? Complete hypocrisy on their behalf!

Where were these loud voices demanding ships being built in Australia for the RAN during the six long years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government? Where?

In those six years not one ship was ordered from an Australian yard, not one, nil, zero!!

And talking of Techport, why in those six years didn't they invest some of the GFC 'spendathon' money on building up Techport? A worthwhile infrastructure project instead of wasting it on pink batts, vastly overpriced school halls, digital set top boxes for pensions, etc, etc.

What a joke!

 

[Massive]

... and the ASC yard will assemble a new boat every two years.

Interestingly a 2 year build, 24 year service life and a 12 boat fleet would allow a continuous build cycle.

What am I missing?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Todjaeger]

Interestingly a 2 year build, 24 year service life and a 12 boat fleet would allow a continuous build cycle.

What am I missing?

Regards,

Massive

A bi-partisan commitment from Gov't to a building plan, which would survive changes in gov't?

Also Volk, AFAIK Techport is not able to accomodate building such a large vessel as an AOR at present. There is expansion room which could enable it to do so, but see my commentary above...

-Cheers

 

[protoplasm]

A bi-partisan commitment from Gov't to a building plan, which would survive changes in gov't?

Also Volk, AFAIK Techport is not able to accomodate building such a large vessel as an AOR at present. There is expansion room which could enable it to do so, but see my commentary above...

-Cheers

You are correct at present, but expansion room has been left that would allow something the size of an AOR to be built at Techport. The biggest change that would be needed is to significantly lengthen and strengthen the ship lift, the rest is fairly minor in comparison.

The single biggest issue in this is not industrial capacity, but political will. A lack of bi-partisan approach is the thing that'll ensure this becomes another mess.

 

[King Wally]

Unfortunately, unlike the UK, Canada has decided to build 2 supply ships (Berlin class design) locally whereas the UK is building 4 Tide Class ships in S Korea. The UK ships will be 10,000 tons larger and will take less time to build with a price equal to that it will cost us to build 2 ships. There is merit in building actual fighting ships locally if possible even with a price disadvantage but Supply ships, no way. Save the corporate and union welfare payouts for actual fighting ships.

Yeah I agree. If not say a future frigate kick off then look at a LCH style or OPV option for a local build to keep things kicking over. There's a number of good options to funnel work through locally that will still see the RAN pick up some much needed ships.

An LCH build would fill a great hole in the low end Amphibious structure, tasks the LHD would be pure overkill for, or perhaps greater support for the ARG as a whole .... and likewise a OPV would be that perfect middle range option between a real War Frigate and a Armidale Class Patrol Boat which honestly seams to struggle to keep up with the demands of chasing refugee boats/pirates etc. You would free up the Frigates for real war-fighting missions and keep the Patrol Boats for use closer to shore or even handballed over to Customs!

 

[alexsa]

Tech Port in SA was designed to be expanded and can easily build ships of this size, which are actually simpler than warships. I feel that the decision to build off shore was purely political and intended to punish Labor voting states and to further bash the manufacturing industry. It would not surprise me at all if any upfront savings made by building off shore were lost when the costs on employment, local businesses and lost tax receipts are factored in, not to mention the wasted billions in investment if we don't use the infrastructure and workforce so expensively grown over the last decade.

There will be a massive difference in cost and time (noting the facilities at this time cannot do it). Following up series production of the AEGIR makes sense as it is in production in SK now and can be delivered in very short order.

I think that if we get a sustainable naval ship building plan from the ANZAC II to the next SSG, OPV and next AWD we can keep our yards busy and build capacity. This would allow the next round of support vessels to be built here.

It would need bipartisan support.

 

[John Newman]

Interestingly a 2 year build, 24 year service life and a 12 boat fleet would allow a continuous build cycle.

What am I missing?

Regards,

Massive

Yeah well I did say it was a bit of a 'fractured faiytale'!

But it is interesting when you look at Japanese production and service lives of their various classes of subs, below are the details of the last four classes:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB_class_submarine"]SÅryÅ«-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]



Oyashio-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harushio_class_submarine"]Harushio-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yūshio-class_submarine


There are two yards, involved in the construction, a new boat is being commissioned every 12 months, so you would assume that they 'alternate' from one yard to the other, eg, a 2 year build time, and on it goes.

There are currently 5 Soryu in commission (another 5 under construction or planned), 11 Oyashio in commission and two of the previous Harushio class in service in the training role (and apparently another one used for testing), so that is currently 16 active plus 2 training, and I understand it, there are plans to get the submarine fleet size to 20 boats.

Apart from the two current active classes, each of the proceeding classes appears to have been in commission for approximately 20 years, when a boat get's to 20 years old, it is decommissioned and a new boat of the following class commissions.

One could assume that somewhere down the track when the oldest of the Oyashio reaches 20 years old it will be retired (or become a training boat) and it will be replaced by new built Soryu, and on it appears to go.

Maybe 20 years doesn't sound like a long time (possibly they only have a major mid-life refit and upgrade??), but you would assume that a lot of money is being saved by not pouring into upgrading/refitting an older boats and instead pouring it into new construction.

So is that a model we could follow if we were to get into co-production with Japan on Soryu (or Son of Soryu)? Japan has an active fleet of 20 we have an active fleet of 10.

Yes the current plan is for 12 boats (which I have trouble seeing that we could ever actually afford to operate all 12 anyway), so if it was a 'constant' fleet of 10, one commissioned every 2 years, when the first get to 20ish years old, it is replaced by the next one in the production cycle, and on it goes, continuous production.

But yes as Tod said, it would need bi-partisan commitment from both sides of politics and that when there are changes of Government the program just continues on.

I wouldn't bet my house on that ever happening!!

 

[Volkodav]

Let's see if I've got this correct, we have a Labor dominated Senate Committee that is complaining about the current Government ordering the replacement replenishment ships from overseas yards? Correct? Complete hypocrisy on their behalf!

Where were these loud voices demanding ships being built in Australia for the RAN during the six long years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government? Where?

In those six years not one ship was ordered from an Australian yard, not one, nil, zero!!

And talking of Techport, why in those six years didn't they invest some of the GFC 'spendathon' money on building up Techport? A worthwhile infrastructure project instead of wasting it on pink batts, vastly overpriced school halls, digital set top boxes for pensions, etc, etc.

What a joke!

During the GFC Rudd attended the official opening of the ASC facility at Tech Port, there was an air of expectation that he was there to announce a fourth AWD but it didn't happen. I would not be in the slightest surprised if when the cabinet papers are released they show Rudd and his allies wanted a fourth ship, LCH replacements and the OCVs and were willing and ready to invest but Gillard and her left wing cohorts blocked it with the threat of rolling him from the top job, as they did with the mining tax and the ETS. Just look at Smiths white paper vs Fitzgibbons, the implication was the GFC and financial situation was the reason for the new WP but it is quite clear the real issue was Gillard, left wing peacenik twit she is, hates defence.

 

[peterAustralia]

I guess the question is, what is the acceptable premium for building ships in Australia? If an Australian built ship costs say 30 percent more that overseas built, then probably building at home is best. But if an Australian built ship costs say 100 percent more than buying from overseas then it becomes much harder to justify.

So there has to be a figure where building overseas makes more sense. Is it 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent? I dont really know

If you are willing to charge a premium for Australian built ships, does that apply for other things, cars, steel, artillery, planes, APCs, trucks, graders, earth moving equipment, computers, clothing, TVs, radios, furniture, trains, valves etc etc. And if your willing to accept a premium,, then how much?

Trouble is that Australia is getting richer and richer, wages are going up. Hard to compete against South Korea, Vietnam, Bangladesh where wages are a fraction of those at home

Who would have thought,,, Bangladesh of all places as a major shipbuilding nation, but they are and the reason is cheap labour. Fifty years ago the skills to build ships was limited to first and second world nations, now is seems the technology has spread. We like our cheap TVs, cheap clothes, cheap shoes and, cheap laptops.

I am not saying there we should not pay a premium for locally built ships, what I am getting at, is that the premium should be stated, maybe 30 to 40 percent is OK? 50 percent,,, still probably yes,,,, 90 percent more and hmmmmm

 

[John Newman]

During the GFC Rudd attended the official opening of the ASC facility at Tech Port, there was an air of expectation that he was there to announce a fourth AWD but it didn't happen. I would not be in the slightest surprised if when the cabinet papers are released they show Rudd and his allies wanted a fourth ship, LCH replacements and the OCVs and were willing and ready to invest but Gillard and her left wing cohorts blocked it with the threat of rolling him from the top job, as they did with the mining tax and the ETS. Just look at Smiths white paper vs Fitzgibbons, the implication was the GFC and financial situation was the reason for the new WP but it is quite clear the real issue was Gillard, left wing peacenik twit she is, hates defence.

V, I suspect you are correct that Rudd was probably more than likely to be more favourable to defence, especially compared to Gillard and her leftie mates!

And yes the cabinet papers of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd period will make interesting reading, just hope I'm still around (and have my marbles) to read them one day!

But the fact still remains that during that six year period not one single ship was ordered from and Australian yard, and now we have the knuckle draggers in the Senate (who were part of that Government for six years) complaining that the current Government is ordering the replenishment ships from overseas, it's a joke, a ridiculous joke!

And as for all those many many 10's of Billions of dollars spent and wasted during the GFC, if only a reasonable percentage had gone into valuable infrastructure projects, road, rail, ports and of course Techport.

If a few 'spare' Billion (and maybe not even that much) has been invested in enlarging the shiplift, increasing the hardstand areas, build halls, etc, etc, then maybe the current Government 'might' have been in a position to order the replenishment ships in country, or at the very least they could reasonably held to account for not ordering in country.

I could imagine that if the current Government did commit to building the replenishment ships in Adelaide that it would probably be a good 10 years or more before the first of the ships hit the water, have to find the money and expand Techport first, and then start construction.

But can the Navy wait that long? I would suspect not.

 

[Volkodav]

A bi-partisan commitment from Gov't to a building plan, which would survive changes in gov't?

Also Volk, AFAIK Techport is not able to accomodate building such a large vessel as an AOR at present. There is expansion room which could enable it to do so, but see my commentary above...

-Cheers

All it would need is an extension of the ship lift that could be undertaken while the AOR is being consolidated. The building halls were built larger than needed to future proof the facility and can accommodate blocks twice the size of those used on the AWD. The crane used for lifting the blocks for consolidation is the largest in the southern hemisphere and there is plenty of space on existing the hardstand for three AWDs and an AOR if required.

The facility was scaled for the simultaneous build of four destroyers and the fabrication of blocks for the LHDs as well as work on other planned projects. The issue was the government opted for a overseas build of the LHD hull and then their successors failed to order a single ship in six years, deciding instead to stretch the schedule for the destroyers removing the need and the workload required to expand the workforce to what was initially planned, i.e. ASC shipbuilding only hired between 60 and 70% of the originally planned workforce.

If an Australian government was smart they would be hiring workers from the automotive industry as that winds down and expanding shipbuilding in Adelaide and Melbourne building AORs, OPVs, LCH replacements and then the new subs and frigates. the trouble is Australian government, although they have some smart members are not in themselves very smart.

 

[John Newman]

I guess the question is, what is the acceptable premium for building ships in Australia? If an Australian built ship costs say 30 percent more that overseas built, then probably building at home is best. But if an Australian built ship costs say 100 percent more than buying from overseas then it becomes much harder to justify.

So there has to be a figure where building overseas makes more sense. Is it 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent? I dont really know

If you are willing to charge a premium for Australian built ships, does that apply for other things, cars, steel, artillery, planes, APCs, trucks, graders, earth moving equipment, computers, clothing, TVs, radios, furniture, trains, valves etc etc. And if your willing to accept a premium,, then how much?

Trouble is that Australia is getting richer and richer, wages are going up. Hard to compete against South Korea, Vietnam, Bangladesh where wages are a fraction of those at home

Who would have thought,,, Bangladesh of all places as a major shipbuilding nation, but they are and the reason is cheap labour. Fifty years ago the skills to build ships was limited to first and second world nations, now is seems the technology has spread. We like our cheap TVs, cheap clothes, cheap shoes and, cheap laptops.

I am not saying there we should not pay a premium for locally built ships, what I am getting at, is that the premium should be stated, maybe 30 to 40 percent is OK? 50 percent,,, still probably yes,,,, 90 percent more and hmmmmm

Peter,

I personally don't see anything wrong with paying a 'reasonable' premium for a defence product in a strategic industry made here in Australia, the money goes around and around in the economy many times over, employs people, they pay tax and keeps them off the dole, all a good idea.

But there has to be a strategic plan, a long term plan, not the stop / start / stop / start that happens over and over, especially in the shipbuilding sector, is it ever going to change? Unfortunately I suspect not, both sides of politics share the blame on that front.

At the risk of repeating myself over the last couple of posts, for example, if the previous Government, had at the very least invested in Techport during the GFC, and even if it didn't order one ship (which it didn't) then the path would be laid out for a following Government (regardless of left or right) to take advantage of that previous infrastructure spend and start building ships!!

If the Navy had 10 years up it's sleeve to wait for 'locally' built replenishment ships, then I would say great! order them now, but I suspect that the Navy doesn't have 10 years to wait for the infrastructure to be built and then start building the ships.

At the end of the day, to my way of thinking, the needs of the RAN comes first, if it can be built locally great, but if it can't within a reasonable time frame, then build overseas.

 

[Volkodav]

V, I suspect you are correct that Rudd was probably more than likely to be more favourable to defence, especially compared to Gillard and her leftie mates!

And yes the cabinet papers of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd period will make interesting reading, just hope I'm still around (and have my marbles) to read them one day!

But the fact still remains that during that six year period not one single ship was ordered from and Australian yard, and now we have the knuckle draggers in the Senate (who were part of that Government for six years) complaining that the current Government is ordering the replenishment ships from overseas, it's a joke, a ridiculous joke!

And as for all those many many 10's of Billions of dollars spent and wasted during the GFC, if only a reasonable percentage had gone into valuable infrastructure projects, road, rail, ports and of course Techport.

If a few 'spare' Billion (and maybe not even that much) has been invested in enlarging the shiplift, increasing the hardstand areas, build halls, etc, etc, then maybe the current Government 'might' have been in a position to order the replenishment ships in country, or at the very least they could reasonably held to account for not ordering in country.

I could imagine that if the current Government did commit to building the replenishment ships in Adelaide that it would probably be a good 10 years or more before the first of the ships hit the water, have to find the money and expand Techport first, and then start construction.

But can the Navy wait that long? I would suspect not.

With you 100% on this, a fourth AWD and a third LHD would have been small change compared to all the money spent and would have been used to recruit extra workers, made redundant from mining, construction and other manufacturing during the GFC, to train up for the extra work.

The reason the LHD hulls were built in Spain was there was a concern that the projects would not be able to recruit sufficient workers, the GFC changed this. Construction companies would have loved the opportunity to build expanded infrastructure in Tech Port, Williamstown and Forgacs.

The extra workers would have not only permitted the third LHD to be constructed entirely in Australia but would also have seen a workforce and infrastructure set ready for the AORs including building the first instead of double hulling Success (monumental waste of money). The extra block work along could have been farmed out to Queensland and WA as well as to SA Victoria and NSW.

This expanded industry would have then been set to build the OCV, which its detractors said industry wasn't big enough to handle, before going onto a continuous sub build, replacement frigates and LCHs.

Our efficient industry, supported by local builds, would have been back to where it was with the ANZACs, if not better, and would likely have been able to compete for export work.

Anyway enough dreaming, Gillard, like most professional paper shufflers, had no vision so it didn't happen and now we have a new government that seems to associate manufacturing with unions and ideologically is bashing the former in the belief it is hurting the later. In truth it is hurting a lot more contract trades and labor, white collar workers, small to medium enterprises and technical staff who have nothing to do with unions and are the very people and groups that we as a nation say we need. Shipyards are no longer dominated by dumb manual labourers and lazy union members scamming days off on demarcation disputes, they are a nursery for highly skilled trades, technical and professional workers that the economy as whole needs. They support many local companies through crane and equipment hire, construction and maintenance, service provision, materials movement and storage just to name a few. This is why state government, who actually seem to be more aware of the flow on effect of major projects than the federal government, fight tooth and nail for gain and retain. these types of industries and projects.

 

[Volkodav]

I guess the question is, what is the acceptable premium for building ships in Australia? If an Australian built ship costs say 30 percent more that overseas built, then probably building at home is best. But if an Australian built ship costs say 100 percent more than buying from overseas then it becomes much harder to justify.

So there has to be a figure where building overseas makes more sense. Is it 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent? I dont really know

If you are willing to charge a premium for Australian built ships, does that apply for other things, cars, steel, artillery, planes, APCs, trucks, graders, earth moving equipment, computers, clothing, TVs, radios, furniture, trains, valves etc etc. And if your willing to accept a premium,, then how much?

Trouble is that Australia is getting richer and richer, wages are going up. Hard to compete against South Korea, Vietnam, Bangladesh where wages are a fraction of those at home

Who would have thought,,, Bangladesh of all places as a major shipbuilding nation, but they are and the reason is cheap labour. Fifty years ago the skills to build ships was limited to first and second world nations, now is seems the technology has spread. We like our cheap TVs, cheap clothes, cheap shoes and, cheap laptops.

I am not saying there we should not pay a premium for locally built ships, what I am getting at, is that the premium should be stated, maybe 30 to 40 percent is OK? 50 percent,,, still probably yes,,,, 90 percent more and hmmmmm

The figure is about 30% to break even. The ANZAC project, I believe, achieving more like 10% due to it being an ten ship build following a two ship build. Had the ANZACs been followed at Williamstown, as originally planned, by an either eight ship DDG/FFG build to replace the DDGs and FFGs or a ten to twelve ship corvette build to replace the patrol boats, the economies of scale using an existing experienced facility and workforce, would have seen this figure improve even more.

Parity with overseas costs or even better making us cheaper and more efficient than most and a competitive exporter could have been achieved. Unfortunately an opportunity lost due to a change of government that saw a decade long valley of death with not one ship ordered from a major yard. Eleven years later with the AWD and LHD underway and the industry rebuilt, at great expense, another change of government saw six years without s single ship being ordered. Yet another new government now but no new orders and everything on hold until the new DWP is released which will mean eight or nine years between orders with the only ships currently being tendered for overseas builders only.

Wages actually aren't going up in real terms, the average increase being less than inflation and the majority of large increases being at the upper end of town, the issue is new competitors in low cost economies and low investment productivity by Australian companies. Basically productivity at the worker end is increasing significantly but without investment in innovation, automation, training and process improvement (all of which takes money that would other wise be delivered in dividends to the shareholders) we will never be competitive.

Just look at the big miners for instance, instead of employing hundreds of thousands of skilled labourers as was done in the old days they spent billions on infrastructure and pay a much smaller, highly skilled workforce to operate and maintain it, generating much larger profits over the long term. Europe is a much higher cost labour market than Australia but is competitive due to investment in innovation and highly automated production facilities.

In Australia, sadly, most of our companies, employers, investors and governments only seem to take a short term view meaning there is no big picture or long term vision. Our particularly partisan style of politics is just the final nail in the coffin for any industry that is looking for long term certainty. It is, unfortunately, impossible in the current climate to plan any more than three years ahead as a change of government can and does kill entire industries and waste billions of dollars on ideologically based decisions alone.

 

[John Newman]

Anyway enough dreaming, Gillard, like most professional paper shufflers, had no vision so it didn't happen and now we have a new government that seems to associate manufacturing with unions and ideologically is bashing the former in the belief it is hurting the later. In truth it is hurting a lot more contract trades and labor, white collar workers, small to medium enterprises and technical staff who have nothing to do with unions and are the very people and groups that we as a nation say we need. Shipyards are no longer dominated by dumb manual labourers and lazy union members scamming days off on demarcation disputes, they are a nursery for highly skilled trades, technical and professional workers that the economy as whole needs. They support many local companies through crane and equipment hire, construction and maintenance, service provision, materials movement and storage just to name a few. This is why state government, who actually seem to be more aware of the flow on effect of major projects than the federal government, fight tooth and nail for gain and retain. these types of industries and projects.

V, actually I don't really think the new Government is bashing the workers, sure it appears to be bashing ASC over the AWD's issues (rightly or wrongly), but if you have a look at this recent transcript of an interview, the new Def Min is actually saying pretty good things about the 'workers':

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Interview with Lyndal Curtis, Capital Hill


The specific paragraphs are repeated below:

CURTIS:
Where are the problems? Is it the way it’s being managed? Is it the way the
industrial conditions are set?

JOHNSTON:
The problem is largely management. Our blue-collar workforce is very
skilled, I think they’re fine, I don’t have an issue with them necessarily.

Productivity is low and wages are high compared to the South Koreans, but
that’s not something we didn’t foresee.

Management has not been able to come to terms with the way we schedule
the blocks, their assembly, etc.

So integration is not a problem. Some of the block builders have been very
good, others not so good, but management has fundamentally been the issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sound like the 'right wing' Def Min is actually giving the workers a pat on the back, and giving the management a kick in the arse.


I know we appear to have polar opposite views when it comes to our respective political views (well that's how it appears to me), but regardless, the current Government seems to at least have a 'plan' to keep the workforce employed, eg, they are spending money now to investigate if the AWD hull can be adapted to producing block work for the Future Frigate (eg, continuity of work for the workforce) and is also giving the AWD consortium a shake up to get production up to a higher standard so that the Future Frigate can actually be ordered from Australian yards.

All sounds pretty reasonable to me, and yes of course there is a bit of politics in every thing a politician says, goes with the job!

 

[Volkodav]

On the AORs, when Smith announced tenders were being sought for two new ships ASC didn't develop a tender, they simply dusted off an old one they had prepared a number of years earlier. i.e. they saw the need and developed a solution and put it to government only to have it ignored / deferred. Thankyou very much Mr Smith, the RAN could have had one or two new Korean built ships in service and a third under construction at ASC (BAE and Forgacs for blocks most likely) as well.

Nothing like a lack of vision to wreck an industry.

By the way, how many ships did we buy / lease under last Labor government. instead of building suitable vessels locally? Skandi Bergan x2, Choules, Triton, Sirius under Howard, where there any others?

 

[hauritz]

I guess the question is, what is the acceptable premium for building ships in Australia? If an Australian built ship costs say 30 percent more that overseas built, then probably building at home is best. But if an Australian built ship costs say 100 percent more than buying from overseas then it becomes much harder to justify.

So there has to be a figure where building overseas makes more sense. Is it 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent? I dont really know

If you are willing to charge a premium for Australian built ships, does that apply for other things, cars, steel, artillery, planes, APCs, trucks, graders, earth moving equipment, computers, clothing, TVs, radios, furniture, trains, valves etc etc. And if your willing to accept a premium,, then how much?

Trouble is that Australia is getting richer and richer, wages are going up. Hard to compete against South Korea, Vietnam, Bangladesh where wages are a fraction of those at home

Who would have thought,,, Bangladesh of all places as a major shipbuilding nation, but they are and the reason is cheap labour. Fifty years ago the skills to build ships was limited to first and second world nations, now is seems the technology has spread. We like our cheap TVs, cheap clothes, cheap shoes and, cheap laptops.

I am not saying there we should not pay a premium for locally built ships, what I am getting at, is that the premium should be stated, maybe 30 to 40 percent is OK? 50 percent,,, still probably yes,,,, 90 percent more and hmmmmm

It is very hard to put a price on it. Certainly any money that goes overseas is gone ... it is effectively ripped out of the economy.

On the other hand if you spend in Australia a big lump of it will go straight back to the government as taxes. People working aren't on the dole which will save the taxpayer more cash. Then of course that money will stimulate other area's of the economy, There is also the skills factor. Those skills are transferable into other industries. There are a lot of benefits.

One thing I am not so sure of is how much money would stay in Australia if we did build submarines here.

Of that $40 billion how much will end up going overseas anyway?

Weapons, sensors, drive trains, combat systems, and so on would still be sourced from overseas.

That is why I think we should realistically look at that $40 billion and ask how it could be best spent. You could probably get the Japanese to build a the same subs for maybe $30 billion and spend the other $10 billion on something else. Perhaps a fleet of OCVs that could be built in Australia. To me that is almost having your cake and eating it as well. You get the submarines, OCVs and the local industry gets work.

 

[Volkodav]

V, actually I don't really think the new Government is bashing the workers, sure it appears to be bashing ASC over the AWD's issues (rightly or wrongly), but if you have a look at this recent transcript of an interview, the new Def Min is actually saying pretty good things about the 'workers':

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Interview with Lyndal Curtis, Capital Hill


The specific paragraphs are repeated below:




Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sound like the 'right wing' Def Min is actually giving the workers a pat on the back, and giving the management a kick in the arse.


I know we appear to have polar opposite views when it comes to our respective political views (well that's how it appears to me), but regardless, the current Government seems to at least have a 'plan' to keep the workforce employed, eg, they are spending money now to investigate if the AWD hull can be adapted to producing block work for the Future Frigate (eg, continuity of work for the workforce) and is also giving the AWD consortium a shake up to get production up to a higher standard so that the Future Frigate can actually be ordered from Australian yards.

All sounds pretty reasonable to me, and yes of course there is a bit of politics in every thing a politician says, goes with the job!

Its a populist thing to pat the Blue collars on the back and knock the white collars, went through a decade of that with politicians of both shades visiting and having their photo ops with the production guys why attacking the people trying to make everything work. I think I could actually be called jaded rather than left or right as I see the Howard/Rudd/Gillard years as two decades of wasted opportunity and lack of vision and fear that this government is shaping up the same.

The funny thing with ASC is it is government owned and run by a government appointed board with the Managing Director being a political appointment as well. Step outside what the government, or its appointees, want and your head will be lopped off.

I survived four rounds of redundancies in the six and a half years I was there and not one of them was due to operational reasons to do with the company or its projects. Each and every one of them was a short term cost saving, or politically inspired measure by the government of the day that targeted the "lazy, unproductive" white collar staff. Each and every one of them ended up stretching schedules and increasing costs as there were insufficient people left to do the vital white collar work. Funny that, when there is no one to order or check parts and materials, no one to schedule and plan work, no one to check, verify or certify the work done, the production team is often left twiddling their thumbs. After about six months more white collar staff are hired and trained at great expense to catch up for lost time, then after about twelve months its time for another government driven reorganisation based on another government review that determines there are too many "lazy, unproductive" white collar workers.

The sooner ASC is privatised and can tell Labor and the Coalition to go **** themselves, sideways the better.

p.s. in my uni days rather than smoking dope and joining "rent a crowd" I spent most of my spare time, when I wasn't doing Uni Regiment stuff (lots of drinking and fond memories), hanging out with the young Liberals (they had the best looking girls). Part of my jading come from the number of then Liberal members I met and (really) listened too, it left me slightly scared and disillusioned. Pretty much the same as decade working in the automotive industry, including working for TWR at Holdens has put me off ever buying a Holden. Sometimes you can see too much to ever feel comfortable again. I could be wrong but I think Abe may well say the same about his time spent in too close proximity to some in the Labor camp.