Irrellevant, sorry.
You are right, expanding ASC isn't worth it to build two AORs. ASC was designed its size to build submarines and frigates/destroyers. A class of six or more cheaper ships and a class of at least three more expensive ships. The government crossed that line two decade ago. Nothing has changed since that time. While there are benefits of keeping manufacturing in Australia, there is a negative effect when that subsidy drags the economy down with high tariffs. You can't hide pour production. Australia has tried that route for decades with the automobile industry, and failed.I think we can see that the position that we are in has been caused by both sides. Both will blame the other.
However at the moment we can't off the peg any big ships to fill a production gap. The only realistic option to plug the valley of death is AWD hulled Frigates. An order of 3 would buy enough time that you could consider:
* expanding techport
* Building at least 1 AOR here
* Building a 3rd LHD here
But then you are expanding techport to build just two-three extra ships. Is it worth it? Is it sustainable. These builds wouldn't be ready in time to plug the valley of death as we are already in it.
I think its absolutely critical that the future subs are built here. Subs aren't like a normal vessel, you need the in-depth (no pun intended) knowledge to stay competitive, the kind of knowledge that you only get with being intimate with the building process. While a lot of money would need to be used to acquire systems etc from overseas, its the expert pool of development knowledge you invest in when you build locally.
I think partnering with the Japanese means our local build is of better quality, with better systems, better price, more timely and the pooling of Japanese and Australian R&D will mean we will both get significantly better boats. The Australian and Japanese submarines are in a class of their own, in size, in capability. By working together we can operate a fleet of submarines that would be significantly more capable than any other conventionally powered fleet, a generation ahead. Ending up with a sustainable industry that links Japan and Australia.
ASC being a run by the government is a big part of the problem. This is one case where it needs to be divested preferably to an international consortium. Mitsubishi would be an ideal partner. I would want the Aus government to fix ASC (since its entirely their mess).
I have issues with buying OTS japanese built submarines with no jointness about them. We lose the ability to develop solutions, we loose industry, but more importantly, strategically/politically we are then 100% tied to japan, and it would be a relationship where they would have all the control.
For China for example, a deal between Australia and Japan, to help sort out Australia's crazy many decade long sub program is one thing, some technology sharing, some improved management, privatizing the government owned yard. All very sensible stuff. Softly softly.
Where as simply spending $40 billion upfront to buy 12 OTS subs off japan ASAP, is a huge deal particularly for China (IMO). Pretty huge precedent for the region and for Japan (IMO). And it won't just be China that will be impacted (IMO). Im sure we can all come up with a list of countries that would like to ask several types of questions.
Throwing $40 billion in to a single defense foreign sale acquisition in the asia pacific region has significant consequences (IMO). This is big boy stuff. Its not just about "saving money" at this level.
Alternatively build 10 Navantia BAMS locally - 8 stand-off mine hunters and 2 Survey to replace the Leuwin and Huon classes and start to replace the Armidales.The only realistic option to plug the valley of death is AWD hulled Frigates
But we are not building the BAM at the moment and you still have to tool up. Not sure is the ship we want in any case if this is in liue of the ANZAC (noting we have to build or buy these in the next decade in any case). The big advantage of the F105 hull is that you continue the contruction process of hull blocks without pause.Alternatively build 10 Navantia BAMS locally - 8 stand-off mine hunters and 2 Survey to replace the Leuwin and Huon classes and start to replace the Armidales.
For the mine hunters have three operate as minehunters to maintain training and have one available for deployment.
Use the other 5 for patrol replacing some of the Armidales.
Thoughts?
Massive
Well the keel of the AWDs is from BAE and or Navantia, most of the hull blocks and some of the superstructure blocks are from Forgacs and the critical forward superstructure is ASC. Basically BAE and Forgacs would be able to pretty much just repeat their previous build but ASC would have to retool for their part.But we are not building the BAM at the moment and you still have to tool up. Not sure is the ship we want in any case if this is in liue of the ANZAC (noting we have to build or buy these in the next decade in any case). The big advantage of the F105 hull is that you continue the contruction process of hull blocks without pause.
If we were to look at LCH replacements or OPV these could be built at a number of yards. The AWD hull is really something that should be built at ASC.
This is the most logical step. Flight II Hobarts. No need to bring Anzac replacement forward wait till the type 26 is finalised and then look at options, order long lead items now for when current AWD should finish building then continue on.It wont happen but what I would love to see is an order for three evolved AWDs (still with AEGIS) as replacements for the remaining FFGs while retaining the ANZACs until their original planned retirement dates. .
That is just too logical and you know logical decisions are hardly or never taken up by any govt of the day, unless you are in Singapore.My thinking is with six DDGs the frigates wont need a large VLS for land attack missiles etc. which would make it possible to accept a smaller cheaper design that still would out perform the ANZACs in every way. A medium calibre gun, a 16 cell Mk 41 VLS for ESSM, ASW torpedoes, canister launched harpoon replacement, a large hanger for two Romeos or a Romeo and a couple of Firescouts, evolved SAAB combat system, CEAFAR, hull mounted and towed array sonars. A well balanced GP frigate (possibly even a Type 26 derivative but likely smaller as no strike length VLS are required) that would hopefully only have a crew of about 100. Such a ship would also have a multi mission bay designed to embark and employ USN compatible mission modules.
Yet again you display your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of pretty much everything but in particular the facts of Australian manufacturing.You are right, expanding ASC isn't worth it to build two AORs. ASC was designed its size to build submarines and frigates/destroyers. A class of six or more cheaper ships and a class of at least three more expensive ships. The government crossed that line two decade ago. Nothing has changed since that time. While there are benefits of keeping manufacturing in Australia, there is a negative effect when that subsidy drags the economy down with high tariffs. You can't hide pour production. Australia has tried that route for decades with the automobile industry, and failed.
If we ran defence procurement and defence force structure reviews the way Singapore does:That is just too logical and you know logical decisions are hardly or never taken up by any govt of the day, unless you are in Singapore.
Agree most of this would be the ideal solution..Its not too late to put some fixes in place.
* Build 3 more AWD hulls with Ageis 9.0
* Build 6 more AWD hulls with Ceafar/Saab
* Build new submarines based off the Japanese design, refit Collins I with Japanese propulsion systems. Work up to a total of 10-12 subs.
* Build 16 corrvettes/OPV's
* Build 6 Landing ships
* Build 4 AOR
* Build 1 more LHD (replacing the LPD build)
It would probably be easier and cheaper than maintaining the Hedemoras through to end of life of type. Collins currently has the hull removed from the top of the Main Generator Room to provide access to the diesel generators this is all that would be required to slot in a replacement generator set up. One thing that ASC is very good at is welding with the problems with the class relating to various non ASC and usually imported systems.Agree most of this would be the ideal solution..
However re-fitting Collins with new propulsion would be very costly, you would have to weigh up conversion cost v's new build.
Is there a lot of complexity to changing propulsion on Collins?
Not only 16 Sea Sparrow with room for more - or a lot of ESSM - but two 21-round RAM launchers.I was just checking something completely unrelated when I came across a photo of the VLS of a German Type 123 frigate, I hadn't realised that they had space and weight for an extra 16 cells to bring the total to 32. Factor in quad packing and you could have up to 144 ESSM, add ExLS and you can also quad pack Nulka, CAAM and in future other types of missiles.
The reason I am posting this here is I recall a mid 90s article in APDR that suggested either the Australian government or the RAN fancied the design as a perfectly adequate replacement for the DDG / FFG. It was seen as suitable due to its commonality with the ANZACs and less risky that stretching the ANZAC into a DDG/FFG, i.e. a very good follow on for the ANZACs at Williamstown. I remember the article because at the time I was horrified at the suggestion believing the design was limited to only 16 cells and it was no where near as big and sexy as the Kidds (on offer to the RAN at the time) or the DDG 51.
Now with years of naval ship building behind me and seeing what has become of the RAN surface fleet and shipbuilding industry I can't help but wonder if it would indeed have been a viable option
Noting the suggestion that even the an ANZAC based on the AWD needs less cells, from a purely self defence point of view I agree, yet I think having a large number of cells (32) on ANZAC II has a lot to recommend it particularly if you use the AWD as a starting point given 32 strike length are already designed in (and catered for in the CoG calculations). If we look at it from a task force POV then the additional cells can be used to take some of the load off the AWD with respect toNot only 16 Sea Sparrow with room for more - or a lot of ESSM - but two 21-round RAM launchers.
PS. 32 x 4 = 128. Still a lot, though, & I doubt they'll bother. Might even reduce from 16 Sea Sparrow cells to 8 (32 missiles) for ESSM.
The US import tariff for automobiles is half of Australia's at 2.5 percent. Been that way for over a decade. Yes, there are state sales taxes, but that also includes American made cars. Currently there are calls to eliminate the import car tariff completely, we will see. While Americans aren't totally up to speed about Australian customs and tariffs, please don't misrepresent ours.Yet again you display your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of pretty much everything but in particular the facts of Australian manufacturing.
6. Australia's tariff barriers were reduced to 5%, significantly lower than those of our competitors, including the US.
7. a number of free trade agreements signed by the Australian government achieved good results for the farming sector but were damaging to manufacturing as they permitted barrier free importation of motor vehicles to Australia while failing to secure Australian access to their markets, i.e. US and Thailand where Australian vehicles are subjected to tariffs and excessive sales taxes.
At the end of the day we will be worse off as a result of this as the global economy recovers the Australian dollar will drop driving up the costs of imported vehicles but there will be no locally built vehicles left to compensate or to take advantage of new export opportunities. This is what happens when you fail to protect industries from temporary distortions, the fail and then you have nothing left to take advantage when the distortion end.
Please Toby, for the sake of humanity, stop commenting on things which you have no knowledge, training in, understanding or concept of.
Thanks V.If we ran defence procurement and defence force structure reviews the way Singapore does:
- we would already have.....