Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Punta74]

I do wonder if from the beginning if there was a commitment of a 4th AWD if that would have made the project much more viable and efficient from the outset. We wouldn't have sought to deliberately delay the project as a political decision (deliberately costing more money). While it wouldn't have closed the valley of death, it would go some way to covering the gap combined with a smaller project(s ).

If we had made the decision early to go with say 4 AWD and 8 F-105 based hulls would that make the entire project more efficient. Volumes being secured means that work can be more effectively planned out.

Rather than make short term, commitments and hope that the next government can sort it all out and take the blame for any inefficiencies.

Phase 1 : I would personally order another 3 AWD / Aegis (Same design) - with emphasis on BMD. There are no re-design issues then trying to apapt the AWD for Anzac replacements. (If it is going to be a 1-1 replacement then decom the first two Anzacs).

Phase 2 : Timeline then approx 2026 , order 6 (with option of 2 more) replacements for Anzacs. Give you time then to evaluate current/future designs.

Interested what thoughts are on that !!

 

[John Fedup]

What Sheridan, and similar blinkered individuals who have no understanding of the topic, don't factor is only the cost of the third ship is anywhere near a real indication of the performance of the industry. The figures being quoted aren't just for the ships, they should also include the construction of a state of the art shipyard in Adelaide, the upgrade of three existing yards in Victoria and NSW (Williamstown and Forgacs two yards), as well as training not only those four work forces almost from scratch but also the work forces of other major contractors (pipe segments, masts, steel cutting, prefab accommodation etc.) as well. Expenses that would not have been needed if there had not been a ship building black hole following the ANZACs.

This is why a continuous, rolling build is vital, without it we will be doomed to pay the start up / rebuilding overheads again and again as we have been doing since we started building ships in this country. This is true not just for Australia but also overseas, just look at the pain the UK went through with the Astutes and to a lesser degree the Darings.

....and just wait until you see the ballooning cost of Canada's surface combatant ship replacement program, also due to the same black hole issue created after the completion of the Halifax frigates twenty years ago!

 

[koala]

Phase 1 : I would personally order another 3 AWD / Aegis (Same design) - with emphasis on BMD. There are no re-design issues then trying to apapt the AWD for Anzac replacements. (If it is going to be a 1-1 replacement then decom the first two Anzacs).

Phase 2 : Timeline then approx 2026 , order 6 (with option of 2 more) replacements for Anzacs. Give you time then to evaluate current/future designs.

Interested what thoughts are on that !!

I agree on your decision, all the infrastructure is in place, the shipbuilding team is in place and a MK2 Hobart focused on TLAM, ASW and consideration for BMD would make sense, a build of 3 would keep us going for another 10 years, take the pressure of the ANZACS, allow a graceful retirement of the OHP's and give us time to contemplate the future "new" technology (was only a couple of years ago mobile phones where bricks, not phablets) without the valley of death and subsequent job losses.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Phase 1 : I would personally order another 3 AWD / Aegis (Same design) - with emphasis on BMD. There are no re-design issues then trying to apapt the AWD for Anzac replacements. (If it is going to be a 1-1 replacement then decom the first two Anzacs).

Phase 2 : Timeline then approx 2026 , order 6 (with option of 2 more) replacements for Anzacs. Give you time then to evaluate current/future designs.

Interested what thoughts are on that !!

I've always though 4 AWD was a more reasonable number and most countries have gone with 5 (min such as Spain and Norway) such ships to get reasonable availability and being able to deploy in numbers when required.

The 4th AWD could have BMD aegis baseline 9 features fitted with an upgrade propulsion from the F-100 based Anzac replacements. This would be then rolled out to the AWD mid life. However instead of a "mid-life" they would be new build hulls with these features fitted.

The Anzac replacements would then be based off the F-100 hull but with modernized propulsion (electric drive), 2 helos and ability to take radar from Cea Auspar etc. That would be it in terms of modifications. I would then priority the saab combat system for cooperative capability development for all carried weapons.

Then I would be looking at ordering SM-3 (~32) and possibly PAC-3 (lots). Sm-3 for the AWD and PAC-3 for the frigates. Bring TacTom into the inventory (~32) and bringing up levels of Sm-6 to a suitable number (lots- 8+ for every ship).

Bringing SM-3/PAC-3/TTom would make the RAN the navy in the region to partner with. We could offer full spectrum capability to any threats in the region. Be both a pivot and a mediator. A force multiplier and a power in its own right. You can throw up a layered bubble for any task force that requires it.

I would also go with 12 x 216 subs, using Japanese steel, locally built with 4 MTU diesel engines, lithium batteries and tactom integrated with US combat systems and mk48 Cbass torpedos.

I would then enter an agreement with the Spanish to share Canberra's/Juan Carlos to bring a squad of F-35B's each online and keep them trained. Sharing duties across all three ships. This would be combined with some time operating off USMC ships. Making them not just purple, but internationally purple.

 

[Perlon]

Fiscal reality has changed according to the last budget, there is no longer an emergency and money can be spent in the name of fairness and, more importantly, investment. Doesn't bode well for extra brigades but could help get local builds across the line.

Also, now the defmin is no longer a rent seeking Sandgroper, trying to kill off ship building in NSW, VIC and SA, with the aim of sending all remaining work westwards, we appear to be getting a more level headed commentary with only Corman still slagging off ASC in conjunction with his deliberate release of the "forensic audit" to sour the"good news" launch of Hobart.

This is not the first time Ive noticed you putting down the west. Why? Did you not consider that 90% of federal politicians are born and bred easterners? Do you not consider that 90% of the federal government bureaucracy are easterners? That leaves less than 10% of this nations decision makers being Sandgropers!

You and the rest of SA are crying out for moar please sir all the time but you tend to forget where that "moar" is coming from.

The only way local shipbuilding will survive is if they perform in comparision to overseas shipbuilding, to a level that is not absurdly expensive, delayed and quality. Don't have to reach same level as overseas but must be within cooee.
I accept that the restarting has been difficult for them, but shipbuilding in Australia has no chance, given past experience, of ever getting a continuous build from government. They would be mad to ever agree to such, as it leaves the industry with no incentive to perform.

Totally agree. Will Australian shipyards ever be competitive with overseas? Im talking about north America and Europe. If they are not competitive or within cooee then give the work to a shipyard that is.

3 billion for three ships is a lot of welfare.

 

[40 deg south]

Further to my recommendation. Be prepared to be deeply astonished by the range and nature of the public submissions, but I fear that most won't be all that enlightening. Or coherent.

oldsig

Oldsig, John N

Thanks for that, gents. The White Paper process and principles are similar.The NZ time-line seems a lot more condensed than the Australian model, possibly because the heavy lifting on budgets and affordability has already been done (in the horrendously-titled Defence Midpoint Rebalancing Review).

I'm looking forward some entertainment from browsing your public submissions. As someone who has spent years sifting through public input on (non-military) projects, NOTHING produced by the average voter possessing a pen, paper and some free time would surprise me.

On this side of the Tasman, submissions are more likely to demand the entire military be disbanded and Defence lands be given over to free-range tofu farming. Fun times ahead!

 

[40 deg south]

...What the Def Min said (in my opinion) is fair, he has a budget to work within and if extra money has to be spent on one thing, well something else has to give, and that is despite increases in overall Defence spending. The bucket of money available for Defence is not endless, its not bottomless, and as a taxpayer, it shouldn't be endless and bottomless too!

And that's why I'm always in two minds about Naval shipbuilding here in Australia, sure I want to see a sustainable, and more importantly effective, Naval shipbuilding industry (a 'fair' premium for building locally is acceptable too), but still, at what cost? To me the needs of the RAN comes first, get the right equipment, on time and on budget, and if at times those 'needs' of the RAN are best served by an overseas acquisition, well so be it...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a viable, sustainable and cost effective Naval shipbuilding industry (even with a 'fair' premium attached to it too!), but I do get worried when far more money is being expended that was planned and when it appears likely that some other important Defence capability is going to get the chop, then I start to worry.

Does this mean the end of replacements for the LCH? Does it mean less capable and a lesser numbers of OPV's? Does it mean less capable and potentially lesser number of Collins and Anzac replacements? Or does it mean the RAAF doesn't get no's 9 and 10 of the C-17A's or that no more KC-30A's are procured? And what price does Army pay too?
Cheers,

Good comment, John. You've got to the nub of a problem many countries are grappling with - how much is it worth to maintain a specific local defence industry?

Britain has opted to retain combat vessel manufacturing (T26) and outsource support vessels (MARS to Korea). Canada has decided to build everything locally, at huge financial cost and accepting massive capability gaps (current oilers being decommissioned, local replacements a decade away or more). Norway has outsourced the lot - frigates to Spain, tanker to Korea. France has kept everything in house, and is gambling on export sales to recover the costs.

There is no single 'right' answer, but I think there are some wrong ones. Canada's willingness to accept huge capability gaps makes it clear that their military is less important than a regional stimulus/vote-buying scheme. India indefinitely funding politically connected projects that take far too long to produce sub-standard equipment (Tejas, anyone?) shows the dangers of elevating 'locally built' above all other considerations.

So far Australia has managed to avoid these extremes, but your DefMIn and government have some very tricky calls coming up. Sometimes I am perversely glad that NZ has no significant military manufacturing industry!

 

[John Newman]

Good comment, John. You've got to the nub of a problem many countries are grappling with - how much is it worth to maintain a specific local defence industry?

Britain has opted to retain combat vessel manufacturing (T26) and outsource support vessels (MARS to Korea). Canada has decided to build everything locally, at huge financial cost and accepting massive capability gaps (current oilers being decommissioned, local replacements a decade away or more). Norway has outsourced the lot - frigates to Spain, tanker to Korea. France has kept everything in house, and is gambling on export sales to recover the costs.

There is no single 'right' answer, but I think there are some wrong ones. Canada's willingness to accept huge capability gaps makes it clear that their military is less important than a regional stimulus/vote-buying scheme. India indefinitely funding politically connected projects that take far too long to produce sub-standard equipment (Tejas, anyone?) shows the dangers of elevating 'locally built' above all other considerations.

So far Australia has managed to avoid these extremes, but your DefMIn and government have some very tricky calls coming up. Sometimes I am perversely glad that NZ has no significant military manufacturing industry!

Thanks mate.

And in a perverse sort of way I agree with you too about military manufacturing industry!

To repeat what I said on the previous page, when we acquire aviation assets for the RAAF (Navy and Army too), direct from overseas production lines, especially the more recent FMS purchases from the US (which by the way have mostly seen delivery on or before schedule and either on or below budget too), I never hear anyone complain about the tens of billions of dollars going directly offshore, not a word, not one little complaint, we don't even seem to have a mandatory 'offset' policy when we spend all those billions of dollars either.

Yes, for example, we are an industrial participant in the F-35 program, but as I understand it there is no guarantee of work share, yes we get the opportunity to compete for the work, but still no guarantee.

I think at the very least we should have a mandatory requirement that, say 25%, of the 'value' of the project be spent here in orders for our aerospace industries, doesn't necessarily have to be components directly related to that purchase, for example with the purchases of F/A-18F, EA-18G and C-17A, all those production lines are coming to an end, the C-17A line is very close to ending, but that still doesn't stop us requiring Boeing to spend X dollars here as part of an offset agreement for supply of components, it could even be for their commercial products, and the same could apply for any purchase for the Navy and Army too from an overseas supplier.

Anyway, enough of that rant, back to Australian Naval shipbuilding industries.....


Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not against a sustainable and effective Australian Naval shipbuilding industry (not at all!), and with the 'premium' that has to be paid too. But it does concern me (again referring to the AWD project), that from the start this project had a budget of $8.5 Billion, that is a lot of money for three ships, and now it's probably going to end up closer to $10 Billion by the time the last ship, HMAS Sydney, is completed and commissioned too.

And on top of the explosion in cost (and 'more' money having to be 'robbed' from some other project to top up the bucket of dollars for the AWD project), it's also the running late by a couple of years which also means that the RAN will have to find extra dollars to keep the FFG's in operation longer and if it doesn't keep them in commission longer, then we end up with a capability gap too!

The RAAF doesn't seem to be burdened by these problems, when the Government decided to retired the F-111C's early, and to ensure there was no 'capability gap', we procured the Super Hornets direct from the US, problem solved.

The RAAF doesn't seem to be 'burdened' with having to be both a 'milking cow' for industry and also perform its primary role, but on the other hand, the RAN apart from its primary role of defending Australia it's also there to be a milking cow for the shipbuilding industry, something is just not right with that!

So who's fault is it? Well no doubt we can all blame previous Governments for an 'inconsistent' policy towards shipbuilding, blame can also be apportioned to the other players too, shipbuilders, ship designers, management practices, work practices and the unions too, all can share some of the blame, certainly some share a much larger share of the blame than others, but at the end of the day who 'pays' for all of this? The taxpayer on the one hand and the Navy on the other.

Defence and Navy will have to find more money to complete the project, and if additional funds aren't added to the bucket of money for the AWD project, then other projects will have to be sacrificed (as the Def Min has recently indicated), there has got to be a better way!

Here's an idea out of left field!

Would it be fair to say that the AWD project isn't just a project for the Navy to obtain three new AWD's, it's also an 'infrastructure' project and an 'industrial / employment' project too? Fair comment?

Then maybe all the money being expended on this project shouldn't have all come from the Defence budget, and especially the part of the budget allocated to the Navy.

If these ships had been built in Spain for example, what would the cost be? $4B, too low? $5b, still not enough? $6B? surely that would have been getting close to the final cost?

No doubt the original project budget of $8.5 Billion (now heading towards $10B) to build here did include the 'premium' for local construction, but was it also there to cover the cost of 'infrastructure' that was required for the built at Techport? Did it also include funds to 'employ' staff and 'train and skill' them too? I don't know.

So maybe not only should dollars be coming direct from the Defence budget for the local build of the three AWD's, but maybe there should also be a contribution from an infrastructure fund and an employment/industry policy fund too.

The point I'm making is that when things have gone off the rails in this project, is it the Navy's fault? Don't think so, is it the fault of factors outside of its control? Probably more accurate.

So why is it that at the end of the day the Defence budget (and more than likely the Navy part of that budget) will have to pay for the increased cost of this project, and as the Def Min has indicated, some other capability will have to suffer to ensure this project is completed and paid for.

Rant almost over!!

It just seem to me that Navy has been forced to pay the extra cost of local build (in numerous ways), and also suffer the results of it too by late deliver and at the potential expense of other capabilities too.

There's got to be a better way!!!

Cheers,

John

 

[rockitten]

Thanks mate.

And in a perverse sort of way I agree with you too about military manufacturing industry!

To repeat what I said on the previous page, when we acquire aviation assets for the RAAF (Navy and Army too), direct from overseas production lines, especially the more recent FMS purchases from the US (which by the way have mostly seen delivery on or before schedule and either on or below budget too), I never hear anyone complain about the tens of billions of dollars going directly offshore, not a word, not one little complaint, we don't even seem to have a mandatory 'offset' policy when we spend all those billions of dollars either.

Yes, for example, we are an industrial participant in the F-35 program, but as I understand it there is no guarantee of work share, yes we get the opportunity to compete for the work, but still no guarantee.

I think at the very least we should have a mandatory requirement that, say 25%, of the 'value' of the project be spent here in orders for our aerospace industries, doesn't necessarily have to be components directly related to that purchase, for example with the purchases of F/A-18F, EA-18G and C-17A, all those production lines are coming to an end, the C-17A line is very close to ending, but that still doesn't stop us requiring Boeing to spend X dollars here as part of an offset agreement for supply of components, it could even be for their commercial products, and the same could apply for any purchase for the Navy and Army too from an overseas supplier.

Anyway, enough of that rant, back to Australian Naval shipbuilding industries.....


Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not against a sustainable and effective Australian Naval shipbuilding industry (not at all!), and with the 'premium' that has to be paid too. But it does concern me (again referring to the AWD project), that from the start this project had a budget of $8.5 Billion, that is a lot of money for three ships, and now it's probably going to end up closer to $10 Billion by the time the last ship, HMAS Sydney, is completed and commissioned too.

And on top of the explosion in cost (and 'more' money having to be 'robbed' from some other project to top up the bucket of dollars for the AWD project), it's also the running late by a couple of years which also means that the RAN will have to find extra dollars to keep the FFG's in operation longer and if it doesn't keep them in commission longer, then we end up with a capability gap too!

The RAAF doesn't seem to be burdened by these problems, when the Government decided to retired the F-111C's early, and to ensure there was no 'capability gap', we procured the Super Hornets direct from the US, problem solved.

The RAAF doesn't seem to be 'burdened' with having to be both a 'milking cow' for industry and also perform its primary role, but on the other hand, the RAN apart from its primary role of defending Australia it's also there to be a milking cow for the shipbuilding industry, something is just not right with that!

So who's fault is it? Well no doubt we can all blame previous Governments for an 'inconsistent' policy towards shipbuilding, blame can also be apportioned to the other players too, shipbuilders, ship designers, management practices, work practices and the unions too, all can share some of the blame, certainly some share a much larger share of the blame than others, but at the end of the day who 'pays' for all of this? The taxpayer on the one hand and the Navy on the other.

Defence and Navy will have to find more money to complete the project, and if additional funds aren't added to the bucket of money for the AWD project, then other projects will have to be sacrificed (as the Def Min has recently indicated), there has got to be a better way!

Here's an idea out of left field!

Would it be fair to say that the AWD project isn't just a project for the Navy to obtain three new AWD's, it's also an 'infrastructure' project and an 'industrial / employment' project too? Fair comment?

Then maybe all the money being expended on this project shouldn't have all come from the Defence budget, and especially the part of the budget allocated to the Navy.

If these ships had been built in Spain for example, what would the cost be? $4B, too low? $5b, still not enough? $6B? surely that would have been getting close to the final cost?

No doubt the original project budget of $8.5 Billion (now heading towards $10B) to build here did include the 'premium' for local construction, but was it also there to cover the cost of 'infrastructure' that was required for the built at Techport? Did it also include funds to 'employ' staff and 'train and skill' them too? I don't know.

So maybe not only should dollars be coming direct from the Defence budget for the local build of the three AWD's, but maybe there should also be a contribution from an infrastructure fund and an employment/industry policy fund too.

The point I'm making is that when things have gone off the rails in this project, is it the Navy's fault? Don't think so, is it the fault of factors outside of its control? Probably more accurate.

So why is it that at the end of the day the Defence budget (and more than likely the Navy part of that budget) will have to pay for the increased cost of this project, and as the Def Min has indicated, some other capability will have to suffer to ensure this project is completed and paid for.

Rant almost over!!

It just seem to me that Navy has been forced to pay the extra cost of local build (in numerous ways), and also suffer the results of it too by late deliver and at the potential expense of other capabilities too.

There's got to be a better way!!!

Cheers,

John

How about, Government of SA (or what ever state that took a share of the contract) has to contribute part of the premium for local build? Or at least, part of the premium should be deduced from the "economic assistance package" or GST allocations?

After all, if the local government emphasizing the important to the local economy, then part of the cost should be shared by the local budget.........

By the way, politicians are not toying the "hybrid model" just like the Perry class for Australian Soryu, and only up to the 8th sub was mentioned. IMHO, I wonder if reducing the number of sub from 10~12 down to only 8 for opting this "hybrid model" really worth it. Or will this hybrid model ever comes true at all.
South Australia might not build first of next submarines, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[Joe Black]

How about, Government of SA (or what ever state that took a share of the contract) has to contribute part of the premium for local build? Or at least, part of the premium should be deduced from the "economic assistance package" or GST allocations?

After all, if the local government emphasizing the important to the local economy, then part of the cost should be shared by the local budget.........

By the way, politicians are not toying the "hybrid model" just like the Perry class for Australian Soryu, and only up to the 8th sub was mentioned. IMHO, I wonder if reducing the number of sub from 10~12 down to only 8 for opting this "hybrid model" really worth it. Or will this hybrid model ever comes true at all.
South Australia might not build first of next submarines, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Sounds like we do get a Captain's call on Sea 1000. Soryu it is then.

 

[John Newman]

Sounds like we do get a Captain's call on Sea 1000. Soryu it is then.

Joe,

You seem awfully fixated on this 'Captains call' one liner you've been throwing around for a couple of days now, why?

Can you explain, in more than 'one' line, why that is so?

Firstly I read the link you posted yesterday from 'IN Daily' Adelaide news, and apart from the typical journalistic 'headline' that was written, I couldn't see exactly where 'Defence' had actually 'refused to back the PM', yes there was the usual crap from Xenophon, who is only playing politics to the SA audience to make him look like the big man that he's not, so how did you actually come up with the 'Captains call'? Because I must have been reading a different article from the one you read.

And now with the post from 'Rockitten' you somehow read that the ABC report is again suggesting that the Collins replacement is going to be a 'Captains call' on Soryu, and again I'm really struggling to see how you come up with such a conclusion.

I'd really like to know how you come to the conclusions that you do, eg, the PM is going to make a 'Captain's call' and select the Soryu, how?

 

[Cadredave]

Joe,

You seem awfully fixated on this 'Captains call' one liner you've been throwing around for a couple of days now, why?

Can you explain, in more than 'one' line, why that is so?

Firstly I read the link you posted yesterday from 'IN Daily' Adelaide news, and apart from the typical journalistic 'headline' that was written, I couldn't see exactly where 'Defence' had actually 'refused to back the PM', yes there was the usual crap from Xenophon, who is only playing politics to the SA audience to make him look like the big man that he's not, so how did you actually come up with the 'Captains call'? Because I must have been reading a different article from the one you read.

And now with the post from 'Rockitten' you somehow read that the ABC report is again suggesting that the Collins replacement is going to be a 'Captains call' on Soryu, and again I'm really struggling to see how you come up with such a conclusion.

I'd really like to know how you come to the conclusions that you do, eg, the PM is going to make a 'Captain's call' and select the Soryu, how?

John good call,

"that makes two of us" ive read both articles and all I saw was typical bland defence answers nothing out of the ordinary...???

 

[John Newman]

John good call,

"that makes two of us" ive read both articles and all I saw was typical bland defence answers nothing out of the ordinary...???

G'day mate,

Glad it wasn't just me, I read both articles a couple of times and I saw exactly what you saw too, nothing out of the ordinary!

Cheers,

 

[KiwiRob]

Norway has outsourced the lot - frigates to Spain, tanker to Korea. France has kept everything in house, and is gambling on export sales to recover the costs.

Norway screwed up with the frigates, 3 were supposed to be built in Norway but weren't, which caused the shipyard that was supposed to build them to go bust. There aren't any yards in Norway capable of building a vessel as big as a tanker anymore, a large supply vessel and big fjord ferries are Norways lot these days, most are also built from imported hulls.

 

[Trackmaster]

G'day mate,

Glad it wasn't just me, I read both articles a couple of times and I saw exactly what you saw too, nothing out of the ordinary!

Cheers,

Makes three.
The "In Daily" story was a totally Adelaide focused story, with a headline "hook" to get people in.
Nothing new and nothing to support the headline. Talking to an audience that feels bruised and needed some soothing.
And I too am fascinated by a supposed "process" that would allow one person to make a decision, against the advice of the subject matter experts.
It isn't a dictatorship yet...though I do have some good ideas that should be acted on.

 

[Volkodav]

I do wonder if from the beginning if there was a commitment of a 4th AWD if that would have made the project much more viable and efficient from the outset. We wouldn't have sought to deliberately delay the project as a political decision (deliberately costing more money). While it wouldn't have closed the valley of death, it would go some way to covering the gap combined with a smaller project(s ).

If we had made the decision early to go with say 4 AWD and 8 F-105 based hulls would that make the entire project more efficient. Volumes being secured means that work can be more effectively planned out.

Rather than make short term, commitments and hope that the next government can sort it all out and take the blame for any inefficiencies.

At the same time as the government was spending billions on basically non-transferable skills in the construction industry through their insulation and schools stimulus, at the same time as they cut spending on submarine maintenance, forcing redundancies, and slowed recruiting for AWD, later stretching the schedule and cutting the planned work force. A smarter strategic move could have been to order a fourth AWD, or even a second batch of three, perhaps a third LHD, or kick off the AOR program and increase Australian content.

Increasing Australian content would have stimulated a multitude of struggling construction (to build the required infrastructure) and engineering firms, given them the confidence to hire and train new workers, as well as possibly reducing costs and improving quality, i.e. Australian milled copper pipe would have been to the required spec, stainless steal hydraulic tanks would have been stainless steel, not mild steel etc. Above all, the extra people recruited would have been trained in highly marketable technical skills that would have been of value when the "Mining Boom Mark II" kicked off, fixing the skills shortage, taking pressure off wages and reducing the number of defence personnel poached by the mining industry, as well as cutting the number of people brought in on 457 visas. Even on the construction side the workers would have been trained and experienced in more complex infrastructure projects of greater value to the economy than house construction.

The shiplift at Tech Port could have been expanded or a larger one built adjacent to it, permitting the consolidation of larger vessels, i.e. LHDs, AORs, LPDs. The builder doesn't necessarily need to be ASC as there is significant vacant land adjacent to the CUF (that has also been designed so it can be extended) that BAE, Forgacs, or another player all together could set up in. Blocks for large ships could be built pretty much anywhere (preferably locally), consolidated at Tech Port with the completed hull being outfitted alongside there or transported to Melbourne, Newcastle or even Perth for completion (if you can ship a pair of LHD hulls from Spain you can definitely move them around the coast).

Far better IMO to have pumped a reasonable chunk of the stimulus (not all by any means) into shipbuilding and heavy construction. Introduced subsidised apprenticeships, traineeships and cadetships (for engineers and other professionals) rather than setting up the conditions where unscrupulous operators used, abused and sometimes killed young people, sending them unsupervised and barely trained into roof spaces that, due to live wires and heat exposure risks, should have been classified as confined spaces.

Do all this and I seriously doubt we would have seen all the issues we have with the AWD and LHD programs and there would be no way the AORs or submarines would go off shore. Do this and there's SA, Vic and NSW, stimulated, increase local content and I pretty much guarantee many firms around the country would benefit, producing equipment and materials bought from os that were sourced locally for the ANZACs, that were or could easily have been obtained from a number of Australian locations, even regional areas.

What a missed opportunity, thanks Kevin, or to be fair, Julia as she was calling the shots then too.

 

[Volkodav]

This is not the first time Ive noticed you putting down the west. Why? Did you not consider that 90% of federal politicians are born and bred easterners? Do you not consider that 90% of the federal government bureaucracy are easterners? That leaves less than 10% of this nations decision makers being Sandgropers!

You and the rest of SA are crying out for moar please sir all the time but you tend to forget where that "moar" is coming from.

.

Umm, I don't actually live in SA and if you had read more of my previous posts you would see I have criticised the decision to build the AWDs in a new yard in Adelaide instead of awarding the work to the proven team at Tenix at Williamstown, I have also previously criticised shutting down Cockatoo Island in favour of redeveloping Williamstown. Basically, due to politicing, we have rebuilt our naval shipbuilding capability almost from scratch twice (three times if you count building Success after almost no work at Codoc for several years) following completely unnecessary black holes. To me the ideal would be all major combatants and support ships should be built at Codoc, maybe light frigates, corvettes or OPVs at Williamstown, while I am agnostic as to where submarines should be built as it was a completely new capability. IMO this would have saved an incredible amount of money over the years and produced a sustainable industry as well as a larger, better equipped RAN, if not ADF as a whole.

My issue with WA is they are now doing what SA did (and IMO should not have done) in the early 2000s, parochial senior members of the government of the day, undermining an expensive capability existent in another state, to benefit their home state, ripping off the country as a whole. The same has happened with ADF helicopters, patrol boats etc. and will probably also happen with LAND 400. Parochialism annoys me as it hurts the ADF, the economy and the tax payer (i.e. me).

Oh, historically the more populous East, has subsidised the rest of the nation, the tables are partially turned for a decade and the West kicks screams and carries on as if they are carrying the rest of the nation. The sad thing is much of extra revenue from the mining construction boom has been wasted and multinationals have been permitted to offshore profits. Perhaps most damaging, many of the industries that would have been expected to step up once the effects of the boom (and the GFC on a more global perspective) tapered off, have been left to wither and die, leaving a big hole in the economy now the dollar is dropping.

 

[Joe Black]

Joe,

You seem awfully fixated on this 'Captains call' one liner you've been throwing around for a couple of days now, why?

Can you explain, in more than 'one' line, why that is so?


I'd really like to know how you come to the conclusions that you do, eg, the PM is going to make a 'Captain's call' and select the Soryu, how?

John, I read all these reports kinda like how I see budget news are being leaked out progressively over a few days prior to budget night. The whole thing about softening the impact by slowly releasing some pending decisions mean that the impact will be less (hopefully) when the official announce is made.

For Ian Macfarlane to say that 6 submarines could be built overseas and the next batch could then be build in Australia, I see this as a strong hint that the decision is almost made and pointing to Japan. As we have seen recently that TKMS and DCNS are both pointing to consider building the subs locally in Adelaide and even the possibility of taking over ASC, I can't see Ian making this statement if he had German or French's offering in mind.

I am either reading too much, or perhaps I am reading between the line.

I do understand you might not agree with my view, I suppose time will tell

Cheers,
Joe

 

[Volkodav]

Everyone, please stop dividing the estimated project cost for the AWD by three to determine how much each ship cost, it is totally inaccurate and misleading.

The project included massive amounts of reusable infrastructure, not just in Adelaide, but also in Melbourne and Newcastle. Facilities built and personnel trained at BAE Williamstown also benefited the LHD project, meaning AWD subsidised LHD to some extent.

Each ship includes equipment procured from overseas that would be used on the ships, no matter where they were built, the AEGIS combat system, propulsion system, weapon systems, auxiliaries, etc. a very substantial fixed cost. What was done, ironically to save costs, was the majority of these systems were procured upfront all at once for all three ships, too bad they didn't factor in the costs of warehousing and in-store maintenance.

Then there is the costs of the materials the ships are constructed from, the costs of changes specified by the RAN, the costs of changes force by other factors, such as the cancelation of the Super Seasprite program, followed by the procurement of the Romeo which forced design and configuration changes to the AWDs.

In addition to all of this there are the labour costs, these are the most telling as this is where significant improvement has been achieved but is being ignored. As I understand it the breakdown is approximately 45%, 32% and 23% for ships 1, 2 and 3 respectively, a very impressive improvement. So based on this alone simply dividing the whole cost by three is totally wrong.

In a nutshell, six years ago the CUF and most of the shipyard did not exist. First steel was cut only four years ago, last Saturday the first ship was floated out. This first ship is the first ship built at this yard, it is the first ship of its class, it is the most advanced and capable ship ever built in Australia or procured for the RAN and all we hear is bad news as if the project has failed when that is not the case at all. What has actually happened is cost and schedule was underestimated by over optimistic individuals who chose to ignore the professionals who told them point blanks that there was no way on the face of the planet an existing shipyard could deliver a design they had never built before to that schedule, let alone a new yard with an inexperienced workforce.

 

[Perlon]

Umm, I don't actually live in SA and if you had read more of my previous posts you would see I have criticised the decision to build the AWDs in a new yard in Adelaide instead of awarding the work to the proven team at Tenix at Williamstown, I have also previously criticised shutting down Cockatoo Island in favour of redeveloping Williamstown. Basically, due to politicing, we have rebuilt our naval shipbuilding capability almost from scratch twice (three times if you count building Success after almost no work at Codoc for several years) following completely unnecessary black holes. To me the ideal would be all major combatants and support ships should be built at Codoc, maybe light frigates, corvettes or OPVs at Williamstown, while I am agnostic as to where submarines should be built as it was a completely new capability. IMO this would have saved an incredible amount of money over the years and produced a sustainable industry as well as a larger, better equipped RAN, if not ADF as a whole.

You did live in SA?

My issue with WA is they are now doing what SA did (and IMO should not have done) in the early 2000s, parochial senior members of the government of the day, undermining an expensive capability existent in another state, to benefit their home state, ripping off the country as a whole. The same has happened with ADF helicopters, patrol boats etc. and will probably also happen with LAND 400. Parochialism annoys me as it hurts the ADF, the economy and the tax payer (i.e. me).

Most believe in this country that the decision making does not solely start and end at the ministerial level. There is more than one person that is responsible for the decisions of the defence of the nation. You are one of the most parochial on here regarding state vs state. Subsidizing shipyards anywhere is what annoys the country as a whole.

Oh, historically the more populous East, has subsidised the rest of the nation, the tables are partially turned for a decade and the West kicks screams and carries on as if they are carrying the rest of the nation. The sad thing is much of extra revenue from the mining construction boom has been wasted and multinationals have been permitted to offshore profits. Perhaps most damaging, many of the industries that would have been expected to step up once the effects of the boom (and the GFC on a more global perspective) tapered off, have been left to wither and die, leaving a big hole in the economy now the dollar is dropping.

Historically the federal grants scheme was created to compensate those states that did not benefit from national tariffs.....eg manufacturing in the south east. That is compensation not subsidization!

Seeing that you are an expert on the matter of subsidization or wealth distribution from the commonwealth government can you please calculate all the other federal subsidies......

How many federal public servants in each state per capita? Currently and historically.....and what are/were the benefits of each public servant to the regional/state economy?

How many defence personnel in each state per capita currently and historically? Military bases.....where were they located? Also the economic benefits.

Commonwealth funded industries.......where was each ship built for the navy since federation.......how many were involved in building each ship.......how many shipyards were subsidized.........and what were the benefits to that regional/state economy? Submarines? APC's?

Car industry......how many billions were wasted on that since the 50's.....what states benefited from those subsidies? Where was Telstra personnel located before it was privatised. Subsidies for the banking/financial sector......what states benefited the most since 1901? CSIRO? Road funding? etc etc

All these different subsidies/grants/payments/policies are all the same thing no matter what name you give them.

To this day I do not think that anyone has created a thorough analysis of the wealth distribution from the commonwealth government since federation. I suspect that some states are very disinterested in knowing the results of a thorough analysis.

Until you have calculated all of those subsidies please dont parrot the jingoism of state governments.

If it wasnt for the west and Qld this country would of been in recession/depression like the rest of the world since 2009. I wonder how this upcoming white paper would of looked like if we had of been in recession since 09.

With the nation tightening its belt I wonder if the country can stomach more over the top subsidization of ship building to the detriment of the ADF as a whole and to the detriment of 23 million Australians.