Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I can understand a minister being proud of his state and they should always be actively working to create more job's but to make such a claim is stretching it by a long shot, A number of states and territories in Australia have been quite successful in defense projects such as CEA in Canberra with CEAFAR and Victoria with the Anzacs and Bushmasters..

Blocks for FFGs and ANZACs, Turrets and outfit of ASLAVs, initial design and prototyping of Bushmaster, Bushranger Landrovers, big chunks of as well as catching up and fixing Jindillee and Wedgetail. Orion upgrades, Collins class Replacement Combat System, Heavy Weight Torpedo, integration of new USN spec, communication and electronic surveillance masts, major redesign and upgrade of the Collins class, not to forget building a world standard (possibly worlds best) conventional submarine.

Ninox night vision equipment, M-1 Abrams support, ASLAV upgrade and support, Hawk simulators, SAAB combat systems, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin combat systems, many DSTO functions, Pt Wakefield proof range, ARDU. And don't forget reconstituting naval ship building from almost nothing, following the early 2000s valley of death, overcoming numerous contact inspired problems and managing to massively improve productivity and quality after being let down by interstate and overseas contractors.

 

[Alf662]

Just found a media release from Kevin Andrews, similar to the media posts, but this is the official announcement:

Joint Media Release – Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – The Government’s plan for a strong and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry

4 August 2015

The Commonwealth Government is delivering a long-term plan for a strong and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry. Over the next 20 years the Government will invest over $89 billion in ships and submarines for the Navy.

This critical investment will generate significant economic growth and sustain several thousand Australian jobs over decades. It is a key part of our commitment to a safe and secure Australia.

The Government will implement a continuous build of surface warships in Australia. This means that Australia’s shipbuilding workforce will build Navy’s Future Frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels.

It’s the first time that any Australian government has committed to a permanent naval shipbuilding industry.

This strategy will transform Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry and put it onto a sustainable long-term path, giving the workforce certainty into the future.

The former government failed to commission a single naval warship from an Australian shipyard for the six years it was in office. This created the current shipbuilding ‘valley of death’. The Coalition Government’s plan will put an end to the boom-bust cycle that has afflicted the naval shipbuilding industry.

Today, the Government announces that it is:

Bringing forward the Future Frigate programme (SEA 5000) to replace the ANZAC class frigates. As part of this decision, we will confirm a continuous onshore build programme to commence in 2020 – three years earlier than scheduled under Labor’s Defence Capability Plan. This decision will save over 500 hundred jobs and help reduce the risks associated with a ‘cold start’. The Future Frigates will be built in South Australia based on a Competitive Evaluation Process, which will begin in October 2015.
Bringing forward construction of Offshore Patrol Vessels (SEA 1180) to replace the Armidale class patrol boats by two years, with a continuous onshore build commencing in 2018 following a Competitive Evaluation Process. This decision will maintain around 400 skilled jobs that would otherwise have been lost. It will also reduce the number of man-hours that would be wasted on the Future Frigate programme if the existing workforce was disbanded and reconstituted, setting it on a stronger path for earlier completion.

In the short term these two measures will sustain around 1,000 jobs that would otherwise have been lost. Once both programmes ramp up they will guarantee around 2,500 Australian shipbuilding jobs for decades.

The third major pillar of the Government’s naval shipbuilding plan will be based on the outcomes of the Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) for Australia’s future submarine.

Overseen by an independent panel of experts, the CEP will ensure that capability, cost, schedule, and key strategic considerations – along with Australian industry involvement – are carefully and methodically considered by the Department of Defence. There will be more submarines and more submarine-related jobs in Australia.

Addressing the serious cost overruns, delays and productivity problems affecting the Air Warfare Destroyer programme is essential to restore public confidence in Australian naval shipbuilding and ensure future projects deliver world-class capabilities for the Defence Force and value for taxpayers.

Following a forensic audit, and building on significant improvements made through the recent interim phase of reforms, the Government is acting decisively to reform the AWD programme. By the end of October 2015 substantial additional shipbuilding management expertise will be inserted into the AWD programme and an additional $1.2 billion will be invested in the programme budget.

The Government will also undertake further reform of ASC to ensure Australian shipbuilding is best structured to support a continuous build programme and future naval projects are delivered on time and on budget.

To this end, the Government has commissioned a strategic review of ASC’s shipbuilding capacity. The review will consider how best to implement long-term arrangements.

Recognising that the Adelaide shipyards and workforce are strategic national assets, the review will consider options to ensure they are structured to support the Government’s commitment to naval shipbuilding. This will include discussions with the South Australian Government on the future of its Common User Facility at Techport, which forms an important part of the Adelaide shipyards.

The outcomes of the review will be considered in conjunction with future decisions on submarines and surface shipbuilding programmes.

The Coalition Government’s historic investment in Navy capability will be a centrepiece of the fully-funded Defence White Paper that will be released later this year. It will set out the Government’s plan to equip the Australian Defence Force to meet current and future challenges.

 

[hairyman]

Our politicians are good. Even though they dont know which ships and boats are to be built they know how much it is going cost.

 

[Alf662]

Below is a media release from Austal's website, I am sure this will create a lot of comment:

Austal welcomes today’s announcement by the Australian Government and the commitment it demonstrates to the Australian shipbuilding industry.

Austal Chief Executive Officer Andrew Bellamy said the large Government investment in naval shipbuilding and a shift to a continuous build model from the previous project-based model was a truly transformative change.

“A continuous build program will preserve important skills and capability in the Australian workforce and drive productivity improvements which are essential to maximise taxpayer value, ensure Australia’s shipbuilding industry is internationally competitive, and lay the pathway to expanding naval exports from Australia,” Mr Bellamy said.

Austal also welcomes the announcement of a competitive evaluation process for the future surface combatant programs. A competitive process will drive the right balance between economics and Australia’s defence force capability, and Austal looks forward to participating in that process for both Frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels. While Adelaide, given its existing infrastructure, is the logical choice for assembly of the Future Frigate, the facilities and workforce in Western Australia are similarly well positioned to deliver Offshore Patrol Vessels.

“There are great opportunities in both the Future Frigate and the Offshore Patrol Vessel programs for Australian shipbuilders, including here in Western Australia where the local industry has built all of the Commonwealth’s Patrol Boats for the past 17 years as well as supporting major upgrades to the Anzac Frigates and sustainment of the Collins Submarines,” Mr Bellamy said.

“Austal’s Henderson yard has already proven that Australian shipbuilding can be internationally competitive as we continue to export Naval ships, and that is why we welcome this vote of confidence in the domestic industry that the Government has made today.”

Austal also welcomes further reform of ASC.ASC has some of the world’s best infrastructure which is matched by the skills and capabilities of its workforce.

However, it has long been Austal’s position that Governments should not operate shipyards and this development removes the unnecessary complication of being both customer and shipbuilder. Austal will consider any future opportunities today’s announcement of further reform of ASC may provide to the Company into the future.

“Austal is the only Australian-owned, ASX-listed, international defence prime contractor and we remain committed to playing a leading role in the future of Australian shipbuilding,” Mr Bellamy said.

-Ends-

 

[John Newman]

Below is a media release from Austal's website, I am sure this will create a lot of comment:

Austal welcomes today’s announcement by the Australian Government and the commitment it demonstrates to the Australian shipbuilding industry.

Austal Chief Executive Officer Andrew Bellamy said the large Government investment in naval shipbuilding and a shift to a continuous build model from the previous project-based model was a truly transformative change.

“A continuous build program will preserve important skills and capability in the Australian workforce and drive productivity improvements which are essential to maximise taxpayer value, ensure Australia’s shipbuilding industry is internationally competitive, and lay the pathway to expanding naval exports from Australia,” Mr Bellamy said.

Austal also welcomes the announcement of a competitive evaluation process for the future surface combatant programs. A competitive process will drive the right balance between economics and Australia’s defence force capability, and Austal looks forward to participating in that process for both Frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels. While Adelaide, given its existing infrastructure, is the logical choice for assembly of the Future Frigate, the facilities and workforce in Western Australia are similarly well positioned to deliver Offshore Patrol Vessels.

“There are great opportunities in both the Future Frigate and the Offshore Patrol Vessel programs for Australian shipbuilders, including here in Western Australia where the local industry has built all of the Commonwealth’s Patrol Boats for the past 17 years as well as supporting major upgrades to the Anzac Frigates and sustainment of the Collins Submarines,” Mr Bellamy said.

“Austal’s Henderson yard has already proven that Australian shipbuilding can be internationally competitive as we continue to export Naval ships, and that is why we welcome this vote of confidence in the domestic industry that the Government has made today.”

Austal also welcomes further reform of ASC.ASC has some of the world’s best infrastructure which is matched by the skills and capabilities of its workforce.

However, it has long been Austal’s position that Governments should not operate shipyards and this development removes the unnecessary complication of being both customer and shipbuilder. Austal will consider any future opportunities today’s announcement of further reform of ASC may provide to the Company into the future.

“Austal is the only Australian-owned, ASX-listed, international defence prime contractor and we remain committed to playing a leading role in the future of Australian shipbuilding,” Mr Bellamy said.

-Ends-

Actually I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Austal's statement, it's a listed company and it would no doubt be in the interest of shareholders and the duty of directors of the company to stick their head up and make a comment about Naval Shipbuilding when the Government has just announced such a large pot of dollars is going to be spent on local construction, they will be trying to get their share of the pie just like everyone else is.

Austal has said in recent times it is interested in taking over the shipbuilding arm of ASC, so this seem to be pretty consistent with increasing their profile.

Is it any different from all the other reports in the media about the Germans wanting to take over ASC too and build ships and submarines? I think not.

 

[peterAustralia]

So just maybe the BAe Williamstown yard becomes very expensive waterfront multi-story apartments, and future investment in shipyards will be in South Australia. I wonder how many apartments they can fit on the site, at say 700k apiece, might be a nice earner

 

[Alf662]

Actually I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Austal's statement, it's a listed company and it would no doubt be in the interest of shareholders and the duty of directors of the company to stick their head up and make a comment about Naval Shipbuilding when the Government has just announced such a large pot of dollars is going to be spent on local construction, they will be trying to get their share of the pie just like everyone else is.

Austal has said in recent times it is interested in taking over the shipbuilding arm of ASC, so this seem to be pretty consistent with increasing their profile.

Is it any different from all the other reports in the media about the Germans wanting to take over ASC too and build ships and submarines? I think not.

What surprised me was the speed that it was done, I get the feeling that they may have already known what was going to be announced and had plenty of time to prepare an accurate announcement. But you are correct, it is showing due diligence from the Austal directors.

It is quite possible that Austal will offer Aluminium vessels out of their Henderson yard and if they have to offer a steel hull do it out of Techport.

With the AWD now up for grabs I am sure the winner would have the inside running for the OPV and frigate project. So would that be enough of an incentive for Austal to diversify into steel? Would it be enough of an incentive for BAE to relocate to Techport and develop Williamstown?

 

[John Newman]

Our politicians are good. Even though they dont know which ships and boats are to be built they know how much it is going cost.

I don't see your point, what is your point?

Don't forget that most Defence projects are planned many years in advance and when a Defence Capability Plan is produced, and for each particular project a budget 'allowance' is produced, so of course no one knows what the final cost will be.

For example from the 2012 DCP (the last 'public' version published) has SEA1180 with a budget allowance of between $5B and $10B (DCP says probably in the middle), and there will of course be budget allowances for both the Future Frigates and the Collins replacements too.

So when a politician (from either side of the political fence) announced a dollar figure on a 'future' project, well I'm sure they are quoting figures given to them by the Defence Department.

The final cost may be more, it may be less, but hey, at least there appears to be some sort of commitment to actually start ordering ships from Australian yards for the RAN!!!

 

[oldsig127]

Originally Posted by weegee
Mr Macfarlane would not be drawn on a frigates announcement and said only that SA had a good record when it came to defence projects.

I can understand a minister being proud of his state and they should always be actively working to create more job's but to make such a claim is stretching it by a long shot, A number of states and territories in Australia have been quite successful in defense projects such as CEA in Canberra with CEAFAR and Victoria with the Anzacs and Bushmasters..

You should read that again, and this time read what he actually said, and not what you wanted to arc up about.

"said only that SA had a good record when it came to defence projects"

...means that he made no announcement other than that SA had a good record. What he did NOT say is


"said that only SA had a good record when it came to defence projects"

Reading comprehension is important. Sometimes this thread could really use some.

oldsig

 

[Trackmaster]

So just maybe the BAe Williamstown yard becomes very expensive waterfront multi-story apartments, and future investment in shipyards will be in South Australia. I wonder how many apartments they can fit on the site, at say 700k apiece, might be a nice earner

A plan on the table, which is good to see. Let the sniping begin.

I have a couple of questions:
When is the decision expected on the tankers? Is that something that could be announced with the White Paper?
What is the timescale and the process for the evaluation process?

 

[John Newman]

What surprised me was the speed that it was done, I get the feeling that they may have already known what was going to be announced and had plenty of time to prepare an accurate announcement. But you are correct, it is showing due diligence from the Austal directors.

It is quite possible that Austal will offer Aluminium vessels out of their Henderson yard and if they have to offer a steel hull do it out of Techport.

With the AWD now up for grabs I am sure the winner would have the inside running for the OPV and frigate project. So would that be enough of an incentive for Austal to diversify into steel? Would it be enough of an incentive for BAE to relocate to Techport and develop Williamstown?

Actually I'm not surprised at all.

It's been know publically at least for a month or so that the Government was due to announce the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, and Austal (just like all the other players in the Australian Shipbuilding industry), would have been fully aware of the pending announcement (no doubt any smart company would get a press release ready for when the official announcement is actually made!).

Were they briefed on what was to be announced? Maybe they were, but I'm sure that if they were briefed just prior to the official announcement that I'm pretty sure that the Government would have been smart enough to brief all the other major players too, BAE, ASC, Forgacs, etc.

I don't think there is anything 'sinister' at hand here, quiet often when Governments (of all flavours) make big announcements that affect a particular 'industry', then no doubt the major players in that industry would get a 'heads up' before the official announcement.

 

[John Newman]

You should read that again, and this time read what he actually said, and not what you wanted to arc up about.

"said only that SA had a good record when it came to defence projects"

...means that he made no announcement other than that SA had a good record. What he did NOT say is


"said that only SA had a good record when it came to defence projects"

Reading comprehension is important. Sometimes this thread could really use some.

oldsig

Good one!!

It reminds me of when I was an apprentice 'Hand and Machine Compositor' in the Printing Industry in the mid 70's.

Don't know what a Compositor is? Well before PC's and desktop publishing, a Compositor was the guy that did the 'typesetting' for newspapers, books and magazines, and we had and 'old saying':

"Once I couldn't spell compostor, no I are one!"

 

[vonnoobie]

So just maybe the BAe Williamstown yard becomes very expensive waterfront multi-story apartments, and future investment in shipyards will be in South Australia. I wonder how many apartments they can fit on the site, at say 700k apiece, might be a nice earner

Not necessarily. BAE Williamstown could just as easily get any OPV/OCV contract as ASC or Austal as that particular program has not been given to any definite shipyard and unless they are given a new site and a cash injection I don't see them leaving as while they may not build the actual frigates, They are more then likely to get a number of the block's just as with the AWD.

 

[Alf662]

Actually I'm not surprised at all.

It's been know publically at least for a month or so that the Government was due to announce the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, and Austal (just like all the other players in the Australian Shipbuilding industry), would have been fully aware of the pending announcement (no doubt any smart company would get a press release ready for when the official announcement is actually made!).

Were they briefed on what was to be announced? Maybe they were, but I'm sure that if they were briefed just prior to the official announcement that I'm pretty sure that the Government would have been smart enough to brief all the other major players too, BAE, ASC, Forgacs, etc.

I don't think there is anything 'sinister' at hand here, quiet often when Governments (of all flavours) make big announcements that affect a particular 'industry', then no doubt the major players in that industry would get a 'heads up' before the official announcement.

John, I wasn't suggesting any thing sinister, just expressing surprise at the speed. And just to be fair I just visited BAE's website and they also have a statement (posted below) so it certainly indicates that the government has tried very hard to actively engage with the ship building industry.

BAE's Press statement:

Williamstown, Victoria: BAE Systems Australia has welcomed today’s announcement by Prime Minister Abbott of a commitment to a continuous shipbuilding plan for the Royal Australian Navy’s surface fleet.


Mr Abbott is the first Prime Minister to take the strategic step of a long-term commitment to naval platforms.

As one of Australia’s leading naval shipbuilders, BAE Systems has advocated a continuous build strategy for many years because it leads to the retention of a highly skilled workforce that provides certainty of employment and delivers higher levels of productivity.

Commenting on today’s announcement BAE Systems Australia’s Acting Chief Executive, Glynn Phillips, said: “We look forward to engaging with the Federal Government so we can better understand the implications this will have for our shipbuilding operations in Australia and the contribution we can potentially make as this country’s leading naval shipbuilding prime contractor. BAE Systems has world-class designs for frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels and has experience in building both of these classes of warships in Australia.’’

Mr Phillips continued, “We know from our experience with building the current Anzac frigates, the two Landing Helicopter Dock warships and other vessels that when a continuous build program is in place, we can achieve and sustain productivity improvements that result in a globally competitive performance.”

 

[John Newman]

John, I wasn't suggesting any thing sinister, just expressing surprise at the speed. And just to be fair I just visited BAE's website and they also have a statement (posted below) so it certainly indicates that the government has tried very hard to actively engage with the ship building industry.

BAE's Press statement:

Williamstown, Victoria: BAE Systems Australia has welcomed today’s announcement by Prime Minister Abbott of a commitment to a continuous shipbuilding plan for the Royal Australian Navy’s surface fleet.


Mr Abbott is the first Prime Minister to take the strategic step of a long-term commitment to naval platforms.

As one of Australia’s leading naval shipbuilders, BAE Systems has advocated a continuous build strategy for many years because it leads to the retention of a highly skilled workforce that provides certainty of employment and delivers higher levels of productivity.

Commenting on today’s announcement BAE Systems Australia’s Acting Chief Executive, Glynn Phillips, said: “We look forward to engaging with the Federal Government so we can better understand the implications this will have for our shipbuilding operations in Australia and the contribution we can potentially make as this country’s leading naval shipbuilding prime contractor. BAE Systems has world-class designs for frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels and has experience in building both of these classes of warships in Australia.’’

Mr Phillips continued, “We know from our experience with building the current Anzac frigates, the two Landing Helicopter Dock warships and other vessels that when a continuous build program is in place, we can achieve and sustain productivity improvements that result in a globally competitive performance.”

Mate, I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting anything sinister, not at all, ok??

Just saying that I wasn't surprised that Austal was as quick as it was to put out a press release and now that you've reproduced BAE's press release too, then I think that validates what I was saying.

I'm pretty sure that the Government would have, not just at the last minute either, been having all sorts of ongoing discussions about it's plans.

It would have looked pretty ridiculous that when the Government announced what it announced today that none of the major players had a clue as to what was happening.

So I have no doubt that the Government has been talking to all of the players involved, will they all end up with a slice of the pie? Well that all remains to be seen, but as the old saying goes:

"you got to be in it, to win it!"

 

[John Newman]

A plan on the table, which is good to see. Let the sniping begin.

I have a couple of questions:
When is the decision expected on the tankers? Is that something that could be announced with the White Paper?
What is the timescale and the process for the evaluation process? Surely there are folks within the RAN and DMO who can say.... this fits for Sea 5000, and this fits for Sea 1180.
With knowledge only gained from outside observations, I ask the questions. Is the process designed for efficient decision making, based on the assumption that there are people who know what's happening in the northern hemisphere, or is "make work" a substantial driver of the process?

I think that we all need to see what todays announcement was, it was a 'broad brush' overview of the plans of the Government for the local Naval Shipbuilding Industry.

It gave out enough details (but not too much), that the Future Frigate will be brought forward to 2020 (instead of 2026) and that SEA1180 (or at least the ACPB replacement part of it) will commence in 2018.

The real nuts and bolts, the 'how, when, what, where and why' will no doubt be further explained in the new DWP and DCP.

The DWP will give the overall strategic direction and probably talk about actual confirmed 'numbers', exactly how many Future Frigates, how many OPV's, etc, etc.

It will then take examining the DCP to actually see what the budget allowances are for each project and to actually see the various stages planned for the projects, release of tenders, selecting the winners of the various projects, start of construction dates, IOC, etc.

Until then, really all we can do is just continue to speculate!

 

[rockitten]

Now the schedule for ANZAC class replacement has been set, I wonder what's the best use of the ANZAC hulls that are going to be retired a bit too early?

I know V had suggested "cannibalising" systems from the OHP and ANZACS for the frigates and OPVs, but how about we sell these used vessels to other navies?

Taiwanese, Poland and Pakistan navies for example, may interested to purchase some extra OHP hulls, our Kiwi friends may want extra 2 ANZACS, even Filipino navy may want some surplus OHP and ANZACS too.

Just wonder, is that hard to get Sweden's approval if we export the ANZACS with the 9LV?

 

[Volkodav]

There seems to to a misconception that ship building is a winner takes all proposition, this most definitely is not the case. Quite often the nominated builder isn't even the prime and may not even do the majority of the work.

To start with the combat system is a very big part of the cost of major combatants and a lesser part of OPV or corvette costs. There is also a lot of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and procured equipment, weapon systems, sensors, propulsion engines (diesels /GTs) that have nothing to do with the actual shipbuilder.

Since the Australian Frigate Project that built the final two FFGs at Williamstown, starting in the late 80s, major vessels have been built in blocks at multiple locations. Eglos in Adelaide built aluminum superstructure blocks for the FFGs, ANZAC blocks in a number of locations, including New Zealand. The AWD blocks where built in Adelaide, Melbourne, Newcastle and Spain with accommodation blocks being prefabricated in Tasmania.

A smart way forward would be to follow the existing model where particular yards concentrate on particular types of blocks, i.e. keel and complex hull blocks at BAE, some hull and superstructure blocks at Forgacs, complex CS related blocks at ASC. Competition could be achieved through the award of additional, non complex hull and superstructure blocks to the best performing yard based on performance. This allocation would apply to frigates, destroyers, OPVs or corvettes, it could even fit larger (possibly LSM sized) LCH(R), future AORs, LPDs, LHDs, even (fantasy time) DDH, CVL.

With a continuous build and assumed commonality for various systems local production could become a viable option eg. propulsion diesels, GTs, diesel generators, for a start. This is a very long way from an employment project for SA, its an opportunity for the country as a whole.

 

[Bluey 006]

A few questions I was thinking upon hearing this:

With the Frigates being built at Techport from 2020, Does this point to an overseas submarine build? (I.e. Japan)

Also,
Given that stipulation from Defence Minister Kevin Andrews that future frigates are done by a “well-integrated designer, builder and supplier team”, does this point to a design other than the T26? Based on the reasoning that BAE is building them in the UK and if that design is selected it stands to reason that BAE Australia would be the logical choice to build them here (given IP transfer etc). Now they have indicated that these frigates will be built in SA, it suggests ASC (I understand that Techport has common user facilities but…..).

On that same note he also stated “mature designs of vessels would be considered ahead of designing a new class of vessel from scratch or making extensive modifications to existing designs” and “ the capability the navy needed must be thoroughly tested against more readily available warships, the number of design changes the navy could insist on must be limited” . The only really mature design is the FREMM and it is the only one that can be “real world” tested.


Also the ANZACs (BAE) were one of our more successful ship building projects, wouldn't that also give Victoria a good record?

Thoughts?

 

[vonnoobie]

Now the schedule for ANZAC class replacement has been set, I wonder what's the best use of the ANZAC hulls that are going to be retired a bit too early?

I know V had suggested "cannibalising" systems from the OHP and ANZACS for the frigates and OPVs, but how about we sell these used vessels to other navies?

Taiwanese, Poland and Pakistan navies for example, may interested to purchase some extra OHP hulls, our Kiwi friends may want extra 2 ANZACS, even Filipino navy may want some surplus OHP and ANZACS too.

Just wonder, is that hard to get Sweden's approval if we export the ANZACS with the 9LV?

Selling them off to other navies is not actually a long shot, I don't see Taiwan being likely with China unless we strip them down to the base bones and Pakistan could be a hard sell considering the countries current issues and there cozying up to China. In Europe could be Romania, Poland or Turkey as the most likely candidates, Least likely being Portugal and Greece (Both operating variants but economies not so crash hot). A couple South American countries could be interested or even a few of the more stable democratic countries in Africa.

A few questions I was thinking upon hearing this:

With the Frigates being built at Techport from 2020, Does this point to an overseas submarine build? (I.e. Japan)

Also,
Given that stipulation from Defence Minister Kevin Andrews that future frigates are done by a “well-integrated designer, builder and supplier team”, does this point to a design other than the T26? Based on the reasoning that BAE is building them in the UK and if that design is selected it stands to reason that BAE Australia would be the logical choice to build them here (given IP transfer etc). Now they have indicated that these frigates will be built in SA, it suggests ASC (I understand that Techport has common user facilities but…..).

On that same note he also stated “mature designs of vessels would be considered ahead of designing a new class of vessel from scratch or making extensive modifications to existing designs” and “ the capability the navy needed must be thoroughly tested against more readily available warships, the number of design changes the navy could insist on must be limited” . The only really mature design is the FREMM and it is the only one that can be “real world” tested.


Also the ANZACs (BAE) were one of our more successful ship building projects, wouldn't that also give Victoria a good record?

Thoughts?

1. I hope that it doesn't mean the Submarines are being built over seas. As long as we are being fully informed then the CEP is still under way and no decision has yet to be made either in the short or long term.

2. Existing frigates will get first pick, I imagine if they don't meet requirements without major modifications we will end up with one of them. If major modifications are required then a paper design would likely be considered equally along with it.

3. FREMM isn't the only mature design, Just the one most talked about recently. There still is the F-100 or a variant of it even though some think because we put Destroyer in the title that it can't do a frigates job... A few other's do exist around that have been introduced over the last decade, while the German F-125 should be commissioned some time next year leaving that as another contender.