The OPVs are a certainty but pretty much guaranteed to be MOTS, as such they will be unlikely to offer much in the way of modular / containerised capabilities unless they have already been design in for an existing customer, i.e. the second batch of BAMS are intended, as I understand it, use modular hydrographic survey, mine warfare and pollution control mission sets. I do believe the Meteoro class may be considered too large (read expensive) for the initial requirement and a smaller, (cheaper) less flexible design will be selected.
There has been discussion of OPV production moving from the large naval yards as the new frigates come on line, with specific mention being made of WA/Austal for follow on vessels. This is interesting as it suggests a new design may be in the mix for this second batch with Austals tradition of aluminium vessels, possibly their MRV. The other possibly is they convert their operations to steel fabrication which is probably not as big a problem as some may believe as they currently rely on importing aluminium welders on 457 visas for their naval and border protection work while WA in general has a surplus of boiler makers, structural and pipe welders due to the end of the mining construction boom.
The question I have I why duplicate a capability, steel ship building, that we already have in surplus? By all means make use of the excellent fabrication facilities and work force (not specifically Austal) in the west to fabricate blocks, major and minor assemblies, mission modules etc. for OPVs, future frigates and future submarines, awarding work on merit, but why duplicate (dilute) existing, hard won consolidation and integration capabilities elsewhere?
An outfitted block for a frigate, OPV, or submarine is a big deal, and can be done in the west, as well as in the eastern and southern states.
