Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

If this report is in any way accurate, it would seem to indicate that local shipbuilders may be overlooked when it comes to the preferred tenderer for project SEA 5000.
More than that - it seems to suggest that it is a likelihood rather than a possibility
MB

ABC report? Victorian Labor Senator Kim Carr?

Hmmm, sounds like a bit of media beat up to me, must be a slow news day!!


Firstly looking at the OPV competition, there are teaming relationships with Civmec/ASC and two of the contenders, and Austal with the third contender on the other hand.

Two ships will be built at the common user facility in SA, presumably using existing facilities (used for the AWD's), before moving to WA for the remaining 10 ships, presumably using Civmec or Austal facilities (depending the winning design) and of course the common user facilities too.

Regardless of the winner and who they team with, the 12 OPV's will be built here using Australian facilities and Australian manpower.

Looking at the AWD program, we've got the AWD Alliance (ASC, Raytheon, and the Commonwealth) using the facilities in SA, including the common user facility too.

And of course we've had BAE in WA for when it performed the ASMD upgrade on the Anzac Frigates, using their facilities and common user facilities.


So getting back to SEA5000, what we do know is that the nine ships will be built in SA, using the common user facilities and the new facilities that are to be constructed by the 'new' ASC Infrastructure business.

And talking of ASC, that has now been split into three entities, shipbuilding, submarine sustainment and infrastructure.

So who are the Australian shipbuilders the report is talking about? Austal? ASC Shipbuilding? Who else? BAE Australia? (which is not Australian owned).


Regardless of the 'entity' that is responsible for the building of the ships from the three competing designs, we do know that they will be built in SA using the new facilities to be constructed by ASC Infrastructure, the common user facilities and by Australian shipbuilding workers.

Who the winning designers team with, well I'd expect that is up to them, if it was BAE's Type 26, I'd imagine that BAE Australia will be involved. Navantia? Who knows, maybe ASC, or their own local management, who knows with the Italian bid.


To me the report is more about Austal and ASC trying to position themselves to get their piece of the cake.

Media beat up? I'm sure we all have our own opinions on that.

 

[Muar River]

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/1202-senate-forces-future-frigates-disclosures

A bit more on the "matter" with each of the three bidders providing advice on the use of workforce and facilities in SA. Xenophon involved.

 

[pussertas]

Aussie Warship Project to be Delayed for Two Years

CANBERRA --- A 28-billion-U.S.-dollar Australian warship project could be delayed for two years if local companies are handed the contract, a government minister has warned.

The Future Frigates project will see nine new anti-submarine warfare frigates designed and built to replace Australia's existing Anzac frigate fleet.

The Australian bid to build the ships is being led by South Australia's ASC and Western Australia's Austal, but Spain's Navantia, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Fincantieri have also been shortlisted for the project.

Despite an initial promise that the ships would be built in Australia, the Defence Department has convinced the government that the Australian-built clause should be "optional" rather than "mandated."

Christopher Pyne, Australia's defence industry minister, said: "Advice from the Department of Defence is that changing the request for tender to mandate a particular shipbuilder would result in a delay of at least two years in the Future Frigates program."

"The government is committed to creating an indigenous naval shipbuilding industry in Australia which will involve a significant increase of employees in the shipbuilding industry, focused on South Australia," Pyne said in a statement on Friday.

Appearing alongside ASC and Austal at a parliamentary inquiry into the project, Glenn Thompson, assistant national secretary at Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), said that the foreign companies had to commit to hiring 1,000 Australian apprentices and graduates for the program.

"The government must reward and support tenderers that show that level of commitment to developing the skills that workers will need to complete these projects," Thompson said.

"It is pretty remarkable that we've got a foreign company bidding for this project, talking up the Australian workforce, while the government's own documents make it clear that using these workers is optional.

"A sovereign capability to build, maintain, sustain and upgrade ships and submarines in Australia is not optional, using Australia workers on these projects from day one isn't either."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is true ant just a piece of 'spin' then the consequences for the Australian shipbuilding industry are horrific.

:crazy

 

[ngatimozart]

CANBERRA --- A 28-billion-U.S.-dollar Australian warship project could be delayed for two years if local companies are handed the contract, a government minister has warned.

The Future Frigates project will see nine new anti-submarine warfare frigates designed and built to replace Australia's existing Anzac frigate fleet.

...............

"A sovereign capability to build, maintain, sustain and upgrade ships and submarines in Australia is not optional, using Australia workers on these projects from day one isn't either."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is true ant just a piece of 'spin' then the consequences for the Australian shipbuilding industry are horrific.

:crazy

Can you please edit your post to include the source for this story. It protects both you and DT from accusations / allegations of plagiarism.

 

[Hazdog]

Future Anti-Ship Missile

Here is a quick article on what may possibly make up the RAN's future AShM.

Tomahawk Vs. LRASM: Raytheon Gets $119M For Anti-Ship Missile « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Here is a quick article on what may possibly make up the RAN's future AShM.

Tomahawk Vs. LRASM: Raytheon Gets $119M For Anti-Ship Missile « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary.

As commentary has pointed out SM-6, NSM, LRASM and TLAM are all very much complementary. There are valid reasons to procure and update all types.

Its conceivable that the ADF will see all types, possibly deployed concurrently on the same platform. Providing a balance of capabilities. While I think SM-2 will be the primary missile loadout, the the others have great practical advantages.

Again, SM-6, LRASM and TLAM are going to require strike length cells, as would SM-3.

 

[weegee]

Can you please edit your post to include the source for this story. It protects both you and DT from accusations / allegations of plagiarism.

Hey Ngati I found this aparrently from xinhuanet:
Aussie warship project to be delayed for two years by local companies: minister - Xinhua | English.news.cn

I wouldn't read too much into it, why would a chinese media outlet have the scoop but nothing coming out of here (AUS). If it were the case it would be something Aussie media would like to mention I guarantee haha

 

[Shanesworld]

Hey Ngati I found this aparrently from xinhuanet:
Aussie warship project to be delayed for two years by local companies: minister - Xinhua | English.news.cn

I wouldn't read too much into it, why would a chinese media outlet have the scoop but nothing coming out of here (AUS). If it were the case it would be something Aussie media would like to mention I guarantee haha

No doubt but I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese spy agencies could read reports into these kinds of things as they were being written.

 

[hairyman]

Here is a quick article on what may possibly make up the RAN's future AShM.

Tomahawk Vs. LRASM: Raytheon Gets $119M For Anti-Ship Missile « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary.

I took it for granted that our next anti-ship-missile would be the Norwegian NSM, as it does have Australian content, and is made to fit into the bay of the F35. Not requiring a strike length VLS I thought would be in its favour as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hey Ngati I found this aparrently from xinhuanet:
Aussie warship project to be delayed for two years by local companies: minister - Xinhua | English.news.cn

I wouldn't read too much into it, why would a chinese media outlet have the scoop but nothing coming out of here (AUS). If it were the case it would be something Aussie media would like to mention I guarantee haha

Thanks. Yep Xinhua aren't noted for their accuracy and unbiased reporting.

 

[Hazdog]

Thanks. Yep Xinhua aren't noted for their accuracy and unbiased reporting.

Can someone please decipher what is happening with the project then?

I have attempted to understand the provided articles with no luck.
Thanks

 

[spoz]

Pretty much on track, as I understand it, within the constraints of Government decision making.

 

[Todjaeger]

I took it for granted that our next anti-ship-missile would be the Norwegian NSM, as it does have Australian content, and is made to fit into the bay of the F35. Not requiring a strike length VLS I thought would be in its favour as well.

Something to consider is whether the NSM can perform to the level different aspects of the ADF need or want. Keep in mind that according to current and likely future plans, there will be air, surface, land, and subsurface AShM launch platforms. There is also likely to be a standoff LACM requirement which could also be from surface, subsurface and air-launched platforms.

One of the reasons this is significant is that some of the features of the NSM would give it a real edge against other AShM, under some specific conditions. OTOH those very same features could be considered a disadvantage under different conditions.

My personal preference would be for the ADF to get several different types of AShM and have the different capabilities complement each other.

With the NSM being a smaller/lighter missile than some of the others, it could be more suitable for use from aircraft (F-35, P-8, possibly even MH-60R or a follow-on naval helicopter) as well as land-based mobile batteries. The potential downside for being a smaller/lighter missile is that the NSM has a smaller warhead as well as shorter range when compared with the JASSM derived AGM-158C LRASM.

The RAN might very well want the replacement for the Harpoon AShM to not only have longer range than the Harpoon (which the NSM does meet), but something larger than the 221 kg Harpoon warhead. In this regard, the NSM falls short having only a ~125 kg warhead, but the LRASM is expected to have a ~450 kg warhead. Ship and sub AShM can be less constrained in terms of a missile's weight and size/volume. Further, with sub-launched AShM, depending on the launch method (VLS or via torpedoe tube), a certain volume could end up being 'wasted space' due to an AShM torpedoe tube canister being comparatively empty.

Without more information though, it is difficult to tell in which direction is gov't leaning. A single missile or missile family for all potential launch vectors which could reduce missile inventory costs while providing a more limited range of response capabilities. Or a high inventory cost, but also a broader range of response options.

 

[ADMk2]

I took it for granted that our next anti-ship-missile would be the Norwegian NSM, as it does have Australian content, and is made to fit into the bay of the F35. Not requiring a strike length VLS I thought would be in its favour as well.

With the specific White Paper talk of new 'high speed missiles' I get the feeling that a range of capabilities will be the future ADF position with regards to strike and anti-ship missile capabilities.

I seriously doubt there will be a 1 for 1 Harpoon replacement weapon.

 

[hauritz]

Hey Ngati I found this aparrently from xinhuanet:
Aussie warship project to be delayed for two years by local companies: minister - Xinhua | English.news.cn

I wouldn't read too much into it, why would a chinese media outlet have the scoop but nothing coming out of here (AUS). If it were the case it would be something Aussie media would like to mention I guarantee haha

Just read the bit that states

"Despite an initial promise that the ships would be built in Australia, the Defence Department has convinced the government that the Australian-built clause should be optional rather than mandated."

Is this correct?

It is huge news if it is.

 

[ADMk2]

Just read the bit that states

"Despite an initial promise that the ships would be built in Australia, the Defence Department has convinced the government that the Australian-built clause should be optional rather than mandated."

Is this correct?

It is huge news if it is.

Yep, absolutely it's optional, just as it was with the submarines...

But if anyone seriously thinks these won't be locally assembled, then perhaps they would be interested in a lovely few hectares I happen to have for sale on the moon?

 

[Volkodav]

Yep, absolutely it's optional, just as it was with the submarines...

But if anyone seriously thinks these won't be locally assembled, then perhaps they would be interested in a lovely few hectares I happen to have for sale on the moon?

Every time short sighted individuals convince the government of the day to buy ships off shore instead of building locally they are just increasing costs down the track when we inevitably return to local builds . Irrespective of how much appears to be saved by buying off shore it is counterproductive not to factor in the overheads of the boom and bust cycle that results from short sighted, strategic capability killing, penny pinching. The really dumb thing is the government owns ASC so by stuffing around the way they do they are hurting the tax payer.

 

[40 deg south]

https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...-2017-deploys-for-key-military-exercises.html

Navy Recognition reports on Indo-Pacific Endeavour exercise led by Australia. A crap name, incidentally, but an impressive exercise.

 

[hauritz]

Every time short sighted individuals convince the government of the day to buy ships off shore instead of building locally they are just increasing costs down the track when we inevitably return to local builds . Irrespective of how much appears to be saved by buying off shore it is counterproductive not to factor in the overheads of the boom and bust cycle that results from short sighted, strategic capability killing, penny pinching. The really dumb thing is the government owns ASC so by stuffing around the way they do they are hurting the tax payer.

Not to mention the political fallout from this if it were to actually happen.

"What ifs" intrigue me though.

If construction in Australia is not mandatory then what would happen if the best bid is for an off shore build. The government could not really refuse that bid on the basis that it was an off shore construction if that were not part of the original terms.

IMHO a shipbuilder such as Fincantieri is really an outside chance of winning this project so their best chance might be to build these ships offshore. They are still building FREMMs and are the largest shipbuilders in Europe. That combination would probably see them put forward the most cost effective bid.

Perhaps even Navantia could decide to put in a low ball bid involving building those hulls in Europe.

 

[Muar River]

Another article relating to the construction of the frigates. It would be interesting to know who leaked the RFT?

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/m...m-on-sea-5000-public-interest-immunity-claims