Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Muar River]

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.

Construction on the new Naval Shipyard at Osborne North commenced on 24 August. It is hard to imagine with this investment (and political ramifications in South Australia) that construction would be in Europe.

http://defencetechnologyreview.realv...155168#folio=6

 

[Redlands18]

Double post

 

[Redlands18]

Article already covered above by Maur River, post 21911

 

[vonnoobie]

I think we may have misinterpreted the no aussie shipbuilder statement or perhaps I am thinking it wrong and you gentleman are right. The way I have come to read it is that they will be built in Australia but they dont have to use any Australian shipbuilder to do it, ie: They can set up there own facility with there own people rather then contracting the work to ASC or others. So work will still be done here, But it wont be a 100% Australian owned company doing it.

 

[oldsig127]

I think we may have misinterpreted the no aussie shipbuilder statement or perhaps I am thinking it wrong and you gentleman are right. The way I have come to read it is that they will be built in Australia but they dont have to use any Australian shipbuilder to do it, ie: They can set up there own facility with there own people rather then contracting the work to ASC or others. So work will still be done here, But it wont be a 100% Australian owned company doing it.

That's how I understood it too. Looking at the politics of it, the usual suspects will read it that the build may be overseas (opposition, unions, Austal, various Xeno(phobic) politicians) but it's pretty hard to imagine any way that the national shipbuilding policy could exist with the frigates being built overseas.

*I* read it that Fincantieri, Navantia or BAE would set up their own operation using the existing workforce though partnerships with the incumbents (the model we'd expected to date) OR to put it very crudely, simply elbow them aside and use their otherwise redundant workforce to staff the "Navantia/BAE/Fincantieri Adelaide Shipyards" which is a model in which Austal and ASC management miss out.

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

I think we may have misinterpreted the no aussie shipbuilder statement or perhaps I am thinking it wrong and you gentleman are right. The way I have come to read it is that they will be built in Australia but they dont have to use any Australian shipbuilder to do it, ie: They can set up there own facility with there own people rather then contracting the work to ASC or others. So work will still be done here, But it wont be a 100% Australian owned company doing it.

Your take on this is similar to what I think (have a look back on the previous page with my post #21892).

I think what we are seeing (typical reporting from Senate Estimates Committee), is that certain interest groups (ASC Shipbuilding and Austal) are saying: 'the sky is falling unless we get our slice of the pie', well no, I don't think the sky is falling!

What we do know is that the nine (9) Future Frigates will be built in SA.

Have a look at the video of the planned expansion to Osborne South that ASC 'Infrastructure' is responsible for building (a $530m investment):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nUZZBG0KXA

What we don't know yet is which of the three designs will be chosen, and we don't know what relationship/partnership will be taken by the designers to progress those 'designs' into real ships.

For example, if the UK T26 design wins, I would imagine that BAE Australia will be the 'umbrella' company that oversees the build in Australia, using Australian workers and using/leasing the new 'ASC Infrastructure' facility in SA, plus of course the common user facility too.

BAE Australia may, or may not, partner with the new 'ASC Shipbuilding' company and their partnership with Austal.

If Navantia or the Italian design wins, it could be the same, partner or not partner, but at the end of the day there will be an 'umbrella' company to oversee the local build using local facilities and local workers.

What it boils down to (in my opinion), is that both ASC Shipbuilding and Austal are trying to say that they deserve the right to be part of the build, of course they want their slice of the pie.

I don't care what partnerships or alliances happen or don't happen, all I want to see is that the appropriate local 'management structure/umbrella' is set up to oversee and manage the local build of the chosen design as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Anyway, just my opinion of course too!

 

[John Fedup]

Yes, the build will happen in Australia and the options are much more flexible than Canada's CSC program where one yard has been chosen to build the ships and to negotiate on Canada's behalf to select the design team subject to final government approval. Not a very good way to get value for money IMO, especially when the yard is owned by the Irving family.

 

[hauritz]

I think we may have misinterpreted the no aussie shipbuilder statement or perhaps I am thinking it wrong and you gentleman are right. The way I have come to read it is that they will be built in Australia but they dont have to use any Australian shipbuilder to do it, ie: They can set up there own facility with there own people rather then contracting the work to ASC or others. So work will still be done here, But it wont be a 100% Australian owned company doing it.

That does make sense.

The idea of these ships being built overseas is pretty nonsensical.

Having said that the government has committed to building these ships in South Australia with Christopher Pyne stating that there is no possibility that the ASC will be excluded from the project.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/m...grow-for-certainty-on-future-frigates-project

So there you have it.

On one hand you have the contenders being told that they are under no obligation to work with local builders and at the same time the government pretty much committing to the ASC being included in the project.

I am not surprised that there seems to be a lot of confusion over this.

 

[Muar River]

I am thankful we have a Government committed to improving our Defence Forces.

Although this is a RN article, it is does not make for pleasant reading. This is circulating on a UK Defence Forum.


Royal Navy a 'laughing stock' with three quarters of its warships out of action and 'struggling to protect British citizens'

 

[ASSAIL]

That does make sense.

The idea of these ships being built overseas is pretty nonsensical.

Having said that the government has committed to building these ships in South Australia with Christopher Pyne stating that there is no possibility that the ASC will be excluded from the project.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/m...grow-for-certainty-on-future-frigates-project

So there you have it.

On one hand you have the contenders being told that they are under no obligation to work with local builders and at the same time the government pretty much committing to the ASC being included in the project.

I am not surprised that there seems to be a lot of confusion over this.

At no time did Pyne state that ASC (the company) would be included, he was talking about the workers that have worked for ASC in the past, and as a result Australia has a skilled pool of shipyard workers, all of whom will be available to work for whichever company wins the contract.

 

[ngatimozart]

A bit of history. The expedition to explore the wreck of HMAS AE2 near Gallipoli.
The Silent ANZAC - AE2

Meanwhile the search for HMAS AE1 continues off Rabaul.

 

[Joe Black]

At no time did Pyne state that ASC (the company) would be included, he was talking about the workers that have worked for ASC in the past, and as a result Australia has a skilled pool of shipyard workers, all of whom will be available to work for whichever company wins the contract.

It does make sense if the bidding companies have to setup shops here in Australia, and use the SA common use facility to build the frigates. BAE will have the upper hand here given they are already present here in Australia. Navantia could quickly set up shop here, a real disadvantage to Fincantieri though.

 

[ASSAIL]

It does make sense if the bidding companies have to setup shops here in Australia, and use the SA common use facility to build the frigates. BAE will have the upper hand here given they are already present here in Australia. Navantia could quickly set up shop here, a real disadvantage to Fincantieri though.

All three companies have an established Australian presence.

 

[PeterM]

I am hoping someone may be able to shed some light on the AWD selection process.

Was the UK Type 45 Destroyer considered among the potential options for SEA 4000 (AWD)? I am only aware of the Blohm + Voss, Navantia, and Gibbs & Cox tenders (presumably there were others). From my admittedly limited perspective the Type 45 seems to have been worth a look.

I do believe the procurement process for SEA 4000 selected the combat system first, then shipyard and then the design/ builder. My understanding is that the Alvaro de Bazan design was considered a less-risky because it was in service while the RAN's preferred evolved Arleigh Burke was only a paper design at the time.

Was the Type 45 considered too immature? If so the timing between the first steel cut on the Type 45 and the decision for SEA 4000 has similarities with the first steel cut for the Type 26 and the decision for SEA 5000. (The tender process for SEA 4000 was August to October 2004. First steel for HMS Daring was cut in March 2003.

I know this is all water under the bridge, but I am sure there will be lessons learned from the SEA 4000 process that will be used to improve outcomes for SEA 5000.

 

[spoz]

Yes the T45 was considered early in the project but it was 1) too expensive, 2) didn't have the combat system we wanted, 3) didn't support the missile systems we wanted, 4) had an unproven propulsion system at the time of consideration and 5) did't have an appropriate Aust build proposal.

 

[PeterM]

Yes the T45 was considered early in the project but it was 1) too expensive, 2) didn't have the combat system we wanted, 3) didn't support the missile systems we wanted, 4) had an unproven propulsion system at the time of consideration and 5) did't have an appropriate Aust build proposal.

Thanks for the information.

It is interesting with 2 of the contenders for Future Frigates have different combat systems and armament to what we will have.

The procurement process seems quite different with selecting the construction and combat system as part of each bidder's overall proposal rather then being selected up front. Hopefully that will help result in improved outcomes for the construction component along with improved local industry experience.

 

[Muar River]

The US Navy specifics that it wants a proven design (in the RFI) ?

Confirmation the design has provision for 36 VLS and the article suggests it may be too rich for the US Navy
.
'That cost averages to just a little less than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, though that’s not a perfect metric because the costs would be different for a U.S. version'.

Comment also that the design could compete for missions with the Burkes.

http://www.defensenews.com/digital-...for-the-the-us-ffgx-with-its-type-26-frigate/

 

[ASSAIL]

Thanks for the information.

It is interesting with 2 of the contenders for Future Frigates have different combat systems and armament to what we will have.

The procurement process seems quite different with selecting the construction and combat system as part of each bidder's overall proposal rather then being selected up front. Hopefully that will help result in improved outcomes for the construction component along with improved local industry experience.

What we can assume is that the ship will have CEA radar, either Aegis or SAAB 9LV, a 5" gun and a number of Mk 41 cells. Integration between these systems is well understood.

We don't know what the proponents have offered regarding other combat systems and weapons. You can't assume anything else other than the base design.

 

[Samoa]

All three companies have an established Australian presence.

Have they ? I would agree for BAE Systems and Navantia, but what presence does Fincantieri really have in Australia ? They have a front office in Canberra with a handful of management representatives, no engineering or build presence, and as far as I can tell have had little to no engagement with in-country SMEs, builders or system integrators or combat system suppliers. They had done a round country industry engagement road show, and speaking with some of those suppliers it was not very "engaging". There is zero in the public forum as far as I can tell about their overall strategy and how they would build Australian industry. Are they are serious candidate or just milking the CoA for the paid for RFT submission ?

 

[ASSAIL]

Have they ? I would agree for BAE Systems and Navantia, but what presence does Fincantieri really have in Australia ? They have a front office in Canberra with a handful of management representatives, no engineering or build presence, and as far as I can tell have had little to no engagement with in-country SMEs, builders or system integrators or combat system suppliers. They had done a round country industry engagement road show, and speaking with some of those suppliers it was not very "engaging". There is zero in the public forum as far as I can tell about their overall strategy and how they would build Australian industry. Are they are serious candidate or just milking the CoA for the paid for RFT submission ?

Obviously both BAE and Navantia are already participating to the industry in some form but Fincantieri is new to Oz so one wouldn't expect the same footprint.
It depends on your interpretation of "presence", Fincantieri has recruited a shopfront to date and I wouldn't expect anything more until a decision was made.
The only public statement I've found was that they would "engage the ASC workforce if they were selected"

I feel you may be too cynical in your last sentence. I suspect that their corporate reputation is far too important for them to treat this as a triviality, they have a worldwide network of 20 shipyards in various countries whose image would be tarnished by such unconscionable conduct