Okay, several points to cover here.
Broadly speaking I think a quick build for a small ship is possible because
1. Luerssen claimed it is possible (link has appeared previously in this thread
Luerssen pitches C90 corvette derivative to RAN - Australian Defence Magazine ) to deliver a c90 in 2028 with steel cut in 2024. Luerssen might be mistaken but I suspect some of those who disagree strongly with him also have vested interests (I am not referring to people in this forum)
Regarding Lurssen's claim, the devil is very much in the details. The company itself might have already done the detailed design work on a purely speculative basis, to take their base C90 design and make it into something fit for Australian service as well as something which can be built and fitted out in Australia but TBH I rather doubt that. I suspect that instead, Lurssen is pitching the idea so that they might receive a contract to do the detailed design work which would be needed for Australian C90's. One of the reasons I suspect this is that the detailed design work required to actually build a warship costs millions. Looking at the USN's FFG(X) programme, which has become the future
Constellation-class frigate, five of the six shipbuilders that submitted proposals were issued contracts worth USD$15 mil. to produce conceptual designs. Fincantieri Marinette Marine was selected and awarded a contract for detailed design work and construction of the first ship with the contract worth USD$795 mil. I have not been able to determine how much of that USD$795 mil. was specifically for the detailed design work, but if the conceptual designs were USD$15 mil. I would expect detailed designs to be in the hundreds of millions. Meanwhile, the USN's FY2020 budgeting for the lead ship was USD$1.281 bil. which means that the contract for the detailed design and construction was not including the material and labor costs to build the lead vessel.
Now if the detailed design work still needs to be done, that is something which is going to take time, and also would need to be completed before long lead items can be ordered, and the detailed design work is also something which has to be done well before first steel can be cut.
If the detailed design work has already been done by Lurssen, then it would be a matter for Australia decide if the detailed design is adequate to meet Australian needs and then draft and sign the appropriate contracts. BTW this would touch on your point #2 which I have a response for below.
Assuming that the detailed design has been done and is rapidly accepted by gov't and a contract rapidly drafted and signed, then whoever will be building the vessels can start building the supply chain to construct the vessels. This would involve placing orders for the needed materials and systems from the appropriate enterprises, as well as establishing a workforce or re-directing an existing workforce. As has been mentioned several times before, long-lead items would need to be ordered. I cannot comment on what items in the design would have long lead times, in part because we do not know what would be included in the fitout, nor can we comment with any degree of certainty about how long the lead times are for some of these still unknown pieces of kit. By the same token though, Lurssen cannot really make any accurate claims on how quickly the build could be finished without the following;
- A complete detailed design
- Established a potential supply chain for the design
- Been in contact with the vendors and enterprises which will supply systems and gotten delivery times for kit
From the linked article, it mentions several potential systems which it could be equipped with;
- 16 VLS cells
- 76 mm main gun
- 35 mm secondary gun
- NSM AShM
- pair of triple torpedo tubes
- CEA radar
- 9LV CMS
At least some of these items would likely be considered long lead items, which then raises the question of how long would it take for some of them to be delivered, once an order was placed. My personal suspicion would be that either the CEA radar or the 9LV CMS would be the one with the longest lead time, and either/both of them might require several years for delivery. Delivery of all the systems would also be required before the vessel could be completed and ready for service and some systems might need to be delivered during various stages of construction in order for them to be properly installed. Some of the ship's machinery and gen sets come to mind for a requirement like this. Also worth considering is that it would be likely at least some of the kit Australia would want fitted would fall under US ITARS and FMS rules, of which there is a process which has be carried out in order for these to be received and fitted and this process takes time, in addition to whatever time would be required to produce the impacted pieces of kit.
2. Aus government might adopt a different and rapidly expedited procurement process for this build If the surface fleet review recommends it
Australia might adopt some type of expedited or perhaps sole source procurement process, which might accelerate elements of the process, but not all elements of the process are likely under Australian control (i.e. ITARS and FMS) and these are in addition to whatever else is going on with the desired vendors, the facility, and so on.
3. Some other nations building small warships have been able to build those within 5 years of the order (I am going off wikipedia references for that, I haven’t checked those so don’t offer them here but they inform my thinking which is what you have asked about).
I have gone through various modern corvette classes that I can recall and are in the ~2,000 ton range to try and get a feel for how long things took. The two classes which seemed most relevant to what you seem to be proposing are the Turkish
Ada-class, and the German/Israeli
Sa'ar 6-class. Of these, the
Sa'ar 6-class lead ship was ordered ~May 2015 and delivered 11 December 2020, so 5.5 years from when the order was placed to first delivery. However, before that order could get placed the detailed design work had to have been completed.
What would likely be more accurate (but harder to establish) would be to look at how long various corvette shipbuilding programmes took from the time the programme commenced to delivery of the first ship. I mention this because if one is measuring the time from when the order is placed, there are usually a couple of years of work which have already been completed before the order can get placed.
4. both Osborne and Henderson now have small ship building experience with the Arafura class.
TBH I do not consider Osborne or Henderson a significant issue, since both should have a work force with recent naval shipbuilding experience. In fact, when looking at how long most shipbuilding programmes take, not just those in Australia, the time between a vessel being laid down and commissioned is usually just a couple of years or less. What seems to drag things out is the need to make decisions on what to have fitted and then the time it takes for deliveries of systems and kit to the building yards.
All of that leads me to be uncertain as to whether a quick build is possible. Just to illustrate. If 5 years is impossible then is 6 years also impossible? Yes? Is seven years still impossible? There must be some time span where a rational person believes it is possible to build a small warship In Australia. In my case I think a small warship build is just remotely possible in 3 years (from 2024) moving to close to a 50:50 in 5. For a new class of MFUs (Aegis) my minimum is 10 years and my 50:50 is 15 years.
Again, when are you benchmarking the times? If you are just going off of when first steel is cut, or a vessel is laid down, that is not considering several things which need to get done before cutting steel or laying down a hull, and that is starting with an already complete design. If one does not have a completed design to begin with, that adds more time.