Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

Reviews are not being indecisive, they are experts gathering information and making recommendations.

We are in this situation because of assumptions made without a holistic understanding of the situation, including the material condition of the fleet.

devo99 mentioned FFGUP. That project was initially the upgrade of the still new Australian built FFGs, Melbourne and Newcastle so they could remain effective, serving along side the new frigates and destroyers until their planned withdrawal date.

It was then decided, due to the benign strategic situation (in hindsite, unwisely), that the systems upgrade should be expanded into a life extension for all six FFGs to facilitate the defereral of the DDG and FFG replacements.

If the Gotd had properly assessed the material state of the original four FFGs as well as the complexity and risk of the life extension program the project, sensibly, should have been rescoped to only the newest pair of ships and the replacement program accelerated.

Twenty years on and it appears we are in the same place again but worse and there are now far fewer ships than back then. When the FFGUP debarkle occured there were two still new FFGs, four still serviceable FFGs and eight brand new ANZACs, now we only have the already maxed out ANZACs and three Hobart's (that are starting their own urgent upgrade program).

Basically our political classes, and it appears or senior public servants, are complete numpties where strategic vision, risk and lead times are concerned.

 

[hauritz]

Pretend you are looking on the Army thread.

Federal government unveils strategic partnership for new Army landing craft

The Australian Federal Government has confirmed 18 Landing Craft Medium and Heavy Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels will be built in Western Australia under a strategic shipbuilder pilot. NSW shipbuilder Bir

www.defenceconnect.com.au

2 more evolved Capes
Birdon designed medium craft selected, 18 Built by Austal. Heavy craft build also going to Austal if goes well.

Can’t help but feel the additional Capes might be another nail in the coffin for the Arafura. It could be that the OPV80 production could be pivoted towards something like the C90 or could simply be halted completely. An additional 2 boats brings the interim Cape fleet to 10 vessels. Doesn’t help that the Arafura now finds itself on the projects of concern list.

 

[Stampede]

Can’t help but feel the additional Capes might be another nail in the coffin for the Arafura. It could be that the OPV80 production could be pivoted towards something like the C90 or could simply be halted completely. An additional 2 boats brings the interim Cape fleet to 10 vessels. Doesn’t help that the Arafura now finds itself on the projects of concern list.

Are total Cape Class numbers for Border Force and Navy now to be a total of twenty?
Plus two for foreign sales.
22 vessels built


Cheers S

 

[hauritz]

Are total Cape Class numbers for Border Force and Navy now to be a total of twenty?
Plus two for foreign sales.
22 vessels built


Cheers S

To be honest I have lost track of what is happening with them or who is getting what vessel. The navy originally chartered a couple of vessels which may, or may not, still be in service with them. Then there was an order for an additional 6 followed by a further order of two last year. Whether these two are the boats mentioned in the press release are in addition to the boats ordered last year is unclear.

Given manpower shortages a boat such as the cape has its appeal only requiring 18 crew members compared ti around 40 for the Arafura.

Of course Austal is currently working on an unmanned vessel using one of the retired Armidales as a test bed.

Actually given all the attention Austal is currently getting it might be worth noting some of the autonomous projects they are involved with at the moment.

Autonomous Ships

ACCELERATING A SMART PATH TO AUTONOMOUS CAPABILITY Austal is working closely with the United States Navy and Royal Australian Navy to integrate and enhance - not replace – the mission capability of crewed platforms. Working together with government and Industry, we will transform, and improve...

www.austal.com

 

[thatsamguy]

An additional 2 boats brings the interim Cape fleet to 10 vessels. Doesn’t help that the Arafura now finds itself on the projects of concern list.

The 2 extra Capes are to replace MV Mercator in the navigation training vessel role. Not to expand Navy or Border Force patrol vessels.

Austal will also deliver two new Evolved Cape-Class Patrol Boats for the Royal Australian Navy at an acquisition cost of $157.1 million. This important capability will replace and significantly enhance Navy’s aging at-sea navigation and seamanship training capability.

Sounds more like keeping Austal's WA workforce ticking over till they start building the landing craft as the Guardian builds finish up.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Can’t help but feel the additional Capes might be another nail in the coffin for the Arafura. It could be that the OPV80 production could be pivoted towards something like the C90 or could simply be halted completely. An additional 2 boats brings the interim Cape fleet to 10 vessels. Doesn’t help that the Arafura now finds itself on the projects of concern list.

I was pretty surprised that Navantia/Austal/Civmec had a deal signed together. Lurrsen/NVL didn't even have a MMPV90 or C90 model at IP23, given all the wild stuff, I kind of expected something in that space from the existing builder. Maybe contractually they weren't allowed to show speculative OPV80/OPV90/C90 designs, I have no idea.

Maybe I am reading too much into it. However, it was clear that Lurrsen hadn't built many ships in Australia, and this was going to be a challenging project at a basically greenfields site, and a project that was then butchered to be across both henderson and osborne, across multiple builders in multiple states.

I'm not sure capes are the solution for defence of the nation. But they are useful for policing and closer range patrol. There will be some concern, particularly regarding the recent high court decision and sudden migration.

The issues with small ships doing longer range power projection are well known. Looking at ships with only 21 day endurance doing long range power projection from the Australia capitals like Perth or Sydney are well known. Drawing a radius of 2000km from the capitals doesn't really get us anywhere useful, just a bit of the way up the coast on the east or west.

So we won't be able to operate them from there. But basing staff in far flung places like Manus Island may have serious recruitment/retention issues particularly for senior people at the age of having a family/school aged kids or similar.

Bigger ships typically provide greater comfort, conditions, more crew for training and development, and and be based in capital cities.

I don't think we can look at crewing issues and ship availability issues as unconnected. It is not really a chicken and egg problem, you need both, and both occur at the same time. Shitty, worn out ships, that are outdated, out classed, and provide poor conditions, that are overworked, result in poor outcomes for crewing and RAN staffing. Putting ships up on blocks, doesn't often result in improved recruitment, development, promotion and retention. You get some retention boost, because crews don't have to be overworked and go back to sea, but ultimately, less sea billets will result in less opportunity for promotion, development, training and ultimately, retention.

If we had 2 small ships based out of Singapore/Malaysia, and had nice accommodation and support for families there, or near there, it may address some of these issues. The RAN/RAAF might be able to do something joint here taking a bit more of a combined and bigger and better approach. ADF salary might go significantly further in say Malaysia than it does here in OZ. Managing that relationship with Malaysia would be tricky but do able. We make butterworth work.

2 small ships perhaps out of Manus might be able to work, 737 flying out of east coast capitals. on a regular basis. Eventually these ships might include more local crews too, perhaps a regular rotation.

Shruggs.. Don't know if there are easy answers.

 

[Reptilia]

It look asthough civmec will move away from shipbuilding altogether, austal will likely be upgrading infrastructure and expanding, tripling workforce, building guardians, 2 Capes, 18 LCM + TBD LCH and be favoured for corvette or light frigate build.
Singapore-Civmec + China-Silveryachts a potential security risk.

 

[hauritz]

I was pretty surprised that Navantia/Austal/Civmec had a deal signed together. Lurrsen/NVL didn't even have a MMPV90 or C90 model at IP23, given all the wild stuff, I kind of expected something in that space from the existing builder. Maybe contractually they weren't allowed to show speculative OPV80/OPV90/C90 designs, I have no idea.

Maybe I am reading too much into it. However, it was clear that Lurrsen hadn't built many ships in Australia, and this was going to be a challenging project at a basically greenfields site, and a project that was then butchered to be across both henderson and osborne, across multiple builders in multiple states.

I'm not sure capes are the solution for defence of the nation. But they are useful for policing and closer range patrol. There will be some concern, particularly regarding the recent high court decision and sudden migration.

The issues with small ships doing longer range power projection are well known. Looking at ships with only 21 day endurance doing long range power projection from the Australia capitals like Perth or Sydney are well known. Drawing a radius of 2000km from the capitals doesn't really get us anywhere useful, just a bit of the way up the coast on the east or west.

So we won't be able to operate them from there. But basing staff in far flung places like Manus Island may have serious recruitment/retention issues particularly for senior people at the age of having a family/school aged kids or similar.

Bigger ships typically provide greater comfort, conditions, more crew for training and development, and and be based in capital cities.

I don't think we can look at crewing issues and ship availability issues as unconnected. It is not really a chicken and egg problem, you need both, and both occur at the same time. Shitty, worn out ships, that are outdated, out classed, and provide poor conditions, that are overworked, result in poor outcomes for crewing and RAN staffing. Putting ships up on blocks, doesn't often result in improved recruitment, development, promotion and retention. You get some retention boost, because crews don't have to be overworked and go back to sea, but ultimately, less sea billets will result in less opportunity for promotion, development, training and ultimately, retention.

If we had 2 small ships based out of Singapore/Malaysia, and had nice accommodation and support for families there, or near there, it may address some of these issues. The RAN/RAAF might be able to do something joint here taking a bit more of a combined and bigger and better approach. ADF salary might go significantly further in say Malaysia than it does here in OZ. Managing that relationship with Malaysia would be tricky but do able. We make butterworth work.

2 small ships perhaps out of Manus might be able to work, 737 flying out of east coast capitals. on a regular basis. Eventually these ships might include more local crews too, perhaps a regular rotation.

Shruggs.. Don't know if there are easy answers.

It look asthough civmec will move away from shipbuilding altogether, austal will likely be upgrading infrastructure and expanding, tripling workforce, building guardians, 2 Capes, 18 LCM + TBD LCH and be favoured for corvette or light frigate build.
Singapore-Civmec + China-Silveryachts a potential security risk.

If Civmec is moving away from shipbuilding and is obviously struggling with the Arafura build I certainly don't see them being trusted with the construction of a new fleet of light frigates. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there could be a massive capability gap in the RAN that will be further exacerbated if only around half the ANZAC fleet can be life extended and there are more delays in the Hunter program. Quickly building a fleet of tier 2 warships is now pretty much vital to the RAN.

Civmec moving away from shipbuilding indicates that management could be seeing the writing on the wall. Also explains them partnering up with Austal and Navantia at Indo Pacific 2023. It may well require all three builders working together to deliver these vessels in a relatively short time frame.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It look asthough civmec will move away from shipbuilding altogether

Im not sure this is true. They just invested about a hundreds of millions in ship building in WA.

Is everyone talking about this AI written story which is the only one I can find?

Austal to anchor Australian shipbuilding, Civmec may pivot amid naval changes By Investing.com

Austal to anchor Australian shipbuilding, Civmec may pivot amid naval changes

au.investing.com

CIVMEC fabricates steel. They aren't specifically, a ship builder. Lurrsen is the ship builder for the Arafura class, with some being built at Henderson by civmec and some at osborne by asc, and a whole bunch of sme at each.

ASC really isn't a ship builder either (most of the time), BAE is, they are using ASC workforce which does much of the fabrication, under direction of BAE. ASC isn't designing ships and submarines (although they have some capacity for modification), but they aren't trying to produce products that compete with BAE or Navantia or anyone else.

What is likely that Austal is a ship builder, Navantia Australia is a ship designer, and CIVMEC is a steel fabricator. Each is really seperate to each other, with no real big overlaps there at all. You need all three to build a ship.

CIVMEC doesn't need endless shipping contracts, they do get oil gas and civil work. They certainy want a peice of the naval pie, and it is complimentary to their business. Austal, typically does not build steel, they typically outsourced their steelwork elsewhere. Civmec doesn't really do aluminium, or for that matter, complex electrical fitouts, radars, sonars, diesel engines etc. They aren't MTU, CEA or Thales. Civmec doesn't design ships either.

The quite activity at NVL/lurrsen seems to indicate the government wants a more diverse product catalog than perhaps they have.

Navantia has a broad catalog across, basically every thing that floats. Most ship design happens in Spain (but there is some local capability), but build and supplier contracts and what not can happen locally. They have footprint.

Austal doesn't have a catalog of large steel ships.

If Civmec is moving away from shipbuilding and is obviously struggling with the Arafura build I certainly don't see them being trusted with the construction of a new fleet of light frigates.

Are they struggling? They fabricate steel, they don't intergrate weapons or certificate the ship. They don't oversea the interior fitout, which may be mostly independant SME, but it may be occuring in their shed, which is then used like any rented shed space. The arafura problems are across the class AFAIK, not just at the Henderson ships.

I've seen nothing to suggest that CIVMEC can't weld or shape steel.

This idea that every time there is a problem on a project, it must be the lowly steel fabricators that are having a problem must cease. Its not the welders, its not the trades, heck its not those working in the build hall where the problems are being created. It is like this blaming unions for cost blowouts of billions because they have older computers or insufficent missile load outs. Unions don't spec missile loadouts or buy radars. There would only be an issue if workers downed tools. They aren't. The issue is program creation specification and management. Not with steel being welded.

The issue isn't we can't weld. There completed blocks for the hunter, waiting right now. Finished. Is that we can't buy and spec a project nor give it the time it needs at the start. We often choose immature designs, or very old designs. Our risk adversion adds more risk.

 

[hauritz]

Im not sure this is true. They just invested about a hundreds of millions in ship building in WA.

Is everyone talking about this AI written story which is the only one I can find?

Austal to anchor Australian shipbuilding, Civmec may pivot amid naval changes By Investing.com

Austal to anchor Australian shipbuilding, Civmec may pivot amid naval changes

au.investing.com

CIVMEC fabricates steel. They aren't specifically, a ship builder. Lurrsen is the ship builder for the Arafura class, with some being built at Henderson by civmec and some at osborne by asc, and a whole bunch of sme at each.

ASC really isn't a ship builder either (most of the time), BAE is, they are using ASC workforce which does much of the fabrication, under direction of BAE. ASC isn't designing ships and submarines (although they have some capacity for modification), but they aren't trying to produce products that compete with BAE or Navantia or anyone else.

What is likely that Austal is a ship builder, Navantia Australia is a ship designer, and CIVMEC is a steel fabricator. Each is really seperate to each other, with no real big overlaps there at all. You need all three to build a ship.

CIVMEC doesn't need endless shipping contracts, they do get oil gas and civil work. They certainy want a peice of the naval pie, and it is complimentary to their business. Austal, typically does not build steel, they typically outsourced their steelwork elsewhere. Civmec doesn't really do aluminium, or for that matter, complex electrical fitouts, radars, sonars, diesel engines etc. They aren't MTU, CEA or Thales. Civmec doesn't design ships either.

The quite activity at NVL/lurrsen seems to indicate the government wants a more diverse product catalog than perhaps they have.

Navantia has a broad catalog across, basically every thing that floats. Most ship design happens in Spain (but there is some local capability), but build and supplier contracts and what not can happen locally. They have footprint.

Austal doesn't have a catalog of large steel ships.

Are they struggling? They fabricate steel, they don't intergrate weapons or certificate the ship. They don't oversea the interior fitout, which may be mostly independant SME, but it may be occuring in their shed, which is then used like any rented shed space. The arafura problems are across the class AFAIK, not just at the Henderson ships.

I've seen nothing to suggest that CIVMEC can't weld or shape steel.

This idea that every time there is a problem on a project, it must be the lowly steel fabricators that are having a problem must cease. Its not the welders, its not the trades, heck its not those working in the build hall where the problems are being created. It is like this blaming unions for cost blowouts of billions because they have older computers or insufficent missile load outs. Unions don't spec missile loadouts or buy radars. There would only be an issue if workers downed tools. They aren't. The issue is program creation specification and management. Not with steel being welded.

The issue isn't we can't weld. There completed blocks for the hunter, waiting right now. Finished. Is that we can't buy and spec a project nor give it the time it needs at the start. We often choose immature designs, or very old designs. Our risk adversion adds more risk.

True, the problems may well end up being lumped at Lurrsen's feet. Really Lurrsen may not have much to offer in terms building tier 2 warships either. I don't see the C-90 or K-130 offering much capability to the RAN.

 

[Reptilia]

Also potentially affected is Singapore engineering firm Civmec, which is building 10 offshore patrol vessels for the navy as a subcontractor to German designer Luerssen.
Civmec built a shed capable of constructing large ships undercover, but the company has reputedly sent mixed messages about whether it wants to remain in defence or concentrate on its core business of offshore oil and gas.
As part of the navy surface fleet review, the government is weighing whether to cut the number of lightly armed OPVs and instead build missile-laden corvettes or light frigates. If the government approves corvettes, they will be built by Austal, irrespective of the designer, if the work stays in Perth.

From

Austal shares jump after deal to become monopoly shipbuilder in WA

The Albanese government will guarantee the Perth-based company naval contracts under a new “strategic agreement”.

www.afr.com

 

[StingrayOZ]

True, the problems may well end up being lumped at Lurrsen's feet. Really Lurrsen may not have much to offer in terms building tier 2 warships either. I don't see the C-90 or K-130 offering much capability to the RAN.

Im assuming that is the main issue with building C90/K130, it may get us an armed OPV, but there isn't exactly a rich design pool of designs beyond that. In the F-125 project, I believe Lurrsen was the builder, building at fairly newly acquired yard in former east Germany, Peene Werft, but a design from TKMS.

Navantia has many flaws, but they have a big book of designs. If we ever wanted other things than what BAE offers, Navantia is at least something that has something that could be useful or as a benchmark.

As part of the navy surface fleet review, the government is weighing whether to cut the number of lightly armed OPVs and instead build missile-laden corvettes or light frigates. If the government approves corvettes, they will be built by Austal, irrespective of the designer, if the work stays in Perth.

I think there is some misreading of what is going on. Austal was and is struggling. There was pressure for Civmec to simply buy Austal. Civmec, was not particularly hot on the idea. Nor was Austal.

Civmec not buying Austal doesn't mean they aren't interested in naval building, they just think its a bad business idea, which is probably is, cooked up by politicians, telling industry how to spend its money to solve political problems. Politicians are not particularly good at being politicians, they are even worse at being business advisors. Civmec spent hundreds of million (around $100m for the build hall alone, and ~$25m for Forags, plus other efforts) in naval space, I wouldn't write them out yet. But they aren't a ship designer. They aren't a naval prime. Heck they aren't often a prime for civil and gas projects either. They fabricate. That is their business. That is their workforce. Employing thousands of other people to offer all the other capabilities isn't of interest to them.

Austal going forward can then be a bit more of a generic ship builder, with an agreement with Navantia for designs. CIVMEC can be just a major subcontract, doing fabrication work in their build hall. This is the logical resolution that has been 10+ years in the making.

This is a more logical way to build ships. Design and welding typically have peak loads at opposite ends of the project and are completely different skills. It makes sense these days to have a ship designers, ship project managers and then subcontract out all the build aspects to other businesses. Not some giant single company that builds every component for a ship end to end.

Even if a non Navantia design was chosen, like Birdons one, that isn't a huge deal, as the project management and hull fabrication aren't permanently linked to the designers.

The OPV project was madness. You had Lurrsen/Damen with Civmec/ASC, Fassmer with Austal, it really didn't make any sense. Unlinking the design from the builder makes more sense.

 

[hauritz]

Also potentially affected is Singapore engineering firm Civmec, which is building 10 offshore patrol vessels for the navy as a subcontractor to German designer Luerssen.
Civmec built a shed capable of constructing large ships undercover, but the company has reputedly sent mixed messages about whether it wants to remain in defence or concentrate on its core business of offshore oil and gas.
As part of the navy surface fleet review, the government is weighing whether to cut the number of lightly armed OPVs and instead build missile-laden corvettes or light frigates. If the government approves corvettes, they will be built by Austal, irrespective of the designer, if the work stays in Perth.

From

Austal shares jump after deal to become monopoly shipbuilder in WA

The Albanese government will guarantee the Perth-based company naval contracts under a new “strategic agreement”.

www.afr.com

Well spotted. A lot may well be happening behind closed doors. Could be worth keeping an eye on who Austal is partnering up with in future naval projects.

When you think about it the issuing of an order new landing craft does provide cover for any work that may be lost if the remaining Arafuras are cancelled. The more I think about the less likely I think that the Arafura will continue production. It is obviously not suited to navy requirements and really its continual construction would just be busy work for Henderson.

Really I would have to say things are pointing towards a Navantia/Austal/Civmec team up for the navy's tier 2 warships.

 

[Reptilia]

Well spotted. A lot may well be happening behind closed doors. Could be worth keeping an eye on who Austal is partnering up with in future naval projects.

When you think about it the issuing of an order new landing craft does provide cover for any work that may be lost if the remaining Arafuras are cancelled. The more I think about the less likely I think that the Arafura will continue production. It is obviously not suited to navy requirements and really its continual construction would just be busy work for Henderson.

Really I would have to say things are pointing towards a Navantia/Austal/Civmec team up for the navy's tier 2 warships.

Would you consider the Tasman class missile laden? 16 VLS over Anzacs current 8, (future 16?) and 16 nsm over Anzacs future 8 (Current 8 harpoon). The Tasman is also not a design that has alot of future growth. I’d be disappointed if quad packing more cells meant missile laden…
Another article I came across was about austal building steel ships at Henderson, potentially could be apart of expansion plans?
When you look at the austal facilty, the hall is only big enough for 80-90m ships. They built 120m trimaran ferries but the construction process was a bit different. All these tier 2 designs are between 110-140m, with the only ones sitting outside c90/k130.
we could be reading alot of fluff and civmec build the hull/blast n paint with austal doing the fit out but still, I’ve come across several articles which relate to civmec cutting back or focusing on other things.
almost all articles state a tripling of austal workforce which makes me think steel fab is on the cards.

 

[Todjaeger]

Also potentially affected is Singapore engineering firm Civmec, which is building 10 offshore patrol vessels for the navy as a subcontractor to German designer Luerssen.
Civmec built a shed capable of constructing large ships undercover, but the company has reputedly sent mixed messages about whether it wants to remain in defence or concentrate on its core business of offshore oil and gas.
As part of the navy surface fleet review, the government is weighing whether to cut the number of lightly armed OPVs and instead build missile-laden corvettes or light frigates. If the government approves corvettes, they will be built by Austal, irrespective of the designer, if the work stays in Perth.

From

Austal shares jump after deal to become monopoly shipbuilder in WA

The Albanese government will guarantee the Perth-based company naval contracts under a new “strategic agreement”.

www.afr.com

Good grief. Any guarantee of continued/strategic defence work for Austal would at this point be beyond 'pork barreling' and would probably be more accurately described as just lard.

Austal (and also previously Incat in Tasmania) developed their reputation for building quality, aluminium high speed multi-hull vessels. However, Incat then started to lose it's reputation for quality builds and was replaced by Austal as the quality builder. Unfort Austal then began to setup facilities outside of Australia for vessel construction (I am not including the US facilities setup so that Austal could participate in that CF programme known as the LCS). Two side effects of Austal establishing production yards in first the Philippines and then Vietnam is that firstly, most of Austal's commercial work no longer was done in WA because it was cheaper to use the workforces and facilities outside of Australia. Secondly, when Austal did end up doing work in WA, then brought in (essentially imported) a workforce from their overseas facilities using employment visas until the project was completed. Part of why highly skilled personnel needed to get brought into WA by Austal is that the Australian workforce that Austal had established and built up to be highly skilled in fabricating marine aluminium no longer had the same degree of skills or quality, likely at least partially due to Austal no longer doing most of their build work in WA.

It is just me, or does the idea of the gov't directing that a WA-HQ'd aluminium boatbuilder that has very little experience working with steel and none with building and integrating modern steel mono-hull warships and their systems, bother anyone else? Pretty much all I can say is that Henderson might have the physical infrastructure (or at least space for it) to enable warship construction, but it seems like the workforce for such work does not exist, and therefore a new naval shipyard (possibly using existing facilities) would be getting established. I can see and understand the benefits for the pollies who were able to get gov't largess directed to their districts, but I do not see much in the way of any real benefit to either the CoA or RAN. That is also assuming that any projects directed towards Austal do not encounter major difficulties and TBH I would expect the first large, complex vessel that Austal attempts to build will either be hideously expensive, fraught with issues, or both. IMO more likely both.

 

[ngatimozart]

I thought that the Type 26/Hunter platform is too high end for the RNZN requirements and that they are more interested in General Purpose frigates such as AH-140/Type 31. It would make sense if the capabilities of the proposed RAN Tier 2 vessels aligned with the RNZN’s needs but the Kiwis have always wanted to do things independently.

The Admirals want a Type 26 derivative, but the costs are too much. We can actually acquire an AH140 with AEGIS, SPY-7 etc., for a lot less than a Hunter Class. It's how you and where you do the build.

A prime example was when the RNZAF P-3B’s were upgraded to P-3K’s instead of taking advantage of highly discounted new P-3C Update 2 (an 18 month window of opportunity which allowed the RAAF to cheaply standardise their fleet and cancel plans to upgrade their P-3B’s). Thus the RNZAF operated an orphan fleet of just 6 aircraft for another 4 decades when they could have benefited from having commonality with other operators. I understand that Boeing wanted to break Lockheed’s monopoly of the MPA market and offered the RNZAF a cheap package for their upgrade. This was the program where Boeing gained the expertise to eventually put together the P-8 systems. While the P-8 is now the dominant MPA, some of its systems (eg radar, ESM, etc) are not as good as was fitted to the upgraded AP-3C’s but they have been integrated well and are onboard a reliable airframe.

Actually, the original P-3K upgrade ended up with a more modern platform than the then P-3C available. It came down to available funds. The NZG was basically broke when the P-3K and A-4K KAHU projects went through. WRT the P3-K2, the GOTD (Uncle Helun Clark) cut back the proposed upgrades and refused to fund anything ASW required. The Boeing systems sans ASW until 2014, gave the P-3K2 a good and reliable capability.

Other examples of their independent selection is the Anzac upgrades, AOR, purchasing MB-339’s when the RAAF was interested in the Hawk 127’s, purchasing the T-6C Texan 2 aircraft instead of the RAAF’s PC-21. They have been much more successful in the purchase and operation of naval helicopters, eg Seasprites than the ADF.

Last time I looked NZ was a sovereign nation and we tend to make decisions which meet or requirements. We are not a client state of Australia. At the present point in time, from what we see across this side of the ditch, is that we have cleaned up and fully professionalised our defence procurement system. Australia has a long way to go before it gets to our level of expertise. Why did we do it? Because we had a real history of bad and illogical procurement practises Project Protector, SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite, HMNZS Charles Upham etc. Now when a business case is sent to Cabinet, the pollies know that they have the best information and analysis available to them. Unfortunately, our procurement system is still dependent upon the pollies for the final decision and approval.

The T-6 Texan II is in service with the USAF & USN and has a far greater number in service than the PC-21. Again it's about needs and requirements.

The article says the decision maker (Secretary of Defence) did not retain records of the reasons for the decision on T26. Australia has a federal corruption watchdog now. It’s worth keeping some paperwork when things get into the $45bn range. Even if the true reason was “AusGov believes it will help us get a fantastic trade deal with the booming post-Brexit UK economy” then he could have listed Volkodav’s reasons which were in the public domain at the time.

Unlike Australia, NZ got a trade deal with the EU. It wasn't what our primary producers wanted, but it has got us in the door and we will benefit in other ways. I suspect that there will be more collaboration between the NZ Space Agency and the European Space Agency. we already have a successful space launch

 

[Redlands18]

Would you consider the Tasman class missile laden? 16 VLS over Anzacs current 8, (future 16?) and 16 nsm over Anzacs future 8 (Current 8 harpoon). The Tasman is also not a design that has alot of future growth. I’d be disappointed if quad packing more cells meant missile laden…
Another article I came across was about austal building steel ships at Henderson, potentially could be apart of expansion plans?
When you look at the austal facilty, the hall is only big enough for 80-90m ships. They built 120m trimaran ferries but the construction process was a bit different. All these tier 2 designs are between 110-140m, with the only ones sitting outside c90/k130.
we could be reading alot of fluff and civmec build the hull/blast n paint with austal doing the fit out but still, I’ve come across several articles which relate to civmec cutting back or focusing on other things.
almost all articles state a tripling of austal workforce which makes me think steel fab is on the cards.

Guardian Class Patrol Boat (Austal Patrol 40) | Austal: Corporate
Austal have been building 40m steel patrol boats to their own design for the last 4 years.

 

[Reptilia]

Guardian Class Patrol Boat (Austal Patrol 40) | Austal: Corporate
Austal have been building 40m steel patrol boats to their own design for the last 4 years.

patrol boat to frigate, big leap.
it is possibly that commercial builds may all end up going to austals overseas yards from now on. Who owns the empty land next to austal at Henderson?

 

[Todjaeger]

patrol boat to frigate, big leap.
it is possibly that commercial builds may all end up going to austals overseas yards from now on. Who owns the empty land next to austal at Henderson?

Two things, the first being a question. What was the last commercial build Austal did in Henderson, and did it have a solely or largely domestic workforce?

Secondly, whilst there is quite literally a big jump in size between a 40 m steel-hulled patrol boat using mostly COTS systems and a 100m+ FSG or FFG, I personally would be more concerned about the ability of an essentially untried shipbuilding to fit and integrate the significantly more advanced systems which one would expect aboard a guided missile corvette or frigate.

As a side note, I have not been able to locate a displacement for the Guardian-class patrol boats, but I did come across reports of design and quality defects, with some of them being somewhat similar to some of the defects found aboard the Armidale-class patrol boats, specifically the potential for onboard air quality hazards.

 

[spoz]

If you want Aegis, the bill is approximately $1billionUSD. Ship costs are on top of that. Whatever you do with Aegis will therefore not be cheap, so it makes a lot of sense to get the best capability you can around that.