Go-ahead to $6bn navy ship project: RAN

[Ballistic]

Go-ahead to $6bn navy ship project

Patrick Walters, National security editor
October 04, 2004

THE Howard Government will today commit to building all three of the navy's new air warfare destroyers in Australia.

The $6 billion project will be the biggest naval construction program since the 10 Anzac frigates, built by Tenix in Melbourne's Williamstown dockyard, were completed last year.

The decision to go ahead with the local construction of the three 6000-tonne high-technology ships represents a major vote of confidence in the Australian defence industry.

Defence Minister Robert Hill's announcement will put an end to speculation that the new destroyers could be built in an overseas shipyard amid growing concerns about a future cost blowout in the defence capital equipment budget.

Tenix, together with the Adelaide-based submarine builder, the wholly government owned ASC, are expected to compete for the prize of prime contractors for the construction of the vessels with a decision on the winner expected early next year.

Adelaide is favoured as the main construction site with ASC tomorrow announcing a rebranding of the company as part of a long-term strategy to become Australia's leading naval shipbuilder. Mr Howard is due to attend the rebranding tomorrow night, bolstering the company's bid to win the contract.

The Government has delayed the planned sale of ASC until at least 2006 to allow the company to bid for major naval construction projects.

But ASC has been instructed by the Government not to team with strategic partners during the tender competition in order not to reduce competition for the AWD build.

The Government is expected to release a request for proposals for the build phase soon after next week's election, with a decision on the winning design due by early 2005.

Together with the planned $3 billion build of two amphibious ships for the navy, the AWD build represents one of the biggest ever challenges for Australia's defence industry.

There are three foreign designers competing for the right to design the destroyers, which will form the backbone of the navy's fighting arm and are due to enter service from 2013.

They are the US firm Gibbs and Cox with a modified version of the US navy's Arleigh Burke destroyer, the Spanish firm Izar with their F100 ship and the German Blohm and Voss F124.

Two months ago the Government announced that the US Aegis air warfare system had been selected as the combat system for the destroyers.

The air warfare destroyers will be by far the most sophisticated and capable warships in the RAN's order of battle, with the Aegis system providing defence against hostile aircraft and missiles at a range of more than 150km.

[digrar]

I'm looking forward to the new amphib LHDs. I think they are really going to change the way the Army opperates and judging by the troop and vehicle load limits may change the way we structure our units.

[Ballistic]

How do you think the Army will be structured (if any changes occur) when the LHD's come into service ? More like, say, an MEU ? In the latest Contact magazine, it suggested the LHD's would have no capability, or atleast not configured for any fixed wing aircraft. Would the units on board the LHD's be able to react effectively to any scenario without effective air cover or air superiority ?

[Abolith]

it's always good to see other countries building thier own ships, it's a good vote of confidence in the nations technichal and construction prowess.

[digrar]

How do you think the Army will be structured (if any changes occur) when the LHD's come into service ? More like, say, an MEU ? In the latest Contact magazine, it suggested the LHD's would have no capability, or atleast not configured for any fixed wing aircraft. Would the units on board the LHD's be able to react effectively to any scenario without effective air cover or air superiority ?

They are quoting 900 troop positions on the LHDs, which is considerably less than a Battalion Group. The cuts will have to go pretty deep if they want to put a effective force on the ground in one hit. You could probably count on a rifle company getting the shaft straight off.
I can't see why we still have the Brigade formations. We havn't deployed one for 30 years. Battalion groups are all the rage and realisticly it's the largest troop formation we can sustain on opperations for any length of time.
Our new recon/gunships will provide better air cover than we have had recently (air cover in East Timor was a mag58 in the door of a blackhawk)and if we enter a conflict where we need more than that, we will have to ask our friendly allies like normal.

[AussieTurretHead]

it's always good to see other countries building thier own ships, it's a good vote of confidence in the nations technichal and construction prowess.

Well, it's nothing new in Australia, we have been building a good number of our own naval vessels for decades including the ANZAC class frigates and our new class of submarines (the actual name of type escapes me). Our civilian shipbuilding industry is quite advanced with some local companies being ranked amongst world leaders in the designing & building of high speed ocean going ferries (such as Austal Ships)
We also had an aircraft building industry for quite a while beginning around WW2 if I remember correctly with production of such planes as the Aussie variant of the P-51 Mustang and the Sabre jet.
We have been manufacturing most of our military smallarms since the early 1900s and have made some significant export sales of the Aussie licence produced Steyr AUG.
We also produced a good tank known as the Sentinal in WW2 although by the time it was available we had recieved many more US and British vehicles, particularly tanks so the Sentinal was not needed. As it is at the moment we produce the Tenix S600 series of APCs which have been sold to Kuwait and we are making the new ADI Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicle for Aussie Army & Air Force use. We also produce the OKA series of light trucks that have been taken into military service with a few Middle Eastern nations

We are quite self-sufficient if need be, producing food, minerals, textiles and petroleum in enough quantities for our own use and also for export. The biggest problem with Australia's ability to produce military vehicles, aircraft and ships is not a lack of technical ability or manufacturing capacity but a lack of will on behalf of the government.

Cheers

[digrar]

Small production numbers due to our small military, making projects non profitable is another reason.

[fantassin]

When is the decision expected on your new LHD ?

The first Mistral class LHD was launched two days ago and should be operational by the end of 2005; do you know if the choice between the French and the Spanish design has been made ?

[digrar]

Looks like the Spanish one fits our needs better with regards to troop numbers and vehicle lane meters. A decision should be made in 2005, tomorrows election might have a impact on a lot of things military related.

[fantassin]

I spoke to an Aussie Naval officer last March and he told me the spaniards were also throwing in a couple of Frigates at rock bottom prices to get the market; any news on that ?

[ShotOver]

Ah nice, some toys for me to play with next year when i join up.
:D

[digrar]

A flash new galley with no rats mate ;) .