Katherine Ziesing | Canberra
Like many, the famine to feast shipbuilding announcements that the government made in April caught me by surprise. I had a few bets around town that submarines would be announced before the surface fleet programs and both the design partner and the combat systems integrator (CSI) role would be announced at the same time. I failed on both counts unfortunately. Given that Defence has barely had enough time to even read the offerings from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon for the CSI role, an announcement is still a ways off.
In the space of 14 months, more work has been done in developing the Australian submarine program than since the program office was first formed in 2008. The informal decision from former PM Abbott that all 12 submarines would be built by Japan in Japan under a handshake agreement between prime ministers is a far cry from the announcement from Prime Minister Turnbull that all 12 submarines will be built by France’s DCNS in Adelaide under a rolling build framework.
"I was surprised to see the Global Combat Ship (GCS) in the Sea 5000 mix given the parameters industry were given about the requirement."
A big congratulations to DCNS on this front. The next few years of negotiations, detailed design and wrangling of expectations of suppliers, the customer and politicians will be immensely fun I imagine. While TKMS Australia is out of the running on submarines, they are still in the mix for the OPVs with Fassmer.
I have some sympathy for the disappointment, indeed the humiliation, the Japanese are suffering in regard to the submarine matter. Imagine someone started courting you. They put a ring on your finger. They made promises of ‘together forever’. You booked the wedding, invited all your friends and family, and told them of your plans. And then you were left standing at the altar. I think that would be a fair comparison of how the Japanese are left feeling.
Bridges with the Japanese will need to be mended. A detailed explanation or technical debrief is the very least the government/Defence can do in this space. It will be an awkward conversation (explaining in graphic technical detail why you’re not good enough is never pleasant) but necessary.
I understand from sources inside the Japanese industry here in Canberra that future requests to export military equipment will be met with a complete lack of interest from the Japanese government industry for some time to come.
The spread of work under the various surface fleet announcements (see P6 for the full run down) is impressive. Key decisions have been made for the shortlists if not preferred tenderer for the majority of the future fleet. The field of contenders is a good one; varied, competent and, above all, certain. That certainty will allow the Australian shipbuilding industry to make decisions on what business they chase.
I was surprised to see the Global Combat Ship (GCS) in the Sea 5000 mix given the parameters industry were given about the requirement. The ship must in service, proven and exportable. GCS barely fulfils one of those requirements. Albeit this is not so much a BAE Systems issue but more one connected with the budget and decision making processes of the UK government. The design has been static for approximately 18 months and BAE is ready to cut steel whenever the UK government gives the go ahead. A classic case of hurry up and wait it seems.
Austal will be entering new territory in the Australian market with their winning Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement program design made of steel. The company is well acquainted in working with steel on their US programs but their Australian yard in Henderson is more used to working in aluminium. The program provides a nice lead in for any potential work on the OPVs.
Another surprise was that all three OPV contenders are international with Damen of the Netherlands, Fassmer of Germany, and Lürssen of Germany all in the mix. None have a presence in Australia and will be looking for local yards/companies to act as partners. I do find it surprising that not one Australian design even made the cut; OPVs aren’t rocket science.
Despite the maritime announcement bonanza there are two holes that stand out: the fate of ASC (I understand the review from the Finance Department is being considered by government right now); and the release of the national shipbuilding plan. Both are important elements of the Australian shipbuilding landscape and both will hopefully appear in 2016.
This article first appeared in the May 2016 edition of ADM.