Tuesday, 31 May 2005
ASC selected as shipbuilder for Australia’s Air Warfare Destroyers
Today’s announcement of ASC as the preferred shipbuilder recognises ASC’s expertise, highly skilled personnel and proven track record in delivering highly complex naval platforms, such as the world-renowned Collins Class submarines.
“The AWD program will be of critical national importance to Australia’s security and we certainly don’t underestimate the task ahead. However, we have the experience and the capability to deliver a great product and we thank the Federal Government and the Defence Materiel Organisation for recognising this,” said ASC’s Managing Director Greg Tunny.
“While the AWD shipbuilder decision is a massive boost for the South Australian economy, with additional employment opportunities for more than 1000 people, the ASC bid is a truly Australian achievement in the national interests. Modules can be built in South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.”
Mr John Prescott AC, Chairman of ASC said the achievement would not have been possible without the company’s proven track record, expertise and highly-skilled personnel.
“This is tremendously exciting news and I wish to pay tribute to everyone in ASC and to our partners and supporters who contributed to this outstanding achievement,” Mr Prescott said.
“It will be during the decades ahead that our performance will be judged by those who have selected us and most importantly by those we are to serve. This is a marvellous opportunity for everyone in ASC.”
ASC acknowledges the South Australian Government, which has provided enormous support, in addition to the other State governments who contributed to ASC’s industry plan. The company also recognises South Australia’s union leadership for negotiating a ground-breaking Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.
Mr Tunny said ASC is looking forward to continuing its good working relationship with Defence Materiel Organisation and the Royal Australian Navy, in addition to the other AWD alliance parties, including the combat system systems engineer and the ship designer.
“We owe thanks to the ongoing support from our capability partners –Bath Iron Works, Sinclair Knight Merz and Macquarie Bank who have helped us achieve our goals,” said Mr Tunny.
“Most importantly, twenty years to the day after ASC was established to bid for Australia’s submarine build, I believe the true strength behind ASC’s bid success is its people.”
——————————————————————————–
This is a good move, ASC had countered all along that they should build the AWD’s because with building the Collins class and the capabilities involved, it placed them at the forefront technologically speaking.
Now all we have to do is select a design for them to build! I noticed on the News last night that they only showed the F-100 design and not the other two in contention, this would be a clear indication that the Bazan design is in front. The4 other two designs being the DDG-51 class of America and the F-124 design of Germany. Spain has been a long time favourite with their Alvaro de Bazan design and the RAN are looking into the feasability of a reduction in costs should Bazan be selected to supply both the AWD’s and LHD’s which are also under consideration at the moment.
By: Ja Worsley - 21st June 2005 at 16:08
Scoot: seriously mate, are you really older than me? Couldn’t be by much I’d say.
Wan: Mate my insanity is heriditry, I got it from my kids 😉
By: Wanshan - 21st June 2005 at 12:44
Wan: mate there are some out that may say I am, but no I’m not.
Scoot: very interesting mate.
A little insanity can go a long way for a normal person 😉
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st June 2005 at 04:43
hahahahahaha
Don’t laugh I am older you…………….. 😮
By: Ja Worsley - 21st June 2005 at 04:26
hahahahahaha
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th June 2005 at 05:52
Wan: mate there are some out that may say I am, but no I’m not.
Scoot: very interesting mate.
Ja- No offense to Wan……………..we all thought the same way. Well, when we were 10 years younger that is :rolleyes: Funny thing getting older…………. 😮
By: Ja Worsley - 20th June 2005 at 03:51
Wan: mate there are some out that may say I am, but no I’m not.
Scoot: very interesting mate.
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th June 2005 at 00:18
The US did make a big effort to convert to the Metric Systems why back in the 1970’s under President Carter. Just think of it in the reverse……….try to get all of Europe to convert to the American System 😮 Very very complex and expensive……………. 🙁
By: Wanshan - 19th June 2005 at 23:47
That’s right Wan, they agreed to start using metric but because they’d have to reschool their entire work force (so much metric equals this much imperial) it was safer to say, we’ll agree and those who are smart enough can work it out but those who can’t be bothered we’ll just save them the hastles. Reschooling is the bigger cost here and with todays shrinking defence budgets, who has money for that sort of thing?
Though I did hear that the US builders now offer Metric or imperial tooling when selling their products to forgein customers.
Reschooling …. are you insane?! Any idiot that can multiply and divide should be able to to a conversion!
By: Ja Worsley - 19th June 2005 at 09:10
That’s right Wan, they agreed to start using metric but because they’d have to reschool their entire work force (so much metric equals this much imperial) it was safer to say, we’ll agree and those who are smart enough can work it out but those who can’t be bothered we’ll just save them the hastles. Reschooling is the bigger cost here and with todays shrinking defence budgets, who has money for that sort of thing?
Though I did hear that the US builders now offer Metric or imperial tooling when selling their products to forgein customers.
By: Wanshan - 16th June 2005 at 15:18
Irrelevant. Despite their outmoded ways they haven’t had a problem developing world beating technology. Maybe we should all switch back.
In fact, afaik, the US officially adopted the metric system. In practice, however, they just never did anything about actually changing over….
:rolleyes:
By: Arabella-Cox - 16th June 2005 at 03:43
Well, Ja has a point….I think the US was crazy not to include a hanger on the early Arleigh Burke Class? That said, it makes even less sense that Japan did the same thing with their later Kongo Class??? Regardless, both now build there Aegis Destroyers with hangers for two ASW helocopters………………go figure :confused:
By: danrh - 16th June 2005 at 02:45
Australia is reserved for Flagships and I expect one of the two new carriers to be named as such, I expect Canberra to be the other since it is the capital of Australia, thus leaving Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart for the three new AWD’s
Well maybe. Of course they are not actually carriers. They are amphibs that MAY get some fixed wing aircraft sometime towards the end of the next decade. The RAN does have a history of how it awards names. Personally I don’t know about the LHDs getting the names Australia, Canberra etc. If they do though I would take that as a good sign the F-35B will be part of our JSF buy.
The point I was trying to make about the Japanese ships was that their ships were made to differing standards to those of their American counterpart, at least they thought of the Helo 😉
The US Navy did not forget the helo. It was simply decided that as there were plenty of other helo carrying vessels it could be dispensed with as a cost saving measure, at least for the first blocks. The Japanese have a smaller and more ASW oriented fleet so the helo was more important for them.
and they also use Metric tools not silly out dated Imperial things that only America has now
Irrelevant. Despite their outmoded ways they haven’t had a problem developing world beating technology. Maybe we should all switch back.
Daniel
By: Ja Worsley - 16th June 2005 at 00:52
So are Brisbane, Hobart and Australia. Perth will be the last of the ANZACs due for delivery next year.
Australia is reserved for Flagships and I expect one of the two new carriers to be named as such, I expect Canberra to be the other since it is the capital of Australia, thus leaving Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart for the three new AWD’s
The point I was trying to make about the Japanese ships was that their ships were made to differing standards to those of their American counterpart, at least they thought of the Helo 😉 and they also use Metric tools not silly out dated Imperial things that only America has now
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th June 2005 at 15:21
None yet but Canberra and Adelaide are free, well will be by the time these ships enter service.
I wouldn’t touch the American DDG-51’s but the Japaneese ships are very much improved and thus very much better, you have to remember, the wider the beam, the better the sea handeling, this is something we haven’t seen since the days of the big capital ships of WWII. Sure there is extra room for stores, but it’s more importantly about sea keeping.
I wouldn’t touch the American DDG-51’s? The Japanese Kongo class are all most direct copies with the exception of a Italian Gun and some Japanese Electronics. Also, the second batch are being built to commercial standards…….So, you lost me here?
By: danrh - 14th June 2005 at 15:11
None yet but Canberra and Adelaide are free, well will be by the time these ships enter service.
So are Brisbane, Hobart and Australia. Perth will be the last of the ANZACs due for delivery next year.
I wouldn’t touch the American DDG-51’s but the Japaneese ships are very much improved and thus very much better, you have to remember, the wider the beam, the better the sea handeling, this is something we haven’t seen since the days of the big capital ships of WWII. Sure there is extra room for stores, but it’s more importantly about sea keeping.
Not quite sure what you’re saying here the Kongo’s do not feature increased beam (well maybe one foot more depending on references).
Daniel
By: Ja Worsley - 14th June 2005 at 08:13
I’m sure they will turn out to be very fine ships…..the F-100 is an excelent design……….any word on the names yet?
None yet but Canberra and Adelaide are free, well will be by the time these ships enter service.
Ja- What do you think of the beamier ships like the American and Japanese Aegis Destroyers? The USN seems to be going to ship with shorter hulls. Yet, with wider beams. Which, has more room for stores and has better sea keeping.
I wouldn’t touch the American DDG-51’s but the Japaneese ships are very much improved and thus very much better, you have to remember, the wider the beam, the better the sea handeling, this is something we haven’t seen since the days of the big capital ships of WWII. Sure there is extra room for stores, but it’s more importantly about sea keeping.
By: Arabella-Cox - 6th June 2005 at 08:18
The JMSDF took the basic American Aegis Destroyer and made it there own! (i.e. Kongo) Maybe the RAN could do the same? Very powerful ships indeed :diablo:
Ja- What do you think of the beamier ships like the American and Japanese Aegis Destroyers? The USN seems to be going to ship with shorter hulls. Yet, with wider beams. Which, has more room for stores and has better sea keeping…………………. :rolleyes:
By: hawkdriver05 - 5th June 2005 at 19:18
I’m sure they will turn out to be very fine ships…..the F-100 is an excelent design……….any word on the names yet?
By: Ja Worsley - 5th June 2005 at 16:33
Mate, it’s been pushed back so many times one is forced to wonder if the big wigs even know what they are really looking for! The original design spec was tasked with shore bombardment as a tertiary role, the original roles were something like this:
1. Anti Air
2. Anti surface/Anti Sub
3. Shore bombardment/Amphibious support
4. Patrol/Escort
5. Stand alone task group manager.
The original Aussie design had two 5′ deck guns just under the bridge one either side, I’ve been looking for the pic of the design for a while now because it had a lot of quallities about it that would have made it a rather plausable design considering. The only thing was that it was fully Australian, including the design, but the weapons were from over seas. Then came the change of government and they threw out the design because John Howard wanted closer ties to the US! At one point it was rhoumered that we were going to get 5 DDG-51’s but the navy backed up and said that if they did that they could crew the ships themselves. The navy doesn’t want those ships and have made it quite clear, sadly it’s the government who do want them, that’s why they are still in the running!
As for when a design is supposed to be settled upon is anyones guess, though they do want it settled by the years end. The navy has admitted that it can’t drag out much longer because they are creating a huge capability gap and if we are not carefull we’ll loose the experience and we’ll never be able to get the capability back. The only bright point in the form of two areas, they have decided that the ships are to be fitted with the Aegis system and that they are to be coupled with the SM-3 Standard Anti Ballistic Missile defence missile. We currently have the SM-2 block 2’s in service on our FFG’s but these can not engage ballistic missiles. This all has to do with Australia signing the pact for “Son of Star Wars” along with Japan thus making us one of three countries involved in this program.
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd June 2005 at 19:19
Scoot: Mate as I said, they haven’t selected a design yet, but the F-100 seems to be the favourite down here and if a deal can be struck where we will get a discount for buying three AWD’s and two LHD’s then these will be the winners, Bazan’s LHD’s are also a favourite in that comp as well!
When is the selection of the winning design suppose to be announced?
Sign In
May 31, 2005 at 7:17 pm