Austal has been awarded a $1.029 billion Design and Build Contract for Landing Craft Medium (LCM) under the Strategic Shipbuilding Agreement (SSA) signed with Australia.
The LCM Design and Build Tasking Statement Contract appoints Austal subsidiary, Austal Defence Shipbuilding Australia Pty Ltd (Austal Defence Australia), to complete the detailed design and build 18 Landing Craft Medium (LCM) vessels at Austal’s Henderson, Western Australia, shipyard. Construction of the first LCM is scheduled to commence in 2026 with the 18th and final vessel scheduled for delivery in 2032. The LCM, being built for the Australian Army, will be manufactured in steel and capable of projecting loads up to 80 tonnes.
Austal Limited CEO Paddy Gregg said the first design and build contract awarded under the SSA was a significant milestone for Austal Defence Australia, as the Commonwealth’s Strategic Shipbuilder in Western Australia. “This Landing Craft Medium design and build contract awarded to Austal Defence Australia is the first vessel construction program in the Government’s commitment to delivering continuous naval shipbuilding at Henderson, Western Australia, enlivening decades of opportunity for individuals and businesses to engage, collaborate and invest in defence programs,” Gregg said. “With these 18 Landing Craft Medium and any further vessels planned as part of the Strategic Shipbuilding pilot program, we are developing the shipbuilding capability to build larger, more complex vessels, in Henderson into the future and delivering sovereign shipbuilding capability for Australia.”
Austal Defence Australia Executive General Manager – Strategic Shipbuilding, Gavin Stewart, said local industry was ready to deliver for the Australian Army. “The Austal Defence Australia team, and our industry and supply chain partners in the Henderson Defence Precinct, across Western Australia and around the nation, are ready to deliver this important new amphibious capability for the Australian Army,” he said.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at [email protected]
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at [email protected]
WTF ? Didn’t the DoD spend around two years and the Gods know how much money on a Tender process that was won by Birdon ?. So what now, Austal didn’t win,was given the build job anyway, Now have been given the okay to ignore everything and build the losing design anyway. Marles and co are totally incompetent , this smacks of so much political pork barreling it boarders on corruption. I sometimes wonder if Austal has photos of Marles and Albanese playing Golf with the Devil 😡
The winning Birdon design has been transferred to Austal to finalise and build. It was announced a month or so ago that Austal had taken over as design authority of the winning design. I think Birdon had had issues finishing it off.
It was also announced a fair while ago that Austal would be the strategic ship building partner for the LCM, LCH and General Purpose Frigate regardless of what actual design was chosen for each.
So no real change, as it’s the same wining design being built by the same designated ship yard.
By designating ASC/Osbourne (SA), and Austal (WA) as the two primary ship builders it’s provides certainty and avoids unsustainability propping up lots of smaller yards for limited builds. Smaller businesses can now partner with the two big yards to to maintain the ‘continuous ship building program’ centralised in two locations.
Think you need to get up to speed with the facts and avoid jumping on the political blame train. They’ve actually been consistent in their messaging and have followed through with what they originally specified.
That’s not quite correct about the LCM part of the tale. The Birdon design was selected but they were then compelled by the government to transfer it to Austal, an unsuccessful bidder who had teamed with BMT. Very few people can understand why Austal have been selected as a strategic shipbuilding partner. Why them? Why not Civmec? Why have a strategic shipbuilding partner at all?
I am, or was, a little confused. I believe that Austal will be building the Burdon design or has that changed and what level of involvement will Burdon have in the project?
Now waiting for the formal announcement regarding the LST build. I believe that the US has also selected the Damen design so they should at least be able to operate well together if required.
Landing craft eh?
Are we going to invade Hainan Island anytime soon? But in this new age of the missile and the drone I can see this thing as a smoking ruin on D-Day.
The West Australian reporting late on 26th December that “DoD is secretly discussing constructing some Army vessels in Europe rather than at Henderson”
No idea if the article has any basis in fact or if it is referring to the LCM’s or the LCT’s
I believe the reference is to LCH.
Yes, should have twigged to that.
Building a Damen design at one of Damen’s shipyards in Europe does sort of make sense and there’s no way Austal has the capacity to build them (or the Mogamis for that matter)
Bob501 and Rod, you are both pretty much on the money with your comments.
Here’s my summary: The Labour Government decided that as part of their Sovereign Shipbuilding plan, that they wanted an all Aussie Team involved for the LCM Project. So with that criteria they tried to cherry-pick from the various bidding partnerships and selected the Birdon Design to be built by Austal (as opposed to Birdons original partner, Echo Yachts). So, Michael and Kym, your statements that Austal were an unsuccessful bidder is not correct.
I actually believe that the BMT Design is more suitable for the mission requirement that states the need for the LCM to connect to the stern ramp on the two LHD’s for vehicle/cargo transfer, given that the Bridge/Wheelhouse is two thirds up the Port side giving superior vision for the Coxswain when positioning for connection. The Birdon Wheelhouse position centre Aft will be challenging.
It’s also likely that the BMT Hull form would have been more suitable than that selected by Birdon for Water-Jet operation. The Birdon hull bottom is flat which will cause air bubbles to be transferred along to the Water-Jet intakes at speed, probably resulting in Cavitation and Engine RPM hunt……not good. Whereas the BMT is slightly tunneled allowing air bubbles to dissipate.
As far as Birdon are now concerned, it certainly seems that their Design efforts have proved problematic and lengthly, hence they appear to have been ‘uninvited’ from the Project. Originally they were the Design Authority for the Hull and Mechanical Systems, with Austal being given the Electrical and Fit-out Design.
Now, Austal have been charged with completing the Design work on a Design that wasn’t of their choosing and for trying to salvage something out of a Schedule timeframe that has been wrecked by the Governments bid team interference. Not the best of starts.
Note that Birdon, along with Echo, had already pre-built four hull units prior to the Tender decision with the intention of using it as LCM Hull #1. Following the Governments meddling and their appointment of Birdon/Austal as ‘Winners’, close analysis of these units showed that their construction standard was sub-standard and it would prove too costly to fix them. Hence they were unceremoniously dumped in a vacant Henderson Lot and have subsequently disappeared, I would presume now scrapped?
Kym, you state that very few people understand why Austal were appointed Strategic Shipbuilding Partner…..quite a bold statement that assumes you have directly spoken to an awful lot of people?
My questions would be why not Austal? They have been building Ships for 35+ years and consistently deliver vessels on-time and to budget.
Conversely, why would Civmec be considered? They have by contrast, very little shipbuilding experience. Luerssen dumped them as formal build partners part way through the OPV Project and it remains too be seen how they perform in finalising the delivery phase of the four hulls that they are constructing. Especially now that they are effectively on their own following Luerssen’s departure from Australia.
Their Shipbuilding credentials consist of owning the Forgacs name, but with very few if any of their experienced staff. They do have some very good ex-Austal/BAE people, but they are in the minority and appear to be jumping ship in droves. Lastly, they operate (for the moment, as the Government has stated repeatedly that they recognise that Federal ownership of the WA Sovereign Shipyard facilities is a must) from a very large and impressive shed. However, people build ships, not sheds.
Lastly, ships successfully delivered (to time and budget seems irrelevant in relation to OPV)…..zero.
Rod, the US selection of the Damen LST100 is certainly interesting……I wonder how much of the parent Design will be changed. Shades of ‘Constellation Frigate’ mayhem on the horizon? Especially since the only vessel built so far was for Nigeria to what I suspect would have been a very tight budget.
Nige
I don’t understand why a strategic shipbuilder is needed with work being directed by the government to one particular company to the exclusion of everyone else. My own inclination is to let the market decide where it makes the most economic sense to build and maintain ships. If the government continues with this policy, I see no reason why MHI should not ask for $20 trillion or any other ridiculous sum of money if they are forced to use Austal (or anyone else) as the builder of Mogami frigates.
So Austal is going to build both the LCM’s and the LCH’s at Henderson?
Build and deliver them on time and on budget?
With what workforce precisely?
I guess this is confirmation, at least, that we are no longer pretending that we’re going to build any Mogami frigates here.
I think the first 2 LCHs will be built at the Common User Facility.
Still not nearly enough people to take on that much work.
Plus there’s nowhere for the people they’ll need to bring in to live.
All this coinciding with the need to increase the workforce at FBW by ~20%.
LCH’s should be built offshore as was being considered