The Australian government is securing Australia’s shipbuilding capability and investing in Western Australian defence industry through a new strategic partnership between Defence and Austal Limited at Henderson Shipyard.
The Defence Strategic Review observed that there was not enough work to sustain the number of shipbuilders located at Henderson, and the Government agreed to a recommendation to examine industry consolidation options as a matter of priority.
As one of two major shipbuilding hubs in Australia, Henderson is an asset of national importance and pivotal to the build and sustainment of vessels for the Australian Defence Force. This significant reform will secure Henderson’s future as a vital naval shipbuilding complex with the capacity and capability to meet the evolving needs of the Defence Force.
This initiative will deliver a secure pipeline of work at Henderson, providing industry with greater certainty and helping to secure long-term skilled jobs, infrastructure investment and productivity in the local economy.
Under the strategic shipbuilder pilot, Army’s Landing Craft Medium and Heavy (Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels) will be built at Henderson by Austal, subject to successful commercial negotiations and ongoing performance. This will accelerate and expand the delivery of vessels that will provide Army with the ability to conduct littoral manoeuvre operations, consistent with the recommendations of the Defence Strategic Review.
Australia’s Birdon Group Pty Ltd has been selected as the preferred designer for the Landing Craft Medium capability. The Commonwealth will work with Birdon to undertake further design maturation to prepare the Landing Craft Medium design, for the construction of 18 vessels at Henderson.
Subject to the Landing Craft Medium project’s performance, the government also intends to build the Landing Craft Heavy capability through the strategic partnership.
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.
To underpin the strategic shipbuilder pilot, Defence and Austal will enter into a Heads of Agreement – which will set out the principles and framework that govern this enduring partnership – and will commence negotiations for a strategic shipbuilder agreement.
A sovereign and enduring naval shipbuilding and sustainment industry at Henderson is central to the Government’s commitment to ensuring continuous naval shipbuilding in Australia and delivering the capabilities needed to keep Australians safe.
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said: “The Albanese Government is getting on with the job of delivering the world class, sovereign capabilities our Defence Force needs to keep Australia safe and secure. This significant reform will see Henderson become one of Australia’s biggest and most efficient naval shipbuilding complexes that has the capacity and capability to meet the evolving needs of our Defence Force. By securing the future of continuous naval shipbuilding at Henderson, industry will have the certainty it needs to invest in the local workforce and contribute to the West Australian economy for decades to come.”
Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy said: “This partnership represents a new approach to Australian shipbuilding and reflects the Albanese Government’s steadfast commitment to delivering a future made in Australia. A continuous pipeline of work and an efficient, streamlined approach will not only benefit the delivery of Defence capability but create industry confidence to invest in a highly capable shipbuilding workforce in Western Australia Australian industry can compete with the best in the world, but for too long has suffered the boom bust cycle of shipbuilding, undermining productivity and workforce retention. This ends with this strategic partnership.”
Western Australian Minister for Defence Industry Paul Papalia said: “Before WA Labor took office our State’s defence industry had no voice on the national stage. Continuous naval ship building in Western Australia is something we have fought for since 2017. Western Australia is now recognised as being a key contributor to the nation’s defence strategy. The Cook Labor Government will continue its efforts to diversify WA, grow the economy and build a more resilient, sustainable state.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net
On the surface, please forgive my pessimism about Government Announcements, this looks like finally something like a professional approach is being attempted. I think the Birdon design was the right choice( though some parts of the announcement sounded ominously like “ we’ve chosen the design but we haven’t finished adding or taking away from it yet” I’m also not convinced concentrating all of the ship building on the West Coast is a good idea. Let’s hope that the Landing Craft program goes smoother than the Arafura.Hopefully the DoD will now step away and allow the professionals to do what they do best, build the design they tendered.I seriously hope I’m wrong but I smell the scent of Government interference and Political Expediency beginning already.
I agree – it looks promising. However, I’m trying to find out if Birdon have been compelled to work with Austal or whether it’s purely commercial.
Weren’t they originally partnered with Echo Marine?
As far as I understand it that’s where the prototype was/is being built.
Austal is probably a better bet but they are already very busy.
What happened to the Australian designed stern landing ship? The US marine corp seemed very keen? Navel enthusiast, not an expert by any real means. However ever, just like other Gov announcements that do not provide any details. They pick a designer, but not an actual ship? Then why were they picked? Just to kick the financial can down the road again? Seriously, state the requirements, give them to industry, and let them build them. Buy the design rights, and be able to build them anywhere that can.The Bathurst class was not perfect, but we could build lots, at many places to fill urgent need. In any near term conflict that we are involved in, we are going to need what we have.
According to US Defence News website STS’s stern landing ship is still very much in the mix for the Marines
If its anything like the Arafura Deal. It will probably be “Work with Austral or your boat will never see the water” again I hope I’m wrong….
Except Luerssen didn’t work with Austal.
Apologies Kim, Just checked my resources (Aust Financial Review 11/5/2018)and Luerssen was told to negotiate an agreement with Austal but discussions broke down and Defence Minister Christopher Pine appointed a mediator. In the end Luerssen went ahead without them.
I have read elsewhere that Navy was sticking their nose into the LMV-M to secure more work for Austal to keep them employed and that Army actually preferred the Navantia design as it would have greater riverine and estuary maneuverability.
Which makes me wonder if this is the best deal Army could get, was Birdon a compromise?
It also claimed Birdon was on the nose because they tried to ‘force’ army’s hand by starting a prototype build before selection and was considered too big and the bridge had a blind spot, I think to the rear.
But if Navantia was preferred (must admit it was my choice) why wouldn’t they be in the deal?
Just shows until the final bell tolls you have to take what you read with a grain of salt I guess.
Hmmmmm. Not sure about that. Navantia were eliminated a couple of years back and didn’t make the down-select.
Oh; I know they lost out on the LMV-A, the LARC-V replacement, but hadn’t heard that they lost on the LMV-M as well. On the LMV-A is there likely to be an announcement soon do you think, Birdon is still in the running on that too aren’t they. The other was Varley wasn’t it? (never understood why D.O.D. didn’t want something more capable instead of a copy of LARC-V). Do you think the Birdon boat will have the accessibility in riverine areas & could the helo deck be used to mount modular launches for UAV’s, LIOTERING MUNITIONS (owl) or NLOS missiles?
I’m not really across those details, sorry. I’ll see what I can find out.
The disparity between what Navantia and Birdon have proposed is what gets me.
Did they not understand what was being asked for or was what was being asked for extremely vague?
I am sure that this project wont take long to be behind schedule and over budget. I have no faith in Australian shipbuilders. This has been a political decision only to keep 2 Australian shipbuilders afloat (pardon the pun).
One of the few good points raised by the DSR was the acknowledgement that a continuous build of ships was necessary to sustain and retain shipbuilding capacity at the AMC at Henderson. Although I was less enthusiastic about the proposal to facilitate industry consolidation. Overall I am not a big fan of this announcement.
I am no naval engineer but the Birdon design appeared to be the weaker option based on a couple of casual observations in lieu of more detailed publicly accessible information. Despite being the largest design on offer I’d estimate at least 30-40% of the length is occupied by bridge/wheelhouse and a helipad. Based on the renders provided by Birdon it does not seem like it will be able to carry any more land based equipment/personnel than most of the other competing designs and the inclusion of a helipad seems odd given the vessels primary role of transporting this equipment/personnel ashore. Furthermore the wheelhouse/bridge is centred and this may cause large equipment ahead of it to obscure the vision of the crew. There is a reason that every other design on offer had an offset wheelhouse/bridge.
Finally, the press release mentions Henderson numerous times but unless Austal intends to aggressively subcontract work to other AMC based shipbuilders it’s not clear this agreement actually benefits anyone other than Austal. Defence should have followed the lead of the USA, Japan and South Korea by having multiple shipbuilders build a successful design. For example Bath Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls Industries are both contracted to build the Flight III Arleigh Burke for the USN. Flexible contracting could allow Austal, Civmec, Echo Marine Group, Babcock and BAE etc to bid for this work based on availability and performance, delivering vessels faster and uplifting the entire AMC at Henderson rather than just one troubled business. With future requirements for Joint Support Ships, Tier 2 combatants and other auxiliaries there will be plenty of work to go around.
This announcement on to of a proposed partnership between Navantia, Austal and Civmec for new corveetes for the navy. Should I be reading something into this?
I still can’t get my head around the whole project. The design was for a replacement for Landing Craft Medium but the design chosen is bigger than the current Landing Craft Heavy , which is also up for replacement, and from reports Austal has been told they will build that as well but I am unaware of if any design has been released, there is a report that the LCH will be more like an Landing Ship Tank , and is the replacement for the LARC V still part of the original RFI and is the Army’s LCVs being replaced as well.
An announcement with very little detail of the winning design at this stage.
It looks similar in size to the old LCH which is promising , providing it has similar capability in range and vehicle capacity.
Going just a bit bigger than the old LCM8 I always thought was a waste of money.
As a new vessel , it will have a modern hull form and the ability to perform in challenging sea states that the old boxy LCH was not able to do.
it does concern me however that it appears to have limited deck space for vehicles relative to its size.
I hope we didn’t miss an opportunity to carry a respectable load a meaningful distance
I want to be glass half full with this project.
There is alot to like with both the size of the craft and numbers to be purchased.
Certainly looking forward to further details.
Cheers
Is there any thought of getting some ACV’s for the Army that can be operated out of the LHD’s?
There’s all this talk about pivoting to littoral operations but it seems we’re sticking with conventional landing craft unless the LARC replacement is going to be something more than currently being asked for
Who knows? By stupidly retiring the Taipans and now burying them in landfill the LHDs have no helicopter lift capacity unless they deploy Chinooks on them. It will be years before they have enough Blackhawks.