Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense Firms Vie to Build New Pacific Fleets
The Wall Street Journal ^ | June 10, 2018 | Rob Taylor

Posted on 06/10/2018 8:12:49 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

A FREMM vessel designed by Fincantieri in Sydney’s harbor. PHOTO: FINCANTIERI

CANBERRA, Australia—U.S. allies are embarking on a naval shopping spree as territorial standoffs intensify in the Pacific.

Contracts valued at about $70 billion are up for grabs from Australia to Canada, as governments update aging fleets to protect shipping lanes and their territorial waters.

While defense spending globally had fallen over the past decade, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute expects spending this year to be the highest since the close of the Cold War. Nations in Asia and the Middle East are leading the charge.

That is a potential windfall for companies such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. in the U.S., Britain’s BAE Systems PLC and Europe’s biggest shipbuilder, Fincantieri SpA. The new contracts could secure thousands of jobs and guarantee a pipeline of work for at least a decade.

Western navies are rebuilding their Pacific fleets as China and Russia challenge their dominance in the region. China is asserting more dominance over the South China Sea, tensions on the Korean Peninsula are high, and Russia is showing renewed interest in Asia. Late last year, a Russian navy ship docked in Papua New Guinea for training and Russian bombers visited Indonesia.

The U.S. has urged its allies to spend more on defense. President Donald Trump has called for a U.S. naval fleet of 350 ships. The current fleet of 273 ships is the smallest since 1916. Last year collisions between U.S. guided-missile destroyers and merchant ships that left 17 sailors dead prompted criticism that the fleet is stretched too thin, resulting in cutbacks on training and certifications.

Defense companies say the coordinated buildup among allies is also an opportunity for Western allies to build a common warship.

(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: australia; canada; fincantieri; navy; pacific

Note: Figures are estimates for BAE Systems and Navantia, images are renderings.

Sources: Navantia, BAE Systems, Fincantieri, Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

1 posted on 06/10/2018 8:12:49 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Defense companies say the coordinated buildup among allies is also an opportunity for Western allies to build a common warship.

Nah, we'll keep our military secrets, well, secret.

2 posted on 06/10/2018 8:28:18 PM PDT by wastedyears (The left would kill every single one of us and our families if they knew they could get away with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Not with our DoD contractors’ current level of competence and security measures, we won’t.


3 posted on 06/10/2018 8:38:37 PM PDT by Charles Martel (Progressives are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
Not with our DoD contractors’ current level of competence and security measures, we won’t.

Not asking rudely, but why do you say that?

4 posted on 06/10/2018 8:44:14 PM PDT by wastedyears (The left would kill every single one of us and our families if they knew they could get away with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Good. Smart Australians! Anti-submarine equipment and personnel will be very important, and more will be better. An antagonist nation has been building a large submarine force and keeping it tightly under wraps.


5 posted on 06/10/2018 8:48:23 PM PDT by familyop ("Welcome to Costco. I love you." - -Costco greeter in the movie, "Idiocracy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
China hacked a Navy contractor and secured a trove of highly sensitive data on submarine warfare
6 posted on 06/10/2018 8:54:03 PM PDT by Theoria (I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I may be off base, but I’d sure like to see some speeds better than 28 knots in this day and age.

Double that and it will be harder to target the ships. Triple it and forget about it.

Am I asking the impossible here?


7 posted on 06/10/2018 8:54:46 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (01/26/18 DJIA 30 stocks $26,616.71 48.794% > open 11/07/16 215.71 from 50% increase 1.2183 yrs..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
Having worked on both sides, it is government's fault. The way they write the contracts, their laziness, lack of supervision, and inability to hold people and companies to performance.

Contractors are in it for money, so performance isn't the issue.

8 posted on 06/10/2018 8:55:19 PM PDT by Salvavida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
"Defense companies say the coordinated buildup among allies is also an opportunity for Western allies to build a common warship."

What we need to do is replicate in shipbuilding the great success we're having in aircraft design with the F-35.

We need one ship that can, with minor adjustments, serve multiple purposes: as a destroyer, a minesweeper, a battleship, an aircraft carrier, and a littoral close support craft.

What great savings in costs and time to deployment we will reap!

9 posted on 06/10/2018 8:57:50 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

I was referring to the “loss of data” by a DoD contractor that was the subject of several threads over the weekend.


10 posted on 06/10/2018 9:00:04 PM PDT by Charles Martel (Progressives are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Because he’s repeating a stereotype based on no first hand knowledge.


11 posted on 06/10/2018 9:08:31 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps ( Be ready!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

There is the speed released for public consumption, then there is the real speed, then there is sprint speed as in get out of the seeker cone of an inbound...


12 posted on 06/10/2018 9:10:52 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps ( Be ready!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Yes, for something of any size.

Power requirements are a function of the velocity cubed. I say again, CUBED!


13 posted on 06/10/2018 9:12:34 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

Okay, thank you for the mention. That does help.


14 posted on 06/10/2018 9:17:12 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (01/26/18 DJIA 30 stocks $26,616.71 48.794% > open 11/07/16 215.71 from 50% increase 1.2183 yrs..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Okay. Thanks for addressing the issue.

I should let the pros handle it, but it does cause concern.


15 posted on 06/10/2018 9:18:37 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (01/26/18 DJIA 30 stocks $26,616.71 48.794% > open 11/07/16 215.71 from 50% increase 1.2183 yrs..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Very cool.


16 posted on 06/10/2018 9:47:37 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The issue with speed is it would necessitate significant design changes and, more importantly, a power requirement upstick that would be detrimental to functionality of the craft. The reason the Littoral Combat Ships had a bunch of issues stemmed a lot from their speed requirement. Had they been okay with a slightly lower speed, there would have been more money and space and design flexibility to have more mission modules and other functionality-enhancing attributes.

Additionally, I wonder just how important speed is in the era of advanced missiles? Although I think the main issue is the heavy requirements that come with speed.

But then again, all the people who work on these designs are experts, and I will not be foolish and claim to know better than those who worked on the LCS. I’m sure they had their reasons, and those reasons were valid.

17 posted on 06/11/2018 1:00:46 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The War Zone had a very good comparison article on this subject a while back.


18 posted on 06/11/2018 2:21:14 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Am I asking the impossible here?

56 to 84 knots? Yeah, I'd say so.

19 posted on 06/11/2018 3:36:55 AM PDT by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson