Defense Firms Vie to Build New Pacific Fleets

The Wall Street Journal ^ | June 10, 2018 | Rob Taylor

[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.

[sukhoi-30mki]

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

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

[wastedyears]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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

[wastedyears]

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

Not asking rudely, but why do you say that?

[familyop]

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.

[Theoria]

China hacked a Navy contractor and secured a trove of highly sensitive data on submarine warfare

[DoughtyOne]

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?

[Salvavida]

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.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"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!

[Charles Martel]

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

[ThunderSleeps]

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

[ThunderSleeps]

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...

[FreedomPoster]

Yes, for something of any size.

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

[DoughtyOne]

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

[DoughtyOne]

Okay. Thanks for addressing the issue.

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

[BenLurkin]

Very cool.

[spetznaz]

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.

[PIF]

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

[Lower Deck]

Am I asking the impossible here?

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