Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stampede said:
A class of four. Two in Hobart and one out of Perth with one in refit.
The big seas of the southern ocean are not kind to a FFG or an ANZAC.
We need specialist ships for a southern ocean that needs more focus.

Regards S
Click to expand...
What you have stated is correct but doesn't exonerate Sea Shepherd for conducting acts of piracy in the Southern Ocean and your solution re big ships may work.
But, is it the best use of limited dollars for the defence of Australia? and that answer is surely no.
If the Australian government/people wish to protect fisheries and wildlife in this region resources should be made available through another agency such as AFMA or the Environmental Protection Authority and not rob scarce resources from Defence just as the previous Defmin, Steven Smith, acquired Ocean Shield. This should have been acquired through Customs and would have still been available for HADR backup for the few months it endured under control of the RAN.
 
Bluey 006

Bluey 006

Member
ASSAIL said:
What you have stated is correct but doesn't exonerate Sea Shepherd for conducting acts of piracy in the Southern Ocean and your solution re big ships may work.
But, is it the best use of limited dollars for the defence of Australia? and that answer is surely no.
If the Australian government/people wish to protect fisheries and wildlife in this region resources should be made available through another agency such as AFMA or the Environmental Protection Authority and not rob scarce resources from Defence just as the previous Defmin, Steven Smith, acquired Ocean Shield. This should have been acquired through Customs and would have still been available for HADR backup for the few months it endured under control of the RAN.
Click to expand...
Under the Defence Act 1903 the Defence mission is to defend Australia and its national interests. I guess a lot depends on what the government constitutes to be our national interests. Its a tough one because a lot depends on individual worldview.

While I personally believe the primary role of Defence is to defend Australia against armed attack, i do think there is potential for it to be heavily involved (and appropriately funded) in the greater national strategy (which to a large degree it is). Defence of our national interests is very broad - many would say prevention of degradation to our natural environment falls under this, others would not.

Likewise some may say demise of our manufacturing industry is not in the national interest, what role should defence play in preventing that etc

I'd like to see a national interests -white paper ever 10 years or so, defining what the government view as our national interests - various documents do this in part but no public documents are all encompassing (I assume this is done in some form somewhere, maybe the ONA). But it would be nice for the public to be clear on what as a nation is important to us
 
Last edited:
R

rockitten

Member
How about 3 extra AWD ??

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

"Defence shipbuilding review warns delays mean 20-year shortage

The Australian
July 17, 2015 12:00AM

Australia faces a collective delay of up to a decade for its replacement fleet of frigates, causing a shortage of warships over the next 20 years, the author of the government’s shipbuilding review says.

Rand corporation’s Joel Predd, who modelled workforce requirements for the government’s shipbuilding program, said the coming defence white paper would need to address the looming delays or risk having fewer ships available for the navy.

“It is really Australia’s decis*ion; they have a choice there: they can either retire on schedule and face a shortfall in the force structure — the number of ships that can be deployed — or they could extend the life of the Anzacs and pay the maintenance bills,” Mr Predd said.

“Australia of course will decide this but if you were to extend the life of the Anzac fleet in order to maintain a constant number of ships, then you would have to keep a ship that was supposed to be retired out into the fleet longer.

“If you added that time up — how much time the supposedly retired, intended-to-be-retired ships are out in the fleet — it would be in total 10 years across the Anzac fleet.”

Alternatively, the government could bring forward construction of the frigates, or introduce a new project following the end of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, which would allow the new warships to be built more quickly and minimise the delays to *replace the Anzac frigates from 2026.

The warning comes after Tony Abbott last month committed to developing a contin*uous shipbuilding capability in Australia despite delays and cost blowouts plaguing the AWD project. “It is the government’s intention to *develop a continuous build of major surface warships here in Australia to avoid the unproductive on-again, off-again cycle that has done this industry so much damage,” he said. But the shedding of shipyard jobs has begun. BAE Systems* has cut more than 500 workers from its Williamstown shipyard in Victoria, which faces potential closure because of insufficient demand after it completes work on the AWD program next year. It announced last month it would not bid on the government’s $600 million contract for 21 Pacific *patrol boats, saying it would not be viable to rebuild its workforce for a 2018 start date.

Forgacs has cut 160 of its 450 workers in Newcastle, with the rest dependent on a change in shipbuilding policy.

Under Rand’s modelling, the supply of the future frigates would be delayed by an average of 15 months for each of the eight vessels relative to the retirement of the Anzac warships, totalling 10 years. The delays are caused by the gap between the end of the AWD program and the start of the future* frigate program, the * *so-called “valley of death’’.

But the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said the delay was a product of Rand’s inherently pessimistic modelling.

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said * Defence had “advised government that decisions required to avoid Labor’s ‘valley of death’ would need to have been taken in 2011 or earlier — when Labor was in government’’."
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
What you have stated is correct but doesn't exonerate Sea Shepherd for conducting acts of piracy in the Southern Ocean and your solution re big ships may work.
But, is it the best use of limited dollars for the defence of Australia? and that answer is surely no.
If the Australian government/people wish to protect fisheries and wildlife in this region resources should be made available through another agency such as AFMA or the Environmental Protection Authority and not rob scarce resources from Defence just as the previous Defmin, Steven Smith, acquired Ocean Shield. This should have been acquired through Customs and would have still been available for HADR backup for the few months it endured under control of the RAN.
Click to expand...
Definitely don't want a repeat of the Smith years, many of our current problems with everything can be traced to him. I wonder if in hindsight, we would have been better off with a separate coastguard with its own budget, separate from defence, perhaps provided by stakeholder departments would have been a better way forward. A couple of large ocean patrol vessels, perhaps ice strengthened, several OPVs and several patrol boats would do the job, leaving the RAN to concentrate on majors.
 
P

phreeky

Active Member
Volkodav said:
Definitely don't want a repeat of the Smith years, many of our current problems with everything can be traced to him. I wonder if in hindsight, we would have been better off with a separate coastguard with its own budget, separate from defence, perhaps provided by stakeholder departments would have been a better way forward.
Click to expand...
If a responsibility is taken from Defence then where does that other departments budget come from? If the coastguard-type duties are left with Defence then do the vessels/etc not then provide some benefit for both uses?

The other question I suppose is what do the sailors think of having to do those 'other' duties?
 
P

peterAustralia

Member
I am going off topic a little, but there has been a suggestion that Canada does not spend enough on defence. I would argue that Canada has about the safest geographical security of any nation in the world. The only country that could invade it is the US, and they are not going to. They tried something in 1812, but since then the two countries seem content for each to be sovereign

If Canada was to go from double its expenditure from 1 percent GDP to 2 percent GDP on defence, then over a decade or so, that is hundreds of billions of dollars spent on guns, ships and bombs. However it also means hundred of billions of dollars cut from roads, hospitals, tax cuts, schools, universities, health care, disability pensioners, safer airports etc etc.

Other nations are different to Canada, and do not have the geographic advantages that Canada has. Say you pick some other nations starting the C, Columbia, Chile, Croatia, Congo (DR), Chad. In each case these nations have neighbours with whom hostilities with land neighbors though not likely cant be ruled out.

(Columbia:Venezuela, Chile:Argentina, Croatia:Serbia, DRC:Rwanda-Uganda-Angola, Chad:civil war-Sudan-Dharfur).

So if Canada doubled its defence spending what would it spend its money on. It could confront China in the western pacific, it could mess about in the middle east. I think the idea of Russian paratroopers flying over the north pole and taking one of those remote, barren islands up the top there is crazy. Russia has heaps of land to develop its natural resources, it is not overly short of tundra.

As to building up its submarine force to detect fishing vessels. I would argue detection could be done for a fraction of the price by fixed winged aircraft

Then we get into the morality bit, does Canada have an obligation to help out the west around the world. Canada did its bit in WW1, WW2 and Korea. Maybe it takes the view that messing about in Libya or Iraq is none of its business. Although many may dislike this idea of Canada not helping out, they are a sovereign nation and can choose to do as they please.

Next take a hypothetical idea. Just say that Canada was controlled by a crazy dictator like Kim Jong Il, and that individual had nuclear weapons. The amount that the US would have to spend to secure its northern border would be astronomical. At the moment the US spends zero, because Canada is no threat. How many nations can get away with spending zero protecting thousands of miles of their land border? The money saved by the US is huge

Even if we scale back the hypothetical and reduce it to an unresolved border dispute. The amount that the US and Canada would both have to spend to ensure that small area of land stayed secure would be very high.

Canada knows that its geographic situation is extremely secure. Should it spend an extra 20 billion dollars a year (double spending) so that it can mess about in Africa, the middle east, Afghanistan etc? Maybe they have just decided to keep out of all that. An individual may not agree with their decision, may not like their decision, but in the end, its really up to them. If the Canadian public wanted more spent on the military they could rally in the streets and start petitions. I guess Canada could have joined the intervention in Libya and Iraq, but how did that end up, I would argue so-so. The money saved could be spent of rebuilding the infrastructure of very poor nations.

I do realise that in decades to come there may be stressors relating to trade routes relating to China and Asia, that could be a threat to Canada's trade security. It seems Canada has decided to simply keep out of all that. Does Canada have a moral obligation to protect Vietnam's sovereignty against Chinese incursions? Or maybe they feel its is best to keep out of all that. In my view an argument can be made either way.

My point is that Canada is different, the nearest potential threat is a 1500 miles away over the north pole, and I think Russians claiming sovereignty over those northern islands as exceptionally remote

Other countries, Australia included have different geographical issues and are less secure. I doubt there is a nation on earth as secure as Canada, (maybe Iceland or New Zealand because nobody cares massively about them). Many may dislike the idea that Canada does not spend a lot on defence, but I would argue that is much better than if they were a hostile or difficult neighbour.

I know others on this forum may not like what I have said, if u choose to respond, pls direct ur comment to the arguments I made rather than me personally
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
phreeky said:
If a responsibility is taken from Defence then where does that other departments budget come from? If the coastguard-type duties are left with Defence then do the vessels/etc not then provide some benefit for both uses?

The other question I suppose is what do the sailors think of having to do those 'other' duties?
Click to expand...
The people of Australia will allocate resources for other tasks if the politicians think there's votes to be bought and those resources would come through other unnamed agencies.
Defence spending should be concentrated on combat capability or activities which facilitate that.

You ask if vessels such as patrol boats contribute to defence, I would suggest only in a very minimal way. They train young officers and young engineers and not much else. They are armed for harbour defence and near coastal surveillance, duties that could be performed by commissioning other agency ships if conflict erupts.

In border control the ACPBs carry out the same tasks as the Customs force only at greater expense and it would be my wish that any remaining ACPB's be transferred to Customs if the are still around when the OPV's eventuate.
 
B

Boatteacher

Active Member
peterAustralia said:
I am going off topic a little, but there has been a suggestion that Canada does not spend enough on defence. I would argue that Canada has about the safest geographical security of any nation in the world. The only country that could invade it is the US, and they are not going to. They tried something in 1812, but since then the two countries seem content for each to be sovereign

If Canada was to go from double its expenditure from 1 percent GDP to 2 percent GDP on defence, then over a decade or so, that is hundreds of billions of dollars spent on guns, ships and bombs. However it also means hundred of billions of dollars cut from roads, hospitals, tax cuts, schools, universities, health care, disability pensioners, safer airports etc etc.

Other nations are different to Canada, and do not have the geographic advantages that Canada has. Say you pick some other nations starting the C, Columbia, Chile, Croatia, Congo (DR), Chad. In each case these nations have neighbours with whom hostilities with land neighbors though not likely cant be ruled out.

(Columbia:Venezuela, Chile:Argentina, Croatia:Serbia, DRC:Rwanda-Uganda-Angola, Chad:civil war-Sudan-Dharfur).

So if Canada doubled its defence spending what would it spend its money on. It could confront China in the western pacific, it could mess about in the middle east. I think the idea of Russian paratroopers flying over the north pole and taking one of those remote, barren islands up the top there is crazy. Russia has heaps of land to develop its natural resources, it is not overly short of tundra.

As to building up its submarine force to detect fishing vessels. I would argue detection could be done for a fraction of the price by fixed winged aircraft

Then we get into the morality bit, does Canada have an obligation to help out the west around the world. Canada did its bit in WW1, WW2 and Korea. Maybe it takes the view that messing about in Libya or Iraq is none of its business. Although many may dislike this idea of Canada not helping out, they are a sovereign nation and can choose to do as they please.

Next take a hypothetical idea. Just say that Canada was controlled by a crazy dictator like Kim Jong Il, and that individual had nuclear weapons. The amount that the US would have to spend to secure its northern border would be astronomical. At the moment the US spends zero, because Canada is no threat. How many nations can get away with spending zero protecting thousands of miles of their land border? The money saved by the US is huge

Even if we scale back the hypothetical and reduce it to an unresolved border dispute. The amount that the US and Canada would both have to spend to ensure that small area of land stayed secure would be very high.

Canada knows that its geographic situation is extremely secure. Should it spend an extra 20 billion dollars a year (double spending) so that it can mess about in Africa, the middle east, Afghanistan etc? Maybe they have just decided to keep out of all that. An individual may not agree with their decision, may not like their decision, but in the end, its really up to them. If the Canadian public wanted more spent on the military they could rally in the streets and start petitions. I guess Canada could have joined the intervention in Libya and Iraq, but how did that end up, I would argue so-so. The money saved could be spent of rebuilding the infrastructure of very poor nations.

I do realise that in decades to come there may be stressors relating to trade routes relating to China and Asia, that could be a threat to Canada's trade security. It seems Canada has decided to simply keep out of all that. Does Canada have a moral obligation to protect Vietnam's sovereignty against Chinese incursions? Or maybe they feel its is best to keep out of all that. In my view an argument can be made either way.

My point is that Canada is different, the nearest potential threat is a 1500 miles away over the north pole, and I think Russians claiming sovereignty over those northern islands as exceptionally remote

Other countries, Australia included have different geographical issues and are less secure. I doubt there is a nation on earth as secure as Canada, (maybe Iceland or New Zealand because nobody cares massively about them). Many may dislike the idea that Canada does not spend a lot on defence, but I would argue that is much better than if they were a hostile or difficult neighbour.

I know others on this forum may not like what I have said, if u choose to respond, pls direct ur comment to the arguments I made rather than me personally
Click to expand...
A bit risky replying to OT issue here, but surely that underestimates Canada's exposure to the North. It seems completely inadequate to the task of fronting up to the Russian aggression in the Arctic. Indeed given the current Russian mood, I would put Canada in one of the more exposed positions at the moment; not as bad as the former Russian republics maybe - but not far behind.
 
G

Goknub

Active Member
I would say a separate Coastguard would be a mistake due to budgetary reasons.

Once a separate department is established it will develop its own bureaucracy which will waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

More importantly, it locks funding outside of Defence. As situations develop and priorities change it is good that Defence can shift funding to more critical areas without needing to go back to the politicians begging for funds. This flexibility would be reduced with a separate Coastguard department.

Additionally, I believe it is valuable for the Navy to be conducting border security as it instils a culture that isn't solely focused on high-end warfare. As has become blindingly obvious, the ADF is required to conduct Operations across the entire spectrum of conflict. This requires assets that can meet those demands.

peterAustralia said:
I am going off topic a little, but there has been a suggestion that Canada does not spend enough on defence.
Click to expand...
There's a Canadian Navy thread that would probably be better for discussions on Canadian military spending
 
O

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stampede said:
Your right it is a Noble Cause as is the preventing of over fishing and exploitation of food resourses for a ever increasing global population. But who is to do it?
Sea Shepard opperates in the southern oceans because of a constabulary void. It's also why the industrial fishing / whaleing fleets opperate as well.
If you go for a tour of the MY Steve Irwin its hard not to be taken with the passion of the crew. Call the crew young ,call them naive, call them many things but IMO I would reserve the terrorist badge for other more destructive groups.
But passion and conduct must have accountability and so who is to say what really happens in the conflict between whaler and Sea Shepard. As one of sea Shepards crew said if we cannot capture an event of film it did'nt happen.They exist to make the news.They know the art of the media and make no appolgies for being in your face to create a scene. It makes the news! but how far is too far and what is the legal/moral limit.
If we dont want a SEA Shepard then elected governnments accountable to law must be activly doing the Noble Cause. Protect one's own EEZ and monitoring the activities of both the fishing fleets and greens groups in international waters and holding all to account.
As Australia ponders it's fleet size and composition there has been much talk of OPV's as part of the mix. Maybe we might also consider a separate class of large, long range, robust, helicopter capable, ice strenghened vessels for our southern oceans.
I doubt there is any votes in it but suggest the needs there now and increasingly so in the future.
A class of four. Two in Hobart and one out of Perth with one in refit.
The big seas of the southern ocean are not kind to a FFG or an ANZAC.
We need specialist ships for a southern ocean that needs more focus.

Regards S
Click to expand...
Ok, if theyre not terrorists, theyre pirates.
Why dont they target the super trawlers that take entire schools of fodder fish?
Fodder fish just arnt as photogenic or newsworthy as whales.
Imagine you are from a poor area, and you land a job that gives you oppertunity to ahead, and make a difference to your family.
The job is considered as prestiegious in your home country, and the creatures you hunt, your people have been hunting for thousands of years (a bit like dugong hunting by aboriginal people of Australia) then some freaky looking people, push their morals onto you, and attempt to harm you while you are trying to do your job?
Love to see what would happen if a tinnie full of dreadlocked greenies attacked some aboriginals hunting dugong, and attempted to sink their boat, then tellevise it on international TV!
Infact I challenge GREENPEACE to stop the bloodthirsy aboriginals from torturing dugong, and sea turtles etc!
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Good grief!

So, you think that it's a good idea to spend lots of taxpayers money supporting an industry that produces things that customers have to be paid to take, & the main benefits of which accrue to the bureaucrats supporting it?

If industrial whaling was an age-old subsistence activity, you might have a point. But it isn't. It's a loss-making business which only exists because of state support. Its products are not in demand. In Japan, it continues because of some gerrymandering of constituencies, & the existence of a bureaucracy which administers the subsidy system, & which resists its own abolition. This bureaucracy is struggling to sustain the industry (& thus itself) in the face of the aging of the workforce, difficulty in recruiting new entrants, & questions about the large stockpile of unsold (because nobody wants to buy it) whale meat. It's opposed alternative economic activities for the whaling communities, such as whale-watching.

If you can find any arguments in favour of that, I'd like to know them.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
swerve said:
Good grief!

So, you think that it's a good idea to spend lots of taxpayers money supporting an industry that produces things that customers have to be paid to take, & the main benefits of which accrue to the bureaucrats supporting it?

If industrial whaling was an age-old subsistence activity, you might have a point. But it isn't. It's a loss-making business which only exists because of state support. Its products are not in demand. In Japan, it continues because of some gerrymandering of constituencies, & the existence of a bureaucracy which administers the subsidy system, & which resists its own abolition. This bureaucracy is struggling to sustain the industry (& thus itself) in the face of the aging of the workforce, difficulty in recruiting new entrants, & questions about the large stockpile of unsold (because nobody wants to buy it) whale meat. It's opposed alternative economic activities for the whaling communities, such as whale-watching.

If you can find any arguments in favour of that, I'd like to know them.
Click to expand...
Spot on, industrial whaling defies logic and survives only due to subsidies. I remember reading that the industry was attempting to have whale meat supplied to government schools to clear the stockpile and get kids used to eating it. So the government subsidises the act of whaling, and is then expected to buy the meat and feed it to school kids. The only reason the industry exists is to protect the livelihoods of people who actually do nothing productive. And people complain about shipbuilding!
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
swerve said:
Good grief!

So, you think that it's a good idea to spend lots of taxpayers money supporting an industry that produces things that customers have to be paid to take, & the main benefits of which accrue to the bureaucrats supporting it?

If industrial whaling was an age-old subsistence activity, you might have a point. But it isn't. It's a loss-making business which only exists because of state support. Its products are not in demand. In Japan, it continues because of some gerrymandering of constituencies, & the existence of a bureaucracy which administers the subsidy system, & which resists its own abolition. This bureaucracy is struggling to sustain the industry (& thus itself) in the face of the aging of the workforce, difficulty in recruiting new entrants, & questions about the large stockpile of unsold (because nobody wants to buy it) whale meat. It's opposed alternative economic activities for the whaling communities, such as whale-watching.

If you can find any arguments in favour of that, I'd like to know them.
Click to expand...
The Newfoundland seal hunt economics and the negativity created about Canada are similar to whaling.
 
R

rockitten

Member
StingrayOZ said:
No Cookies | The Advertiser

ASC loses 101 workers.

This WP better come out soon, otherwise there will be nothing left. It should be a decision not to build ships, not just let the work force be laid off and say oh well, theres no workforce.
Click to expand...
It seems Japan get 8 submarine, SA get 9 frigate, NSW get 12 OPV and Victoria get none. Victoria doesn't have Olympic Dam, their oil refinery is closing, is also suffering from the downfall of car industry and closure of shipyard, and strangely no one cares about jobless in Victoria. And yet, SA say they can't survive without a 12 SSK contract.

Victoria nervously waits for decision on naval shipyards | afr.com
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
rockitten said:
It seems Japan get 8 submarine, SA get 9 frigate, NSW get 12 OPV and Victoria get none. Victoria doesn't have Olympic Dam, their oil refinery is closing, is also suffering from the downfall of car industry and closure of shipyard, and strangely no one cares about jobless in Victoria. And yet, SA say they can't survive without a 12 SSK contract.

Victoria nervously waits for decision on naval shipyards | afr.com
Click to expand...
For those without a subscription to the AFR
Victoria nervously waits for decision on Naval Shipyards
by Phillip Coorey Lucille Keen
The Victorian government, the federal opposition, unions and the shipbuilding industry are anxiously seeking reassurances from the Abbott government amid speculation that the bulk of Australia's industry will be concentrated primarily in Adelaide.

The government declined to comment on Thursday on a report in The Australian Financial Review that the soon-to-be released Defence white paper could create an uncertain future for shipbuilding in Melbourne and Newcastle because the government will overhaul the industry.

Victorian Industry Minister Lily D'Ambrosio said the 800 workers at the Williamtown shipyards, owned by BAE Systems Australia, faced a "very, very bleak future" unless the federal government put more work their way.

She called on Defence Minister Kevin Andrews to end the suspense and detail the government's shipbuilding strategy.

"We have a federal defence minister who is a Victorian who couldn't care less about the fate of the highly skilled workforce, 800 people and their families, who look at grave risk of losing their jobs," she said.

The government plans to replace Australia's naval fleet – ships, submarines and patrol boats – in the next 2½ decades.

Sources familiar with the white paper say it will reduce from 12 to eight the number of new submarines which are most likely to be bought from Japan. To assuage anger in Adelaide, which was promised the subs project, nine frigates could be built at the ASC shipbuilding yard there.

Forgacs, which owns the Newcastle shipyards, has tendered to construct up to 12 offshore patrol boats and is awaiting the government's decision.

Labor's defence spokesman, Stephen Conroy, said if the number of subs was cut from 12 to eight, it would "call into question the viability of a continuous submarine build and risks the Royal Australian Navy being unable to meet future operational, maintenance and training requirements".

"It's time for Mr Abbott to end the uncertainty, keep his government's promises, and come clean about his plans for Australia's Defence Force and our local defence industry."

The report revealed that Mr Abbott's pledge to boost defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2023-24 risked blowing out the return to surplus beyond the planned date of 2021.

The government has to spend between $14 billion and $16 billion by 2023-24 to meet the GDP target and the Defence Department has told it that the only way that it can spend it is if projects are brought forward now. But this would jeopardise the planned return to surplus.

Mr Andrews said Labor in government had drastically cut back defence spending and allowed shipbuilding to languish. He challenged it to meet the 2 per cent of GDP commitment "or will they do as they did when they were in government and rip apart the Defence budget?"

Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union assistant national secretary Glenn Thompson said he feared a politically motivated decision which would leave Adelaide as the only shipbuilding yard. "This is short-sighted to shore up votes in South Australia," he said.

Mr Thompson said he held grave concerns that if the government followed this path, the Adelaide yard could face capacity issues that would prompt government to claim shipbuilding in Australia was impossible and the sector would move to only doing fit-outs and conditioning of vessels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top