Talk:ASC Shipbuilding

Proposed deletion

@Adamant1: I have some comments re your proposal to delete the article and have placed these here because I cannot find where the discussion re support or opposition for your proposal is located. While I agree that the article in its current form is not notable, I would argue for conversion into a redirect just in case an article is needed in the future. In the meantime, I think the content re ASC Shipbuilding can be spread between several articles.

Firstly, content in ASC Pty Ltd can be expanded to explain the re-structure (by the way, I do not like the use of the word 'dissolution' in the ASC Pty Ltd) of ASC Pty Ltd into three companies, Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI), something called the "Submarine Enterprise Board" and ASC Shipbuilding. The ASC Pty Ltd annual reports for 2017, 2018 and 2019 (available at the ASC website) appear to have some useful content re this re-structure and re the operation of the new corporate entities in 2018 and 2019.

Secondly, content can be added to Hunter-class frigate to better explain the role of ASC Shipbuilding in the delivery of the vessels as it would appear that the "structural separation" is a requirement of the contract to design and construct the Hunter-class frigates (i.e. the Hunter-class frigate article states that the vessels are to be built in Adelaide, South Australia), i.e. whoever was awarded the contract would need to have ASC Shipbuilding as a subsidiary.

Finally, my reading of the available sources is that the transfer of ASC Shipbuilding to BAE Systems Australia (BAE) is, in effect, a secondment carried out to give BAE full control of the shipyard (now owned by ANI) and ASC Shipbuilding's personnel and assets. Please reply here if you wish to respond to the above.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the message. Per the discussion, there isn't one because I'm under the impression not everything needs to be an AfD and I felt like this was a better candidate for a straight PROD. Plus, there isn't much action with company AfD's, I already have like 3 open, and its important to prioritize. I would be fine with a redirect or the other things you mentioned if someone would do it. It's not how I feel like spending my time though, but if you want to retract the deletion request and do any of those things I'd be perfectly fine with that. As long as the article is dealt with. Although, two things would have to be dealt with first IMO.

First, a financial report from the company doesn't cut it for notability. So I don't think it should be included in any article. there needs to be substantial, secondary sources for the information if anything is retained. Otherwise, its just recreating the same problems with this article somewhere else. Second, this all seems to hinge the fact that they got a contract to build the frigates. Companies get contracts for things all the time though and they are almost meaningless as notable events IMO. The existence of a contract hints at the potential of notability in the future, when they build the frigates. But using it now, before anything is built, goes against the "future" or whatever rule. Because the contract itself isn't important. Its what they will do with it, but haven't yet, that is. Contracts are essentially just a glorified press release of a future product release. If anything is retained we would giving them a pass because the contract makes it seem like they might be notable at some point when they build the frigates. Which I don't think is correct. Your financial reports are from 2017. They got the contract 2 years ago. I couldn't find any sources, reliable secondary ones or otherwise, that say anything new about it since then. The ships are suppose to be done being built this year. So, I don't think it works as notable, usable, information since its not done and we don't know where in the process it is. If we did though, there would still have to be broad reliable secondary sources anyway though. Which we just don't have. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't see the reference that ASC Shipbuilding is going to revert to ownership by ASC Pty Ltd after the construction of the Hunter-class frigates. It appears to be a separate entity from both the former parent and the current parent, so is difficult to merge completely to either one. I might get time to source and expand the article further, but probably not tomorrow (today now!). --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

According to the first source, which is a none nuetral press release, "In June 2018 ASC Shipbuilding was announced as the shipbuilder for the Hunter Class Frigates, and following structural separation of ASC Shipbuilding from ASC in December 2018, became a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia. ASC retains responsibility for the delivery of the AWD and OPV Programs, utilising a contract workforce from ASC Shipbuilding." Which seems to translate in the article into "ASC Shipbuilding, formerly the shipbuilding division of ASC Pty Ltd, is a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia and will remain a subsidiary for the duration of the contract to build the Hunter class frigates." That makes it sound like ASC (parent company) is still responsible for delivery of the ships and ASC Pty Ltd will probably be absorbed back in after the contract is done. Its convoluted though and there needs to be something besides a press release from the company about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

ASC Pty Ltd is the (former?) parent company, and still holds the contracts to complete the destroyers and the first two patrol vessels. ASC Shipbuilding (now owned/controlled by BAE Systems Australia) has a workforce who are currently contracted to its former parent, and will then be building the frigates. "Soon" there will also be a new class of submarines built on the same site (expanded across the road), but not by either ASC. ASC Pty Ltd will continue to support the current submarines. I will try to find and add more information as I get time. I haven't found a convincing reference either to confirm or refute what is intended to happen after "...and will remain a subsidiary for the duration of the contract to build the Hunter class frigates." Cowdy001 thinks it reverts to former ownership, I'm less certain, so am looking for a better source. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi ScottDavis, Two sources discussing the reversion of ownership has just been placed on your talk page - please refer User talk:ScottDavis#ASC Shipbuilding. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cowdy001: Thank you. I've also found (in daylight while I am awake, but without the time to edit properly now) the right passages in the 2018 and 2019 ASC Pty Ltd annual reports:

On 29 June 2018, ASC Shipbuilding was announced as the shipbuilder of Hunter Class Frigates and will become a subsidiary of BAE Systems for the duration of the Frigate build. The Commonwealth of Australia will retain a sovereign share in ASC Shipbuilding while BAE manages the program. At the end of the program the Commonwealth will resume complete ownership of ASC Shipbuilding, thereby ensuring the retention in Australia of intellectual property, a highly skilled workforce and the associated equipment.[1]

And the 2019 report has longer, more detailed information under "State of affairs" on page 30 and ""3 SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE CURRENT REPORTING PERIOD" on page 58 [2] that should be used in both ASC articles. It looks like ASC Shipbuilding was demerged from ASC Group after some assets were transferred to a new member of the group named "ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd". Through the demerger, the Commonwealth then separately owned ASC Pty Ltd and ASC Shipbuilding. The latter is now a subsidiary of BAE Systems, but not wholly-owned, and is expected to revert to Commonwealth ownership later. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)