Austal Limited (ASB) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Austal Limited FY 2025 First Half Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Patrick Gregg, Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead.

Hi, everybody, and welcome to our FY '25 half year results call. I'm Paddy Gregg, the CEO of Austal, and I'm joined by our CFO, Christian Johnstone. We'll be presenting in the same format as we have done previously with me giving our business overview and context, and Christian will focus on the financial details. And as always, we plan to present for no more than 30 minutes to allow you plenty of time for questions. I'm very, very pleased with the results we're presenting today. We've got some good news on guidance based on a strong set of financials, and we've got green arrows and improvements on every measure compared to the corresponding prior period. And I think this demonstrates we're coming to the end of our transition period and we're executing well. The outlook is fantastic in both the United States and Australasia. So I'll talk through where the business is today. Christian will talk more detail on the financials. And finally, as always, I plan to give you an update on where I see the strategic outlook of the business. So just looking at the summary of the business. For anyone who is new to Austal, we operate 5 shipyards in 4 countries. We have 8 service centers in 4 countries, a great number of ships, 51 ships under construction or scheduled to be built. And we're now up to 72 vessels under sustainment contracts. Importantly, we continue to grow the order book. And some of that is translation, but the order book has grown to $14.2 billion. Some of those contracts are incredibly strategically important for us like the submarine module facility we announced at the back end of last year, that contract with General Dynamics Electric Boat. And we've included details on time scales and a number of those programs in the investor presentation that we've launched online, for those of you that like to build models and work out where the revenue and profit is coming from. Employee headcount growing as well. I'm pleased to say, based on that strong order book, we're over 4,300 employees, and we are growing daily. So very, very exciting time for Austal. If we talk about the results, the highlights of the results, I think the underlying business is performing very well, and our financial results were significantly better than last year. And we see substantial positive increases across all measures. All greens across the board. As you're aware, last year, we had a bit of a blip in the Australasia business, and that is not expected to be repeated with the correcting effect of new orders in our Asian yards, our new defense programs coming online here in Australia. And you'll see great progress towards that in the segment splits later on. If we look at EBIT, it's particularly strong and much improved largely because of the performance of the U.S. programs. And that's particularly encouraging as we transition from the long-standing programs like EPF and LCS and see the new programs like OPC and T-AGOS really starting to ramp up and add value. Cash is very healthy at the minute, mainly driven by the new contracts in the U.S. At year-end, we have total cash of $354 million. And I can tell you today, cash in the bank is over $500 million, having achieved the additional milestones on some of the new contracts. Of course, much of this cash is earmarked for future investment. So no dividend is being declared due to those future requirements for CapEx. Of course, we have to pay the Department of Justice fine, and we still have onerous contracts on T-ATS and AFDM that we've previously declared. I can also tell you that we've made good progress on T-ATS. Prior to Christmas, we submitted the REA to the Navy, and we're in discussions on getting that resolved. So I think we've really spent the last 4 years setting the Austal business up for success, and that investment is now starting to pay off and will benefit shareholders for years to come. While a lot of focus is on the U.S., given its importance to Austal's revenue and profitability, Austal Australia is being set up for long-term success, too, with the heads of agreement to become the Commonwealth's shipbuilder of choice, and that opens up a 20-plus year program of vessels, including additional T-ATS for Border Force, Landing Craft Medium, Landing Craft Heavy, general purpose frigate, and looking long term out too, the optionally crewed surface vessels. My estimate is that is $20 billion of work over 20 years that is coming. With that, I'll now hand over to Christian and let him talk you through the financials in a bit more detail.

Thank you, Paddy. It's my pleasure to report that group revenue increased by $108 million or 15% to $826 million for the half 1 FY '23 (sic) [ '25 ] compared to the prior reporting period. So what are the key contributors to this 15% increase? Our U.S. shipbuilding segment increased revenue by $65 million, around 14%, based on the commencement of the T-AGOS and OPC design phases for these new programs, which replaced the revenue earned from the LCS program that is nearing completion. There's an increasing contribution from submarine module manufacturing that will continue to grow going forward. Our U.S. support revenue was about $8 million or 8% below compared to the prior 6-month period due to the retirement of our floating dock in Alabama, which will be replaced as part of the FA2 project, which Paddy will go into more detail shortly. The full benefit of the new floating dock in San Diego is expected to commence in FY '26. The Australasian shipbuilding segment increased revenue by $43 million, a whopping 60% increase based on increased construction awards and precontract work preparing for the commencement of the Strategic Shipbuilding Agreement. The Australasian support segment increased revenue by $8 million or 12% driven by an increase in the availabilities of the Guardian-class Patrol Boats requiring service. Now turning to our EBIT performance. The revenue increase resulted in an EBIT increase of $10.6 million to $43 million for the half year, which is a strong first half performance from the business. Our U.S. shipbuilding operations increased 10% based on the progress made on the T-AGOS and OPC programs and, as mentioned, increasing contribution from submarine module manufacturing. The U.S. support business, on a lower revenue, was 6% lower in EBIT, primarily due to the reduced number of vessels rotating through Singapore compared to prior periods. The Australasian shipbuilding business increased 79%, with the major driver being an increase in throughput and the precontract work that we have undertaken as a precursor to the Strategic Shipbuilding Agreement, which is a positive step. Commercial activity is increasing, and with the recent Vela and Gotland awards, which is pleasing, this will underpin activity in our Asian shipyards over the coming years. The Australasian support increase of $1 million was driven by increased availabilities of Guardian-class vessels for servicing. When we look at our cash position, our cash increased to a healthy $354 million at the end of December, which positions Austal to commence a significant capital expenditure program that Paddy will cover off later. The key driver for the increase in cash was primarily driven by operating cash flow of $238 million, which was assisted by the receipt of USD 250 million in the half relating to the contract signed with Electric Boat in September '24 and the payment milestones achieved under this contract. That's a big boost to our operating cash from this contract and the milestones we've achieved in the half. It also should be noted that an additional USD 100 million, which was the second milestone under this Electric Boat contract and was a receivable at the end of December '24, was received in early January '25, boosting further Austal Group's cash balance. We fully repaid our revolving facility of $39 million in the half, which reduced our group leverage. We had a combined $12 million for sustaining and enhancing capital expenditure in the half, and this will significantly increase over the next 2 years as we expand the facilities and our shipyards in the U.S.A., which Paddy will provide more details on shortly. Turning to our segment breakdown. On a segment basis, the U.S. ship and support margin is fairly steady at 7.9%, contributing $50 million of EBIT, noting that we have 2 onerous contracts that dampened margins. We have ongoing customer negotiations to seek a resolution of the T-ATS program, which is expected to release this break on margins when finalized. It is pleasing that the contribution from the Australasian segment has bounced from a loss of -- in half 1 '24 to a modest profit in half 1 '25, which is in line with our expectations. Overall, this now represents approximately 22% of overall group revenue results, and we expect that this relative contribution will increase over time. I will now hand you back to Paddy to take us through the business overview.

Hi, everybody. If I pick on some of the operational highlights across the business before I give you my strategic outlook and update and guidance. In the U.S., as I said, strong performance on existing build contracts. We're seeing those new build programs contributing to revenue and margin. The support business is performing very well. And when we commission the floating dock at the end of this year or early next financial year, that will allow us to continue to grow the revenue through San Diego. There's been great focus on contracts, cash, execution and infrastructure investment. And I've included a slide in the pack to help you understand just how significant this investment is and the size and scale of the capability we are adding in the U.S. to what is an already very, very impressive facility. And coming online, we see contributions and an exciting future for our additive manufacture center of excellence, which I think has got some great potential for the U.S. business. In Australia, we're seeing visible progress on the new contracts, the landing craft medium, the landing craft heavy and the general purpose frigate. Working really well with the Commonwealth there to try and finalize the Strategic Shipbuilding Agreement in the near future. Not certain what impact the general election will have on that. Might get in the way of that official signing, but we're doing everything we can to get it ready and get it signed in advance. We're continuing to deliver very well on the Evolved Cape- and Guardian-class program, all of those ships being produced on time, on cost, on quality. So a great performance from the team. And again, last year, we talked about the drag from lack of orders in Asia. I'm really pleased that the pipeline is looking much healthier than it has done since pre-COVID days. You have seen us announce orders for the Vela sailing cargo ship. We delivered Ocean Master to Rottnest Fast Ferries, a very impressive ship that I think will be a bit of a game changer for them. We've got Dory 2 in the Vietnam yard. And very excitingly, recently announced the signing of the Gotland boat, the biggest boat that we have ever built, and some really exciting technology and green credentials that come with that boat that should put us right at the front of low-emission vessels, and I think will really help strengthen that pipeline and open up more opportunities, particularly in Scandinavia. The technology business continues to be a future opportunity for growth, both in the U.S. and in Australia. Thinking longer term, we've talked about AUKUS and how Austal can benefit from Pillar 1 with the submarine modules that we're building in the U.S. There's lots of growth to come there in future years. But Pillar 2 in AUKUS, less talked about, but it's all about technology. And that is why we are focused on that, both in the U.S. and in Australia. It's really pleasing to see our technology business starting to contribute, and I anticipate this will just grow and grow and grow. We've actually got an investor road show coming up in March. That will include tours of our Mobile yard and our center of excellence for additive manufacture as well. So there's an opportunity for anyone who wants to come and see it firsthand and hear from the people on the ground to join us in the United States in March. Maybe I'll finish then with a bit of a strategic outlook before we open for questions. So I see our record order book in the U.S., with Australia set to follow through the Strategic Shipbuilding Agreement, just giving us much greater contract diversity and lower risk profile across the business. The underlying business is performing well and ahead of expectations as we come through the transition. We're making significant investment in facilities for growth and setting up our shipyards for future contracts, which will also require significant growth in staff, great opportunity for Austal. Additional opportunities for growth are there. Also, on top of what we talked about, what we have in the order book, AUKUS and the submarine modules and the technology business are exciting areas of growth for us going forward. We've really worked hard on our relationships in Australia and in the United States at a really critical time as we go through this period of growth, particularly in the defense sector. So I'm really excited to finish by announcing that we're updating guidance to not less than $80 million EBIT for FY '25 as we work through some of the accounting treatment and some of the opportunities that we're going to do all we can to prosecute in the second half of this year. So with that, I am happy to open up the lines to any questions that you have.

[Operator Instructions] Today's first question comes from Mitchell Sonogan with Macquarie.

Congratulations on a really good result. Paddy, just on the -- first one on the, I guess, the outlook on those slides. So you provided potential group revenue and EBIT margin. You've talked about the 5, 5-ish percent EBIT margin through the cycle. Can you maybe just talk -- looking out into FY '26 or so, what are the key swing factors that you see now with the work that you expect coming through, I guess, both at the margin line but also at the projected revenue line?

Thanks, Mitch. Yes. I think we're in a great position because that forecast is largely based on things that are actually on contract or have been announced by the Australian government, so are highly probable. And that gives you an indication of just how we see a steady ramp-up over the next 10 years, both in the revenue and then the ability of the business to turn that into margin and profitability. So this is not some wild prediction about we have to go out there and win that work and get it. This is about steady growth based on what we have done. It's execution of contracts. It's recruitment of people to continue to grow that business. But it's based on a very strong foundation rather than a whole lot of optimistic hope that we're going to win work.

Yes. Very clear. And sticking with the U.S. as well. Do you mind just giving a little bit of a more detailed update just on the T-AGOS and OPC contracts just in terms of timing of first vessels and sort of run rate after that?

Yes, sure. So I guess OPC is ahead of T-AGOS. OPC, we're through the design. We've been approved to start construction, and we have started on the first vessel. Early days at the minute, but as you know, revenue grows quite significantly as you get into the build because it's not just designers. You've moved into production staff, you've moved into material buying. So I'm really encouraged that the volume that's going to start coming through the OPC program will offset the decline in the LCS program. It was really designed that way. So the people will transition smoothly, and we'll give ourselves the best opportunity possible to execute with efficiency on that program. T-AGOS, slightly behind that. Still in the design phase on T-AGOS, still working with Navy to finalize everything there and then hopefully get into cut metal back end of this calendar year. But again, another contract -- and I think you probably saw recently Secretary Del Toro, on his way out, naming T-AGOS vessels, again, giving confidence that those are progressing from design towards construction and becoming very real.

Just a final quick one for me as well. Just in terms of overall funding for the expansion of the U.S. facilities, I think on your Slide 13, you just said you received a letter of support from the Aussie government for up to 50% for the FA2 project. Do you mind just reminding me where you sit in terms of overall CapEx? What's funded by the cash you've already received? What's funded by these sorts of letters and if there's anything else outstanding?

Yes, I can handle that. So we've got capital expenditure requirement of $750 million. 60% of that is already refunded with the agreement with Electric Boat. So that leaves the FA2 program, which is USD 300 million. And as you mentioned, we've got Australian government support for a long-term lend of 50% of that capital expenditure. So really, our solve for USD 150 million. We've been working with our current debt providers. We have a number of proposals to fill that gap. And we're just going through to try and optimize what the balance of that funding is and also to restructure our facilities going forward because you can kind of see from the transition that Paddy has talked about the significant growth coming through. We need to refresh our facilities to actually be a bit more flexible to our growth needs going forward. So that's the current position.

The next question comes from Russell Gill with JPMorgan.

Christian, while we're just talking CapEx, that $750 million number, can you just possibly sequence that -- I guess, what's going to drop in the second half now when you're breaking ground? What happens in '26 and then into '27?

Yes. Look, from both of those programs, they're a 2-year build program, FA2 facility is probably a bit more advanced. And we obviously got MMF3. So we're going through the forecast for the next 6 months. But we'll start -- if you do it broadly, it's probably the easiest way to do it. If you [ talk ] that $750 million over a 2-year period, then we would just think sequentially -- like our contracts that we have with customers, there's a bit of upfront payment and then it kind of ramps up over time. So that's -- I know that we haven't given forecast -- guidance around what the cash impact is going to be. But look, from the MMF3 facility, as we stand today, we have USD 350 million out of the USD 450 million already in the bank. So we've got -- we're fully funded from a cash perspective from that particular contract. So...

Sure. But I mean just from a timing sequence standpoint, FY '26, FY '27, it wouldn't be unfair just to say $375 million of growth CapEx each year in those 2...

Yes, that's right. That would be fine.

And then what's the sustaining CapEx, I guess, within the business? Because you kind of mentioned that there's a bit of a refresh that occurs across your facilities within this. Does the sustaining CapEx of the business drop to more like, I don't know, $50 million a year from then on or $30 million a year?

It's probably less than that. It will be $10 million to $20 million, I would have thought, sustaining CapEx. It's going to be relatively low.

Yes. So when you look through for the first half, the combination of sustaining and enhancing CapEx is only AUD 12 million. So that's probably a good proxy as a run rate going forward just for the normal operations and refresh of the current facilities. But yes, that's outside the capital investment from the new ones.

Great. And then just in terms of as these contracts come on and you're sort of shifting staff from LCS onto OPC and T-AGOS. When you're bringing the submarine facility online -- because we can see your employee numbers. How does the sequencing of headcount work over the next couple of years in terms of timing? And when you're hitting run rate capacity for the FY '28-'29, what's the headcount of the overall facility looking like?

Yes. Good question. So we anticipate we need to ramp up by about 1,000 people in the U.S. based on what's been won between the shipbuilding contracts and submarines. Of course, we're already building submarine modules at the minute, probably got 150 people working in subs at the minute. And that will continue to grow steadily as we bring that facility online, which will allow us to jump significantly on the sub modules. Standard business for us is trying to align the ramp-up on programs that are concluding. At the same time, we start up new programs to give us that continuity. That's absolutely the most efficient way that we can run the business. And when we bid for work and we bid for contracts, we make assumptions around what work is coming off, when we'd be ready to start. And the commitments we make to our customer is around the workforce we've got plus our expected ability to be able to ramp up the workforce.

Great. Just on the order book, Christian, the order book -- and I could just interpret this the wrong way. The order book, you said it includes the USD 450 million. My understanding is that's obviously an order for you guys to build a facility. I guess no contractual obligation within that to build certain submarine capabilities. So the fact that, that number has been included in the order book, is that just a function that essentially, it will deliver profit in the future as opposed to actually a requirement to deliver a certain, I guess, vessel or componentry within that contract?

Yes. So to be clear -- so as Paddy said, look, we've got submarine module manufacturing on -- right now. So that's a separate contract to this MMF3 contract. It's a bit unusual because we have multiple contracts to deliver ships. This is really a contract to deliver a building. The one slight difference is that at the end of a ship contract, we hand the ship over to the customer. This one is unique in that we retain ownership of the building and all the equipment. So it's an operational award that we have. So that's why it's included in order book because it's just a performance. There is, embedded in that, expected growth, which will come through once it's built. So effectively, the underlying strategic requirement for this is to help Austal expand its production cadence for submarine module manufacturing. So we've dedicated one of our facility assembly base right now for module manufacturing, and this will allow us to significantly expand it.

So just to be clear, because -- it's in the order bank because you've got to deliver something. You're just delivering a building rather than an actual vessel. So the actual contractual arrangements around the components you're making and the pricing and the margin, that sits completely separately outside that $450 million contract?

Correct. It's a completely separate contract because that's a contract to deliver submarine modules over time, not to build out.

The building. Got it. Two more questions. Just on the U.S. support business, the margins are almost the 20s. So you're doing really, really good margins in that business. The San Diego facility is, I guess, a bit delayed and expected to come onstream into FY '26. How do you see the margins in that business over the medium term? Can you hold the margins in sort of that high teens type dynamic and then expect to grow revenue over that? Or is it, I guess, overearning from a margin perspective? And as the revenue grows, the margin will come down?

I think when you look across, whether it's U.S. or the Australasian support margins, they are significantly higher than what we have through shipbuilding. It's probably based on the sporadic -- more sporadic nature of the build, the delivery of services required. So with the shipbuilding, you obviously got a multiyear program and you've got certainty around throughput, whereas the support business is required to react and be very reactive to needs of people servicing across those service centers. So what that drives is that higher margin. So we don't think there's going to be a significant change to that going forward. What we've talked about with San Diego floating dock coming online early '26 and then a replacement of the floating dock in Alabama, that will actually just allow us to open up a revenue market that we currently think are constrained right now. It's not going to significantly change what the margin is from that particular work because it's just an extension of what we're currently doing today.

Okay. So you're comfortable, I guess, holding that, I guess, 20% or high teens type margin into the future.

Yes.

Great. And then just a final question. Just on the T-ATS, it looks like the onerous contract provision has all been unwound in the half. And you're obviously in discussions with the government. They paused the fourth and fifth vessel in terms of construction. The fact that you've unwound that provision means, I guess, to some degree, you're comfortable in the program. Does that work in the assumption that you won't build the fourth and fifth vessel? Or how should we think about how that program and your discussions with the U.S. government are actually progressing relative to 6 months ago?

Yes. Whilst they've asked for a pause, that hasn't changed the underlying obligations under the contract. So our onerous provision at December '24, just like at June '24, has to consider that we will actually deliver 5 ships. So that's not been any change in the 6 months. What Paddy has mentioned though is that in that 6-month period, we've actually submitted a formal REA or request for equitable adjustment to the U.S. Navy. And we're currently under confidential discussions with them to seek a resolution for that. So we've looked to the position that we had at June '24 and December '24. And from a financial perspective, there's -- nothing has materially changed. We had 0 onerous contract at June '24, and we're in the same position at December '24. So what that means is that based on our forecast cost, we expect a recovery and a settlement of the REA. And there's no additional losses to book on that program as we sit today. Just actually to follow on, probably -- it's just a little follow-on to that, sorry. What that actually means then is that a settlement of the REA has a significant cash boost to the company, which is probably not necessarily understood. So what would happen is that depending on the form of the REA, but -- it will expect -- if it's settled, then we will have either a cash boost because it's a change to the contract price or will be avoidance of future costs. So in both scenarios, that's why we've got a 0 onerous loss at December '24.

And on that basis, Christian, I mean, essentially, if the REA comes through, it will be a both margin and cash boost because the onerous provision has been, I guess, unwound. And essentially, it's a windfall gain, I guess, because you've already written it down previously.

So it's a kind of two-pronged answer. If it gets settled on the basis that we've considered, then it's a cash boost but not a margin change. If it gets settled above what we consider as a likely outcome, then it's both a cash boost and it's a margin reversal. So therefore, it's an increase in margins. So depending on what the ultimate quantity is agreed, depends on what the outcome is. But with an REA settlement, we will have an increase to cash.

The next question comes from Sam Teeger with Citi.

Can you please confirm that you said earlier, as of today, you have USD 350 million cash in the bank? And if so or whatever that amount is, how much do you have to use for your normal operations when -- once you adjust for the fine that you need to pay? And also, what's ring-fenced for [ EV ]?

Yes. I mean I'll start, and Christian might give you more detail. So cash generally is fungible. So while we've got obligations, we just need to make sure we've got sufficient cash to meet all of our obligations. Yes. So cash at the bank at the minute is just over AUD 500 million. So we're in a healthy position. That gives Christian time to work with the banks to get the right deal, the right structure around the money we need to finalize FA2 investment and also the right working capital structure for the business going forward, recognizing that we anticipate significant growth over the next 5 years onwards. So a lot of work ongoing on that at the minute. But healthy cash position affords us time to go and get the right deal rather than a quick deal.

Okay. And then what are your expectations around the potential impact from the Department of Government Efficiency, what that might have on U.S. shipbuilding and your operations over there?

Yes. Good question. So at the minute, it seems focused on government departments rather than industry. But every morning, you're probably the same as me, you wake up and look at the news to see what's been announced overnight and what's happening. So we don't anticipate any issues coming from those cuts and those restructures that are ongoing in the U.S. I mean we might take some positive from the -- we've also seen Trump talk about wanting to increase his spend in defense. So attacking contractors and increasing spend in defense are poles apart. So I'm optimistic about what will happen in the U.S. under Trump rather than worrying about it because all of the focus seems on the government departments at the minute rather than industry.

All right. Great. And can you help me just think more about the relative risk profile between OPC and T-AGOS? Perhaps you bidded OPC when you needed to work more, but T-AGOS might be a more complicated build. Maybe help us understand the risk profile, please?

Yes. That's probably a good way to think about it. OPC is an existing design, whereas T-AGOS is a new design. So that's why T-AGOS will take longer to get into production. I mean both are ships to the size and type that we build. T-AGOS is probably more complicated with some of the equipment that has been specified and the role it undertakes with the submarine surveillance work and the undersea sonar capabilities it has. But again, as you know, Sam, we work very hard. There is no joy filling your yard with unprofitable work. So I'm not for one second thinking that we have ever bought contracts or gone in really skinny on contracts. We try to bid around the margins that we talk about openly, and those margins being driven by government procurement guidelines, both in the U.S. and in Australia. So don't be concerned that we've done anything crazy to try and fill the yard because having long programs with no profit is not much fun.

Yes, absolutely. So out of those 2 projects, OPC and T-AGOS, which one would you expect would give Austal a greater margin over the life cycle of the project?

I think they're both bid in similar ways. The OPC program is likely to be bigger than the T-AGOS program. We've talked about the 11 on-contractor options that we have at the minute. But remember on OPC, there's potential for another follow-on of 10 vessels. So I think in the long term, the OPC contract will be better than T-AGOS. But T-AGOS is pretty exciting in terms of the capability that, that ship brings.

And just to be clear, when you're saying it will be better and bigger, are you talking dollars or percentage margin?

So percentage margin, probably similar. There might be more risk on T-AGOS than there is on OPC because that's a new design. But there'll be -- there should be more dollars on the OPC program because it's bigger and longer.

The next question is from James Lennon with Petra Capital.

Paddy and Christian, well done on the result. Two questions from me. Just firstly, back on those support margins. I think if you look back a few years, there wasn't that much of a difference between what the U.S. would do and what Australia would do support-wise. But as you said earlier, you're expecting that margin in the U.S. to remain quite high or elevated. I'm just curious to know whether you can get that Australian margin up to similar levels. Looking ahead, I think you've mentioned that there's potential for quite a lot of submarine-type work or whatnot in Australia. Is it possible that those margins may also get double digit?

Yes. Good question. Years ago, one of the reasons we wanted to get into the support business is we see it as lower risk than shipbuilding predominantly because you're working on a proven design that has been in service and it is replacement or refurbishment of existing equipment. So we see it as less risk. It has taken us a while to get going. You've seen the growth in revenue. We're now fine-tuning the business. U.S. is performing strongly. And that's why we invested in San Diego and continue to work to get that floating dock commissioned. And then in Australia, I think there's opportunity for that margin growth. We've got some pretty tough contracts that were signed a long time ago with Australian Border Force, probably our least favorite contract that we've got because it doesn't deliver a huge amount of margin, if any. The ability to flow that into the new regional maintenance center programs being driven by Navy would be a great opportunity for us. So I think the long and short of it is we do see the support business as a higher-revenue business, and that's why we're trying to grow that part of the business to put more certainty and reduce risk into results and margins going forward. And U.S. is performing well, and we'll continue to look at how we can invest and improve the margins in the Australian business as well.

Great. All right. And just one last one. Just in relation to that Gotland ferry. I know in the past, you've sort of been considering what to do with Vietnam. Is the size of that ferry -- or is there enough work now going through that you think you can keep Vietnam open? Or is it you're going to sort of preference the Philippines and maybe look at closing down Vietnam?

Actually, this contract is so big that we will rely on our Vietnam yard to support the Philippines. So they will be working on modules for that ship that we will bring across to the Philippines. So we're able to look at the 2 yards in the Philippines -- not quite as one yard because they're capable of building ships in their own right. But we've definitely got the ability to flow work between the yards and keep both going. The pipeline has been stronger than it ever has been since before COVID. So we're still optimistic about being able to fill both yards and add to the bottom line through the commercial sector as well.

Okay. And as an extension to that, just maybe a quick comment around the ferry -- the outlook for ferry tenders. Like is there other things that potentially could drop through as well? Or how are you sort of seeing that market?

Yes, absolutely. So there's a good pipeline and there's a lot we're working on at the minute, some stuff we're bidding on. So we're genuinely optimistic about the commercial market coming back.

The next question is from Gavin Allen with Euroz Hartleys.

Great results. Look, just a couple for me. Most of it's been covered off. But just fleshing out a little bit on the sub module contribution talked about earlier. So just some sense of scale -- so in terms of what you're sort of doing there now in sub module contribution versus how that might look when that facility is completely sort of ramped up. Maybe some flavor there, guys.

Yes. Good question, Gav. So we anticipate 1,000 people working in that facility in about 5 years' time. We maybe have 150 people working on submarines today. So that will really be steady growth over the next 5 years. We've got about 2 years to build the building, and then we'll be able to really start ramping up. Whenever you're over there next week, we'll show you where we're -- or sorry, next month, we'll show you where we're building modules today and the construction bay that we've dedicated to submarine modules. And in 2 years' time, that work and those people will transition to the new facility. And we will continue to grow for years after that.

Terrific. Look forward to seeing it. Just another one. Also on volume, talking about the floating dock out at San Diego. I mean margin got a discussion, which was a good one, but also just thinking about how you think of potential volume delta once that's sort of up and running. Is there any flavor you can provide us on that?

Yes. So floating dock, it will all depend on the -- our scale of being able to, as soon as we offload a ship from that, to get the next ship on it to make sure the utilization is as high as possible. That's got the ability to generate somewhere between $50 million and $100 million of revenue per year, depending on how efficient we can be with end-to-ending contracts as they come on board. So that's really the final piece in the jigsaw that allows us some big growth in the support revenue. That should take us over the $500 million target that we set some time ago and have progressed really well towards. Also noting that we're still delivering ships, both in Australia with additional Capes and Guardians. LCS, still growing in the U.S. So there are still opportunities for us to continue growing the support revenue.

Yes. That all makes plenty of sense. So -- and just one final one. Just thinking about the Gotland vessel, it's been sort of touched on, but -- just as Asia -- as those 2 -- as the Vietnam and Philippines facilities sort of become more stable, how do we think about the delta that's available there? Because I guess it's not just margin on those ships. It's the covering of overheads over there and that sort of thing. Is there any flavor you can provide us on that one?

Yes. It's a really good point. We had that blip in the Australasia result last year. And that was due to low volume in Australia and also no work really going through the Philippines and Vietnam. So big drag with the overhead. So this ship plus what's currently being built in Vietnam, we've absolutely got the overhead covered, and it should contribute to the bottom line. It's probably never going to be -- commercial is never going to be as big as where defense is going. If you think back 5 years ago, we were very focused on when is the next commercial order coming. Commercial really is going to be the icing on the cake going forward based on how the rest of the business is going. But we've got the skills. We've got the capability. It's an exciting space where we can develop new technologies. The green credentials from Gotland -- at some point, defense are going to want greener ships. And isn't it great that Austal can say, look what we've already delivered in the commercial world. We can translate that technology to the defense sector. And we've already demonstrated we've done it, and we can integrate those systems. So I think it really complements the defense work that we're doing and will be a good opportunity going forward.

[Operator Instructions] The next question is from Sean Smith with The West Australian.

Paddy, this has been touched on in an earlier question. But just on a similar theme, I'm just wondering what you're doing over in the U.S. to stay on top of the changing political and defense policies since Trump was returned? I guess what I'm asking is, have you had to work a lot harder to actually promote yourself amongst the power brokers there?

It's a good question. Not much harder. We're pretty bipartisan when it comes to politics in the U.S. or in Australia. So we've got a great guy here, Larry, in Washington, who works with both sides. So I think we're reasonably well positioned in terms of who we are. A lot of the time you're judged by your performance. Again, Austal is very focused on delivering on its commitments and turning on ships. And you will have seen from these results and other results that we are delivering a significant volume of ships to U.S. Navy and our U.S. Coast Guard coming online. You've seen the support we've had in the U.S. to get involved in the submarine program, critically important. A lot of the defense people in the U.S. would say that submarines are the greatest strategic assets. So being part of that program is really, really important to us. It was good to see Trump coming out last week and giving support to AUKUS because there was a lot of airtime being given to, will he, won't he. But he's given a positive indication towards AUKUS, and that's something that we really welcome. Trump is generally good for business. So maybe we'll see some tax breaks coming in. Every -- as I said earlier, every morning, we wake up to see what's going on in the U.S. and will react accordingly. But my overarching feeling is that Trump will be good for business. And we've got a lot of business in the U.S.

And so no direct impact so far from anything that's been announced.

Tariffs will be interesting. We need to work through that. Is that just a big stick or are they going to stick? We think we have got clauses in contracts that we can pass on any increase in costs. We do try and focus on a lot of our materials coming from the U.S. That's just an efficient way to do business. But there are some aluminum extrusions and things like that, that do come from overseas because they're not actually fabricated in the United States. So we need to understand exactly what will happen with tariffs and if there'll be any impact to the business. We don't believe so at the minute, but that is one that has caused us to think.

There are no further questions at this time. I would now like to hand the call back to Mr. Gregg for closing remarks.

Thanks for your time this morning, everybody. I hope you're pleased with the results as we are. Everyone at Austal is working incredibly hard to turn this business around to grow it. I think there's a whole lot of positive signs and indications out there. Great set of results delivered by the Austal team. So we're very excited about where we're going, where we are in this journey, and we look forward to a really bright future. And thank you all for your support over the last few years when we've had some difficult issues to deal with. But I think we're in great shape now and set for a very exciting future. So thank you.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect your lines.