Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Volkodav Principe de Austurias, now that would be an interesting acquisition for the RAN, I wonder what ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old January 8th, 2013   #10141
Junior Member
Private First Class
Jhom's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 96
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Principe de Austurias, now that would be an interesting acquisition for the RAN, I wonder what condition she is in? It would be full circle as the SCS was one of the final two contenders to replace Melbourne before Invinsible was offered at a knock down price.
She is going to be scrapped at Ferrol, with the process of removing sensitive and highly toxic components already underway.

The order was given 2 months ago.
Jhom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10142
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhom View Post
Right now? No. The idea is to show her capabilities in order to get the contract for the new australian replenishers, and be able to operate her at reduced costs while at the same time her crew gets experience with an untested ship.

If the shit continues to pour down at this rate on the other hand we might as well try to sell the entire navy.

The spanish politicians always try to keep the shipyards running, but nowadays who knows whats going to happen with Navantia...
Yes Spain is certainly in a world of hurt these days, going from around 8% unemployment in 2008 to now over 25%, that's got to cause a lot of pain.

And as you say, they will no doubt want to keep Cantabria and try to get the contract to build a replacement for Success.

Interesting that you say the Spanish politicians always try to keep the yards running, pity that wasn't always the case here.

Maybe if things do get worse in Spain, rather than selling the entire navy as you suggested, we could bring your skilled shipyard workers here to Oz to help build the approx 50 (as currently planned in the DCP) new RAN ships here!!

Last edited by John Newman; January 8th, 2013 at 05:47 PM. Reason: fix typo
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10143
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Threads:
Just came across this today:

Spanish Combat Replenishment Ship Cantabria Deploys to Australia >> Naval Today

I'd been wondering if any RAN personel would already be on Cantabria, and it appears they are.

There are a couple of photos, looking at the first photo, top right corner, appears to be about a dozen RAN sailors standing in a group together.

The article also states that the senior sea rider for the trip is the XO from Success.
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10144
Junior Member
Private First Class
Jhom's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 96
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Newman View Post
Maybe if things do get worse in Spain, rather than selling the entire navy as you suggested, we could bring your skilled shipyard workers here to Oz to help build the approx 50 (as currently planned in the DCP) new RAN ships here!!

Im sending my CV to Canada, as half the entire workforce, we have no job in sight past the scraping of the PdA and maybe 4 BAM, thats not even 2 years of work time with nothing coming behind it. Im my case not even that, being a welder my work horizon is closer to one year that to two.

Canada is making some seriuos recruiting in Spain, they are offering extremely good conditions and pay, maybe your goverment does the same...
Jhom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10145
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhom View Post
Im sending my CV to Canada, as half the entire workforce, we have no job in sight past the scraping of the PdA and maybe 4 BAM, thats not even 2 years of work time with nothing coming behind it. Im my case not even that, being a welder my work horizon is closer to one year that to two.

Canada is making some seriuos recruiting in Spain, they are offering extremely good conditions and pay, maybe your goverment does the same...
Jhom,

I was sort of only half joking when I said bring the skilled shipyard workers here, but it obviously it isn't a joke to you and the rest of your fellow workers. Interesting to see the Canadians are busy recruiting in your country.

Maybe it's worth you contacting the Australian Embassy / Consulate in Spain and see if there is anything on offer, or maybe the yards here working on the AWD's, there is also construction work with the mining boom areas in WA and Qld.

I'm sure you would far more enjoy the Mediterranean climate in parts of Australia than the frozen wasteland that Canada would be in the middle of winter! Take plenty of warm clothes!

Good luck either way.
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10146
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,661
Threads:
I still think for what we most likely could get a 3rd LHD, its a valuable ship, and one we can't really build the hull here (length?). Depending on dates, etc, its possible we could get it cheap and sell off the 1st LHD to someone in the region instead of overhauling it. ? ( NZ(?!), Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam(?), Canada? South Africa etc co). The actual out of pocket cost could be very minimal. Even if we kept it, 3 LHD is actually what we need to ensure the capability and availability.

Something like SPS Cantabria could be built here and would seem to be a good low risk choice.

I like the L&C but I still feel its not enough of an oiler for what the RAN wants. If the US was having a fire sale we should pick up one (like Choules). A US fire sale would be great to pick up things like helos, logistics what nots. HA-1Z Vipers?

No old clunkers please, we have plenty of those already..
StingrayOZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10147
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhom View Post
... being a welder my work horizon is closer to one year that to two.
Jhom,

Just wondering if you can give me some info on the "total" construction time for Cantabria?

From what I understand the ship was laid down in July 2007, floated out of the dry dock in July 2008, did sea trials from October to December 2009 and was then commissioned in September 2010. So that's a bit over 3 years.

But I also assume there was a reasonable period of time, prior to July 2007 with the first cutting of the steel, building the modules, etc before they were placed in the dry dock for assembly.

Found this on YouTube (ignore the music track over it!):

CANTABRIA,el nuevo B.A.C - YouTube

Up to about the 2 min mark, it shows the blocks for the hull being lowered into the dock and construction to the point of Cantabria being floated for final fit out. It then goes on to show the fit out work and commissioning.

Can you tell me what the total time for construction was?

Thanks,

John
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10148
Junior Member
Private First Class
Jhom's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 96
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Newman View Post
Jhom,

Just wondering if you can give me some info on the "total" construction time for Cantabria?

From what I understand the ship was laid down in July 2007, floated out of the dry dock in July 2008, did sea trials from October to December 2009 and was then commissioned in September 2010. So that's a bit over 3 years.

But I also assume there was a reasonable period of time, prior to July 2007 with the first cutting of the steel, building the modules, etc before they were placed in the dry dock for assembly.

Found this on YouTube (ignore the music track over it!):

CANTABRIA,el nuevo B.A.C - YouTube


Up to about the 2 min mark, it shows the blocks for the hull being lowered into the dock and construction to the point of Cantabria being floated for final fit out. It then goes on to show the fit out work and commissioning.

Can you tell me what the total time for construction was?

Thanks,

John
The A-15 Cantabria was designed and built in the Puerto Real shipyard in Cadiz, Andalusia, I work at the Ferrol shipyard in Galicia so my knowledge about this vessel is not very deep. Interestingly enough she is manned by a crew of 122, most of them fellow galicians.

She was ordered in July 2005, that gives you 2 years of pre-build time, assuming that things go the same way down there as they do up here I would say that the real building process started in late 2005.

The only real data I can provide is that arround March 2006 some of the guys doing electric outfitting here in Ferrol went to Puerto Real for some weeks to help with some teething problems.
Jhom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10149
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 115
Threads:
Changing tack for just a short while

read a magazine yesterday, the SEA1180 project is estimated to cost between 5 billion and 10 billion in capital costs for 20 boats. Thats a unit cost of 250 million to 500 million dollars each. Knowing the Navy (from afar) it will definately be 500 million each (something I predicted on here many months ago)

It seems the Navy just does not want small cheap simple patrol boats, maybe not sexy and high tech enough. A 500t to 600t patrol boat could easily be built for 50 million dollars unit cost. Seems they dont want a mix of high teir and low teir. They want to send a 500 million dollar boat after an illegal fishing vessel, or a drug smuggler or a asylum seeker vessel (yeah good logic in that)

So they want 20 units at $500 mil each for $10 billion
they could have 16 x 500 million plus 12 units at $50 million total cost $8.6 billion

So they save 1.4 billion dollars in capital costs and get 8 extra hulls.

The Navy wants flash, high tech boats. Seems they are not keen on doing mundane tasks as mentioned above, guess not important enough for them. Anyone would think they had so much money to spare. Guess it does not come out of their salary. More hulls can be in more places at any one time. God forbid a terrorist blows up an oilrig or deliberatly introduce foot and mouth disease and the 500 million dollar boat was 500 miles away,,, then the Navy says,,, hey maybe we need a large number of small cheap boats for routine, mundane patrols. Happened to India,,, guess it cant happen to us because the Navy knows best
peterAustralia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2013   #10150
Defense Professional / Analyst
Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,465
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterAustralia View Post
Changing tack for just a short while

read a magazine yesterday, the SEA1180 project is estimated to cost between 5 billion and 10 billion in capital costs for 20 boats. Thats a unit cost of 250 million to 500 million dollars each. Knowing the Navy (from afar) it will definately be 500 million each (something I predicted on here many months ago)

It seems the Navy just does not want small cheap simple patrol boats, maybe not sexy and high tech enough. A 500t to 600t patrol boat could easily be built for 50 million dollars unit cost. Seems they dont want a mix of high teir and low teir. They want to send a 500 million dollar boat after an illegal fishing vessel, or a drug smuggler or a asylum seeker vessel (yeah good logic in that)

So they want 20 units at $500 mil each for $10 billion
they could have 16 x 500 million plus 12 units at $50 million total cost $8.6 billion

So they save 1.4 billion dollars in capital costs and get 8 extra hulls.

The Navy wants flash, high tech boats. Seems they are not keen on doing mundane tasks as mentioned above, guess not important enough for them. Anyone would think they had so much money to spare. Guess it does not come out of their salary. More hulls can be in more places at any one time. God forbid a terrorist blows up an oilrig or deliberatly introduce foot and mouth disease and the 500 million dollar boat was 500 miles away,,, then the Navy says,,, hey maybe we need a large number of small cheap boats for routine, mundane patrols. Happened to India,,, guess it cant happen to us because the Navy knows best
This is link to Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update which states exactly what the govt wants. This is the background from said document:
Quote:
The Government has directed that Defence develop proposals to rationalise the Navy’s patrol boat, mine countermeasures, hydrographic and oceanographic forces, potentially into a single modular multi-role class or family of around 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels (OCV) combining four existing classes of vessels. The new vessels will likely be larger than the current Armidale Class patrol boats.

The concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasures and hydrographic tasks capable of being deployed independently to any operational area, or loaded onto any of the OCVs or vessels of opportunity. In addition, the OCV and its systems will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support to Special Forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood. The feasibility of these new ships to embark a helicopter or UAV will also be determined during project development.
To do all those you would need a vessel greater than a "500t to 600t patrol boat" that you seem to have fixated on. For an OCV, and the O means Offshore, a larger vessel is needed because it maybe required to carry a helo amongst other things. To get an idea of how a small naval helo looks on an OPV look at the RNZN Protector Class OPVs and they are 2000 tonne. The flight deck is not very large when you land a SH2G(NZ) Seasprite on it and defintely wouldn't get a Romeo on the flight deck. That aside, the OCVs are required to taskings which require more than the standard ships crew, so you have to have room and facilities for extra bods. Then there is the physical space required for the different mission modules. What about the armament or do you intend sending them out with a couple of Steyrs and a shotgun? There is quite a bit written on this thread about the proposed OCVs so I suggest you have a good read back through the thread before you mouth off again. I am not ex RAN nor have I served in the RAN.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2013   #10151
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterAustralia View Post
Changing tack for just a short while

read a magazine yesterday, the SEA1180 project is estimated to cost between 5 billion and 10 billion in capital costs for 20 boats. Thats a unit cost of 250 million to 500 million dollars each. Knowing the Navy (from afar) it will definately be 500 million each (something I predicted on here many months ago)

It seems the Navy just does not want small cheap simple patrol boats, maybe not sexy and high tech enough. A 500t to 600t patrol boat could easily be built for 50 million dollars unit cost. Seems they dont want a mix of high teir and low teir. They want to send a 500 million dollar boat after an illegal fishing vessel, or a drug smuggler or a asylum seeker vessel (yeah good logic in that)

So they want 20 units at $500 mil each for $10 billion
they could have 16 x 500 million plus 12 units at $50 million total cost $8.6 billion

So they save 1.4 billion dollars in capital costs and get 8 extra hulls.

The Navy wants flash, high tech boats. Seems they are not keen on doing mundane tasks as mentioned above, guess not important enough for them. Anyone would think they had so much money to spare. Guess it does not come out of their salary. More hulls can be in more places at any one time. God forbid a terrorist blows up an oilrig or deliberatly introduce foot and mouth disease and the 500 million dollar boat was 500 miles away,,, then the Navy says,,, hey maybe we need a large number of small cheap boats for routine, mundane patrols. Happened to India,,, guess it cant happen to us because the Navy knows best
Peter A,

It's interesting to note that the Defence Capability Plans (DCP) prior to the 2012 DCP had a budget estimate of $3b-$5b (stating it would be the higher end of the band, eg, closer to $5b) as the expenditure range for SEA 1180.

And yes the current 2012 DCP, changed those figure to $5b-$10b as the range for this project, (stating that it would be the "middle" of the band), eg, say $7.5b, (will it change again, up or down, in the next DCP? Who knows!).

So yes, it is a significant increase in the "allowance" for the total project cost.

But as I understand how these things work, the project cost is not just the actual cost per ship (eg, total cost divided by X number of ships to give a per ship cost), but also it includes the total project cost, ships, basing upgrades, spares, support, etc, etc.

Maybe one of the Def Pro's or Senior Members could explain the % split between the actual equipment and the total project cost on this or any other project?

If you look back at some recent posts regarding SEA 1180, the Spanish and Dutch ships of approx the size, eg, 2000t, and capability are costed, according to Wiki, at around the $150m-$160m each mark.

So 20 of those would be $3b-3.2b, give or take, ok yes add inflation, add the premimum of building them in Australia, would they end up at $500m each? Don't think so.

Prior to the Armidale boats, the Navy wanted the larger OPV's when we were looking to do a deal with Malaysia.

But getting back to your point of more smaller, less "flash" ships, I think the problem lies more with the current Government than anything else.

If we weren't being overrun with the flood of illegals maybe the Navy would be doing the job it should be doing.

My solution? Hopefully the next Government can slow or stem the tide of illegals, over time, allowing the Navy to do the jobs they should be doing.

And yes, maybe Customs should have an enlarged fleet of "2nd tier" boats to do more of the mundane work that you mentioned.

I wouldn't blame the Navy, personally, I'd blame the Government!
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2013   #10152
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 115
Threads:
I take your point about total cost (spares etc) vs capital costs

I have a suspicion that the Navy wants to get out of the patrol boat business, hand it off to Customs and be done with it. I am not opposed to a large OPV, be that 1500t or 2000t, I just think there is a role for the small boats that we have had for 50 years, doing good work year in year out. That is two sets of boats (say 16 OPVs and 8 little patrol boats at 600t for mundane tasks)

Maybe the asylum seeker boats will stop.. maybe. It may be that India and the middle east start to face population pressure, wars, climate change and lack of food, they hop on a boat and take their chances here in Australia. My guess is that its not really going to stop, but time will tell
peterAustralia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2013   #10153
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhom View Post
The A-15 Cantabria was designed and built in the Puerto Real shipyard in Cadiz, Andalusia, I work at the Ferrol shipyard in Galicia so my knowledge about this vessel is not very deep. Interestingly enough she is manned by a crew of 122, most of them fellow galicians.

She was ordered in July 2005, that gives you 2 years of pre-build time, assuming that things go the same way down there as they do up here I would say that the real building process started in late 2005.

The only real data I can provide is that arround March 2006 some of the guys doing electric outfitting here in Ferrol went to Puerto Real for some weeks to help with some teething problems.
Thanks Jhom,

Appreciate your help, even though you weren't involved, you certainly know a hell of a lot more than me!

I was trying to get a picture in my head as to how long the actual process of order, start of production to commissioning would be for the Cantabria Class, should we end up ordering one, as it certainly appears to be heading that way.

Looks to be about 5 years total from order to commisioning, again, appreciate the info.

John
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2013   #10154
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterAustralia View Post
I take your point about total cost (spares etc) vs capital costs

I have a suspicion that the Navy wants to get out of the patrol boat business, hand it off to Customs and be done with it. I am not opposed to a large OPV, be that 1500t or 2000t, I just think there is a role for the small boats that we have had for 50 years, doing good work year in year out. That is two sets of boats (say 16 OPVs and 8 little patrol boats at 600t for mundane tasks)

Maybe the asylum seeker boats will stop.. maybe. It may be that India and the middle east start to face population pressure, wars, climate change and lack of food, they hop on a boat and take their chances here in Australia. My guess is that its not really going to stop, but time will tell
Good to see you have changed your tune from your earlier post, a bit anyway.

We don't live in a military dictatorship where the various arms of the military tell the Government what equipment they want.

We have a situation where the "Government of the day" sets foreign policy, sets defence budgets, tells the Navy (Army and Airforce too), what it's job is, the Navy then come up with options to achieve the "want" of the Government of the day, the problem then arises is that the Government changes it's tune or there is a new Government, changes of policy that has an impact.

So where does that leave the Navy (or ADF generally)? Sometimes having to do a job with the equipment it has that it never intended to do or at a tempo it never planned for.

I think it was a bit unfair to give the Navy the kick in the head that you did.

Yes, I'm sure from time to time the various branches of the ADF get it wrong in providing a solution to the Government's want, but I'd bet it's more often the fault of the Government.

Getting back to your points again, it's not the Navy signing off on the cheques that pay for the purchase of ships, it's the Government of the day.
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2013   #10155
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,049
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterAustralia View Post
I take your point about total cost (spares etc) vs capital costs

I have a suspicion that the Navy wants to get out of the patrol boat business, hand it off to Customs and be done with it. I am not opposed to a large OPV, be that 1500t or 2000t, I just think there is a role for the small boats that we have had for 50 years, doing good work year in year out. That is two sets of boats (say 16 OPVs and 8 little patrol boats at 600t for mundane tasks)

Maybe the asylum seeker boats will stop.. maybe. It may be that India and the middle east start to face population pressure, wars, climate change and lack of food, they hop on a boat and take their chances here in Australia. My guess is that its not really going to stop, but time will tell
The other way to look at it is they this average cost is inaccurate as the basic patrol vessel likely will only cost $150-200M while the specialised MCM and hydorgraphic / oceanographic platforms will cost significantly more. There will however be significant savings in training and logistics through the use of a common platform. A large steel hull will also last much longer in the invisaged roles, providing greater return on investment, than a smaller aluminium one.

Think in terms of greater costs up front providing greater capability and flexibility with savings realised through life.
Volkodav is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 PM.