Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Why worry?
    The proposal is to build in Australia using Australian money. It's not as if all the Navantia staff disappear. If they get retrenched from Navantia those critical personnel needed for the Australian build would be employed by Navantia Australia.
     
    aussienscale likes this.
  2. spoz

    spoz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    And in any case, the Spanish government is not going to allow its national shipbuider,on which a large workforce and supply chain (not to mention their own Navy) depend and which brings in considerable earnings from exports just disappear. They will find a way to keep it going as they did previously when they were required to remodel Izar.
     
  3. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,591
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    And what evaluation was that?
     
  4. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,591
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    The Australian Naval Graves Project looks after sailors war graves from the pre 1914 era.
    If people are able to help contact details and more info in the link below.

    Naval Graves Project – The Australian Naval Institute
     
  5. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Australia
    Hmm, really

    This contract combined with F110 that Spain have in the wings along with the BAM build and ongoing commercial work may actually ensure the company becomes viable. That will certainly drive behaviour ..... but possibly not in a negative fashion. If the F-5000 gets up there will be 17 F100 derivatives in service ..... that has benefits in developing upgrades and ongoing sustainment.

    The other big point is we have got CEC on the Hobart DDG and the USN has got quite a bit of exposure assist in the build and operating with the F100/105 vessels and the Hobarts. Makes them a known quantity which is a selling point for FFG(X).

    Mind you .... the need to keep Marinetta Marine going may see the FREMM prevail.
     
    Blas de Lezo likes this.
  6. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Your assertion of commercial risk for Navantia is implausible.
    1. The company is wholly owned by the Spanish government. It would never contemplate exposing Navantia's customers to any sovereign risk.
    2. The company has a healthy military order book with future Armada orders nearing reality and it's in a healthy contest for the FF(X)
    3. The combined Navantia workforce has a great deal of political clout in the regions, especially Galicia.
    4.Costs for the sustainment phase will be determined by Navantia Australia and the many locally sourced providers. Equipment cost will be determined by international providers such as GD, Thales, LM, BAE et al.

    However, you seem to be certain that the risk of failure for Navantia is high so if you have any exclusive insight or evidence to suggest that then please inform us and explain how it effects Navantia Australia.
     
  7. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Likes Received:
    55
    Boy I hope not, the last thing we need is more lazy, incompetent navantia people displacing competent Australians. The best navantia had to offer were head hunted for AWD a decade ago, those who came over later to "fix" the AWD left a lot to be desired.
     
    recce.k1 likes this.
  8. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    As Alexa wrote;

    1. The company is wholly owned by the Spanish government. It would never contemplate exposing Navantia's customers to any sovereign risk.
    2. The company has a healthy military order book with future Armada orders nearing reality and it's in a healthy contest for the FF(X)
    3. The combined Navantia workforce has a great deal of political clout in the regions, especially Galicia.

    None of the above are prohibited by EU laws. For example a contract signed by Navantia Australia (Even though it maybe 100% owned by the Spanish Govt) and the Commonwealth of Australia is subject to Australian commercial law and not EU law. We dont know who are the parties to the contract - thus any speculation is just that.
     
  9. Ocean1Curse

    Ocean1Curse Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Australia
    I don't wish to encourage this, just want to clear a few things up so let's be brutally honest here. In terms of "risk management," If your ideas are crap you're going to have to be the greatest risk manager of all time. So generating ideas is equally important as is risk management. It's essential you generate your own ideas so risk can be managed correctly. You need both, you can't do one with out the other.

    The easiest way to generate your own ideas is when you've got consistent and quality information. We have good information from defence suppliers posted by some delegent individuals who should be saluted for there voluntary effort, but not from procurement officers on the other side for obvious reasons. Not only do you have to generate those ideas but you have to have the wherewithal to implement those ideas. So look back through this thread. There are great indicators from quality guys who are typically 3 months ahead of every every one else, and we're looking where the trends are. We are talking about value investing over multi decade time horizons. The easiest way to identify a trend is to look at lead indicators. Look at different sectors, see where there's a slow down, and where there's growth, then do a ship selection with on that. And again your trying to get the risk reward as much in your favour. That's the idea generation part.

    Again you can generate a fantastic set of ideas for different capabilities, how ever if the timing doesn't look right, for right here, right now, be patient. The timing will come right, and selecting a vessel may take longer than you think. Procurement overruns happen all the time (boredom trades we actually call them) where nothing's going on, and you're trying to force something. You end up losing money, cook the contract, and you think what an idiot you are, all it's doing is writing checks to the market.

    Thats my take on risk management. Absolutely do not do boredom trades. You'll lose money and look like a muppet.
     
    PeterM and Meriv90 like this.
  10. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,591
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    You have made some claims and have not provided verifiable evidence for those. We have an expectation that posters provide verifiable sources. For your information posters with blue tags are defence professionals whose credentials have been checked and verified. For security and /or commercially sensitive reasons, they may not be in a position to offer certain information, however where possible they will offer valued and considered opinions. I strongly suggest that you read what they have written and be less combative in your replies. I also strongly suggest that you read back through the thread and read what has been posted.
     
  11. hauritz

    hauritz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    14
    Part of the deal if Australia buys the F-5000 is that Navatia will transfer all the design and export rights to, with all intellectual property owned and managed in Australia.

    That sounds like Australia will no longer need anything much from Navantia.
     
  12. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    If the CoA signs a contract with Navantia Australia Pty Ltd. to build future frigates then that contract is subject to Australian commercial law and if that company fails then an Australian Govt official assignee will be appointed. EU state subsidy laws have zero bearing with respect to Australian registered companies such as for example Navantia Australia Pty Ltd. in Australian jurisdiction irrespective of the origin of their securities subscription. I am certain that the CoA will do full due diligence on all parties to a potential contract of national significance and value at a level well beyond your own fiscal, legal and political abilities.
     
  13. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Apparently Australian auditors like doom and gloom reports, just like their Canadian counterparts. Can't really comment on the validity of the report but I have think the Australian approach is less risky assuming Australia and Canada choose either the Navantia or T26 design.

    Audit: Australian multi-billion shipbuilding plan carries extreme risk
     
  14. Meriv90

    Meriv90 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Venice
    [Serious question not rhetoric] I'm sorry I'm not understanding, if Navantia spanish condition isn't that important why aren't you just buying the IP proprieties and build it yourself?

    Like the Canadian Ice Breaker, the Canadians just bought the design from our Norwegian Vard branch and they built it themselves. Another example is the T-129 the Turkish Mangusta derivative after we sold to them for 1,4billions the A-129 tech data.

    So why the need of Navantia?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018 at 4:02 PM
  15. 76mmGuns

    76mmGuns Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Asia
    I have a Q for the experienced members here.

    Have governments, not just Australia's, ever increased the number of naval vessels built because the tender was just that good? I'm thinking - no, but I don't follow other countries closely.

    Eg if navantia wins, they save a lot of time and testing ( was it assail who said something like testing the steel is already done for the Hobart's, staff are already trained, etc) , so the $35bn might conceivably stretch to 11 ships, instead of 9.
     
  16. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    It is a bit more complicated than that. However, that is similar to what was done with the Collins-class SSG ANZAC-class FFH, the Hobart-class DDG, will be done with the SEA 1180 OPV, and so on.

    As I understand it, the CoA purchased the IP rights to build a certain number of each of the classes of vessel that were (or are to be) built in Australia, as opposed to complete IP rights. The principal difference AFAIK is that complete ownership of the IP rights would permit the CoA (or any other IP owner for that matter) to build and/or modify the IP/designs as much as they would like.

    Using the SEA 5000 Future Frigate programme as an example, whichever design (British, Italian, or Spanish) gets selected, the vessels themselves will be assembled in an Australian facility (Techport) in Osborne. The company which is operating the facility might change, but it will still be an Australian facility, as will the other shipyards in Australia which might get block work.

    Unlike Navantia's involvement in the Canberra-class LHD builds, or the upcoming replenishment oiler, during the Hobart-class AWD build Navantia was just involved in the design and ship plans though Volk would be much better at explaining what they did. For the Canberra-class LHD, the basic vessels were built in Spain, because Australia has not had a yard available for constructing naval vessels of such size since the Cockatoo Island yards shut down in 1992. Once the vessel's hull, machinery and superstructure were built and assembled, the vessels were transported to Australia for fitout.

    With that in mind, what the RAN seems most interested in is the design work, and how suitable a design is within the Australian context for the SEA 5000 Future Frigate. The state of a foreign company's overseas shipyards, yard workforce, or balance sheet is irrelevant, unless it impacts the ability of the design team to put together plans for the type of frigate Australia is seeking, fitted with the kit Australia desires.

    From my outsider's non-industry perspective, a design team that already has significant experience putting together designs which Australia is already somewhat familiar with, that also tends to feature much of the same kit Australia is going to use, is likely to have an edge.

    With respect to comments regarding the EU, I do not see how they are realistically applicable. Aside from the assumption that any EU competition rules also include national security exemptions, none of the actual SEA 5000 build work is going to occur outside of Australia. So unless someone could make a credible claim that Italy, Spain, or the UK were going to subsidize (to one degree or another) an Australian frigate build programme, provided their respective national design was selected, then the EU competition rules should not matter.

    This is not like the trade disputes which have been occurring between Airbus and Boeing over the cost of civilian airliners and resulting competition for orders. In the Airbus/Boeing trade disputes, civilian airlines have sought certain classes of airliners which both companies produce, and therefore the airlines have at least partially based their selection decisions on the initial acquisition and operating/support costs. These costs (initial acquisition especially) can be influenced or impacted by gov't policies on taxes, subsidies, etc. which impact the cost to either Airbus or Boeing to actually produce an individual aircraft or part. With the Australian National Shipbuilding plan having RAN ships built in Australia except for vessels too large to be built in current Australian yards, all those production costs which can be subject to influence from gov't policies are subject to Australian gov't policies, not those of the various national gov'ts belonging to the home countries of the designers.
     
    PeterM likes this.
  17. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    17
    More on the OPV...

    https://venturaapdr.partica.online/...ins-key-role-in-construction-starting-q4-2018

    Some key info on the OPV:

    Lürssen’s Australian OPV80 variant will be 80 metres in length, have a 13 metre beam, a draught of 4 metres, and displace 1700 tonnes.

    The vessels will be fitted with a 40mm gun for self-protection, three 8.4m sea boats, state of the art sensors as well as command and communication systems. This will allow the OPVs to operate alongside Australian Border Force vessels, other Australian Defence Force units and regional partners.

    One feature new to Navy is the placement of a rapid interceptor ramp, whereby a sea boat can be launched within one minute of being manned, down a sloping stern access to the sea. Recovery is by means of the same ramp.

    The vessels will accommodate up to 60 personnel, including a crew of around 40 Navy personnel and will accept modular mission packs such as unmanned aerial systems. These may be contained in two TEU containers on the flight deck, which can otherwise land an RAN MH-60R medium helicopter. With no hangar available, the Romeo helicopter can only visit!
     
  18. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    It would depend on how you view things. Realistically though the only Western country which like builds naval vessels in sufficient quantity to make such a difference is the US.

    Using the RAN as an example, there is a certain sized body of personnel who can be utilized to crew the various RAN vessels and shore establishments. If suddenly an extra two frigates could be added to the fleet, that would likely cause at least two frigates (possibly even more) to be tied up alongside in 'Extended Readiness' as the RAN has the personnel numbers to operate ~12 major surface escorts, and not 14.

    From my perspective, the only time such a circumstance would be worthwhile to pursue if one were to know beforehand that at times there should be vessels unavailable due to extended repair or upgrade times that are measured in years. After all, it 'extra' vessels are acquired at no additional initial costs, having a larger fleet will have higher ongoing support costs, especially future upgrade costs.
     
  19. Blas de Lezo

    Blas de Lezo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    5
    Very right!

    Add to that the engineering of the Turkish LHD and the 5 billion contract to build 5 corvettes + port facilities to Saudi Arabia.

    Lets not forget that Navantia is 100% owned by the Spanish government in what is considered an strategic sector, so the Spanish government will do what it has to to ensure it remains that way.
    It has been a tough few years (Worldwide) but right now Navantia Spain has under construction two BAMs, Two AORs for Australia , four S80 (finally on their way) and very shortly 5 F110 and 5 corvettes based on the Avante class to SA . The gap is gone.
    Top that with Navantia Australia Sea 5000 tender and Navantia Australia leading the efforts in Canada + The FFG(X) and the future does not look as bleak as some people would like to paint it.
     
    Joe Black and ASSAIL like this.
  20. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Canada has not built any heavy icebreaker yet.