Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree cost comparisons are fraught with apples v oranges. In this instance, cost of Australian steel to Spain, Comms and combat systems. On the RFA side, costs incurred by Appledore, remediation etc.
We really aren't sure of like v like.
The article referred to hydro dynamic efficiency, low speed manoeuvrability, redundancy and the ability to undertake maintenance while underway. The main point appeared to be that Cantabria is a modernised, double hulled, legacy design while most, if not all the other options are clean sheet designs that seem to have settled on two shafts, more efficient hull profiles etc.

On the commonality side I know the original ASC Aegir proposal was specified with as many common systems to the DDGs and LHDs. This was possible because it was a clean sheet design.

Not second guessing, the RAN is getting two great ships, I just thought it was interesting that open source data appears to show other options could have been significantly cheaper without a reduction in capability yet not a peep from the usual suspects.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Interesting to see what the US press has to say:


Write to Rob Taylor at [email protected]
While there is nothing new in the article what it does drive home is how important winning selection with Australia is to all three competitors. If either Fincantieri or Navantia wins it would set them up nicely for the USN competition. Likewise, BAE would improve its odds of winning the Canadian competition if they win in Australia and of course Navantia is in a really good position to pick up the trifecta.

It should put Australia in a really good position to get a good deal out of this.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In my commercial experience I have yet to see a single screw ship which is more expensive to maintain than a twin screw.
One of the biggest expenses during a refit, setting aside weapons and sensors, is the shaft and rudder repair/refit.
I'm not sure about Class rules (help Alex) but an AMSA requirement is to pull the shaft for inspection twice every five years. This involves shaft and rudder bearing refurbishment, taper adjustments and realignments, all very expensive.
In a single screw ship that cost falls once, in a twin screw ship the cost doubles no matter what size of shaft.
Further, in most cases machinery costs are double as well. To maintain Class, most engines must be pulled down and rebuilt every 5 years (again Alex help).
It becomes very obvious that the reason why most large commercial ships are single screw - cost to sustain.

Manoeuvrability is also a furphy, all AOR ships will always use tugs to berth even though they have bow thrusters which enable them to complete the job without.
I think the only advantage for twin screw in a replenishment ship would be to enable them to return to port unassisted if they sustained battle damage. It would be a brave TG Commander that allowed them to remain with the force if they had lost a shaft.

As to procurement cost, it was my understanding that we paid a very competitive price of $634m for a pair of ships and that compared very favourably with the alternatives purchased by other navies.

Maybe there's a hint of self justification in the Warships item?
Up until 15 years shafts are pulled every five years. Some ships can go to an EDDI proces which allows 7.5 years but the shafts, runnder pintals, inlets and sea chests must all be specially designed to allow underwater access or can be relied upon for an extended service. In practice not many take this up as the paint system, additional modifications and survey regime are not cheap. After 15 year you are back to 5 years and as the shaft wears class may require more frequent work.

However, the continous survey inspection cycle is ongoing with hull and machinery items running on the five years cycle with and intermediate survey at 2.5 years. The vessel is still subject to annual endorsements which validate that the survey items are being carried out at the intervals requried. The more engines and shafts the more work you have to do. The Cantabria is a twin engine single shaft design with adds to redundancy and provides decent speed. It does mean you can service the an engine and remain operational wihtout the impact of trailing a prop.

In noting redundancy ... as most AOR are single engine room arrangment have two shafts does not help as you will still lose all propulsion if you take a hit in the E/R or suffer any other E/R emergency that compromises the space. Seperated engine rooms obviously provide the best redundancy but these come at a cost. Separate shafts to allow control to be maintained in the event of a rudder failure or damage to a shaft or prop.

Assail is quite correct on the power plants on merchant vessels, even the new mega box boats are coming out with a single power plant in many cases. The big slow speed two stroke engines are quite efficient and the single power plant and shaft line costs less to build and maintain (single shaft hull form is much simpler).

On manoeuvrability, yep I agree. Bow trusters (and stern thrusters where fitted) deal with berthing and departure issues and slow speed manoeuvering. The Cantabria has a bow thruster and CPP which means she could manoeuver off a berth in light conditions with a competent pilot. In stronger conditions tugs would be necessary, however, tugs are always used for the AORs and LHDs so this really is not an issue. With considerable installed power, a large rudder and a CPP she should be quite responsive at sea. .....................

and to put this in context, the FFG7 have a single shaft CCP/Bow thruster combination (albeit an azimuth thruster) and I have not seen anything to suggest these ships are not manoeuverable or that it compromised their effectiveness as a warship.
 

Trackmaster

Member
Interesting to see what the US press has to say:

Defense Firms Vie to Build New Pacific Fleets
U.S. allies are bulking up on frigates and submarines to counter territorial disputes in Asia



A FREMM vessel designed by Fincantieri in Sydney’s harbor. Photo: Fincantieri
By
Rob Taylor
June 10, 2018 11:00 a.m. ET
29 COMMENTS
  • Link copied…
Text Size Small Medium Large
  • Email
  • Save
CANBERRA, Australia—U.S. allies are embarking on a naval shopping spree as territorial standoffs intensify in the Pacific.

Contracts valued at about $70 billion are up for grabs from Australia to Canada, as governments update aging fleets to protect shipping lanes and their territorial waters.

While defense spending globally had fallen over the past decade, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute expects spending this year to be the highest since the close of the Cold War. Nations in Asia and the Middle East are leading the charge.

That is a potential windfall for companies such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. in the U.S., Britain’s BAE Systems PLC and Europe’s biggest shipbuilder, Fincantieri SpA. The new contracts could secure thousands of jobs and guarantee a pipeline of work for at least a decade.

Western navies are rebuilding their Pacific fleets as China and Russia challenge their dominance in the region. China is asserting more dominance over the South China Sea, tensions on the Korean Peninsula are high, and Russia is showing renewed interest in Asia. Late last year, a Russian navy ship docked in Papua New Guinea for training and Russian bombers visited Indonesia.

The U.S. has urged its allies to spend more on defense. President Donald Trump has called for a U.S. naval fleet of 350 ships. The current fleet of 273 ships is the smallest since 1916. Last year collisions between U.S. guided-missile destroyers and merchant ships that left 17 sailors dead prompted criticism that the fleet is stretched too thin, resulting in cutbacks on training and certifications.

Fighting Frigates
Australia’s frigate contest will kick off a $70 billion wave of decisions in the U.S. and Canada.

Note: Figures are estimates for BAE Systems and Navantia, images are renderings.

Sources: Navantia, BAE Systems, Fincantieri, Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Defense companies say the coordinated buildup among allies is also an opportunity for Western allies to build a common warship. By adopting similar designs, they say, countries could share the cost of future ship upgrades, with spare parts and maintenance available at a wider range of global shipyards.

“To have the Canadian navy, the Australian navy, the Royal Navy, the New Zealand navy, operating the same frigate, that’s not an impossible dream,” said BAE’s managing director Nigel Stewart, who is leading the firm’s bid in Australia.

Australia within weeks is due to award a $26 billion contract for nine frigates, one of he biggest defense deals in the country’s history. BAE, Fincantieri and Spain’s Navantia SA are competing for the deal.

Warren King, chairman of Navantia’s Australian unit, said the purchases create some momentum for Canada and the U.S. to buy the same ships. Navantia and BAE are vying for a Canadian contract to build 15 frigates valued at as much as $46 billion.

While frigates are among the smallest warships in the U.S. fleet, they are the backbone of allied navies. Australia wants its new ships to be almost as large as U.S. destroyers, capable of hunting submarines and equipped to defend against ballistic missiles like those test-fired this year by North Korea.

Around 250 new submarines are expected to enter service in Asia in the next decade as nations including Australia and Japan seek to counter China’s militarization of atolls in trade lanes running through the South China Sea.

“By 2025, half of the world’s submarines will be operating off Australia’s eastern seaboard,” Mr. Stewart said.

Frigates are also becoming more important for the U.S. Navy as the Pentagon seeks warships that are cheaper than destroyers but carry more firepower than its smaller Littoral Combat Ships. Each new frigate costs about $950 million, the U.S. Navy estimates. A completely outfitted destroyer costs around $1.8 billion.

A multibillion-dollar Pentagon program to commission 20 missile frigates for construction in the U.S. has pitted Fincantieri against Austal USA, Lockheed, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works teamed with Navantia, and Huntington Ingalls.

In a sign that Australia’s choice could inform the U.S. competition, a board advising Australian defense officials is stacked with experts from the U.S. including former secretary of the U.S. Navy Donald Winter and Irwin Edenzon, the former president of Ingalls shipbuilding.

“The whole world is looking at Australia now,” said Dario Deste, chairman of Fincantieri in Australia.

Write to Rob Taylor at [email protected]
And they missed the point that the Fremm vessel apparently comes standard with five espresso machines.
A game changer!
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Although I’m not across the details, the AOR contract does include some through life support costs. Plus, of course, the cost of establishing the support system.

As has been noted on numerous occasions on this board, comparing warship acquisition projects between nations is a fraught exercise as one never knows if one is comparing apples with apples.

Finally, RFA manning as in the Tides always requires less onboard manpower than Naval manning; but a Naval ship’s company provides more versatility in capability terms.
AND

Agree cost comparisons are fraught with apples v oranges. In this instance, cost of Australian steel to Spain, Comms and combat systems. On the RFA side, costs incurred by Appledore, remediation etc.
We really aren't sure of like v like.
As others have noted above, a direct price comparison between different complex systems like warships is difficult to do in almost all cases, as there are usually too many variables which can impact the cost. Pretty much the only time it can really be done is when yards in two different places are building the exact same piece of kit, using the exact same materials, components, and suppliers.

The part I found most interesting when I looked at the RFA's Tide-class and the RAN's upcoming Supply-class AOR, is that the new RFA AOR has about twice the displacement of the forthcoming RAN AOR, for an essentially comparable price.

I understand the concept of "steel is cheap and air is free," but it does make me wonder if the RAN could not have looked at getting a somewhat larger vessel, which could then potentially replenish more/larger vessels, and/or be able to carry out replenishment dues on distant stations for a longer duration before requiring refueling and resupply themselves.
 

d-ron84

Member
What I heard was that the deal for Daewoo to build the two Aegir’s was virtually done, but the government took too long to agree to the contract and the free space in their build availability was filled by other orders.
They were also supposed to have more common systems with the LHDs and DDGs then what the Cantabria’s will have.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What I heard was that the deal for Daewoo to build the two Aegir’s was virtually done, but the government took too long to agree to the contract and the free space in their build availability was filled by other orders.
They were also supposed to have more common systems with the LHDs and DDGs then what the Cantabria’s will have.
Was there no competitive evaluation before the decision to go with Navantia? Because surely contract negotiations come afterwards, and there'd have been an announcement of the decision, then another that it wasn't going ahead. Sounds a lot like Canadian purchasing to me.

I'm also astonished to learn that the Daewoo ships were to have more in common with the LHD and DDG than the Cantabrias. Kind of counter to what one expects when all three are Navantia designs...

oldsig
 
Interesting to see what the US press has to say:

Defense Firms Vie to Build New Pacific Fleets
U.S. allies are bulking up on frigates and submarines to counter territorial disputes in Asia





In a sign that Australia’s choice could inform the U.S. competition, a board advising Australian defense officials is stacked with experts from the U.S. including former secretary of the U.S. Navy Donald Winter and Irwin Edenzon, the former president of Ingalls shipbuilding.

“The whole world is looking at Australia now,” said Dario Deste, chairman of Fincantieri in Australia.

Write to Rob Taylor at [email protected]
The section I find interesting in that only the FREMM and F100 are common to both programmes.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AND



As others have noted above, a direct price comparison between different complex systems like warships is difficult to do in almost all cases, as there are usually too many variables which can impact the cost. Pretty much the only time it can really be done is when yards in two different places are building the exact same piece of kit, using the exact same materials, components, and suppliers.

The part I found most interesting when I looked at the RFA's Tide-class and the RAN's upcoming Supply-class AOR, is that the new RFA AOR has about twice the displacement of the forthcoming RAN AOR, for an essentially comparable price.

I understand the concept of "steel is cheap and air is free," but it does make me wonder if the RAN could not have looked at getting a somewhat larger vessel, which could then potentially replenish more/larger vessels, and/or be able to carry out replenishment dues on distant stations for a longer duration before requiring refueling and resupply themselves.
It is worth notng these were ordered at the onset of one of the biggest down turns in ship building we have seen in modern times. Yards were starting to go to the wall (and many did) and 7 year old Panamax box boats were soon to be scrapped as uneconomical and Hyundai's shipping arm would lose 1 billion USD in 2014 and 2015 alone. I suspect the price may have been very competitive notng DSME were already aware their finanacial situation was not great and shipping companies were starting to struggle. The MARS vessels would have been a great pick up the time.

While the contract may have been 452 million pounds in March 2012 but I suspect you would struggle to get those prices now.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
While the contract may have been 452 million pounds in March 2012 but I suspect you would struggle to get those prices now.
The RNZN MSC, Aotearoa, cost is NZ$493 million (AU$456 million). It's 23,000 tonnes and is being built by HHI (Hyundai Heavy Industries) in South Korea.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The RNZN MSC, Aotearoa, cost is NZ$493 million (AU$456 million). It's 23,000 tonnes and is being built by HHI (Hyundai Heavy Industries) in South Korea.
And the two AOR's are about AU$600 out of the project cost for the Supply class with the reminder being support and infrastructure. The Aotearoa is ice class which added to weight and cost but capacities are similar.
 
Some news about the progress being made on unit 1 of the two AORs . The article is in Spanish, there are three things that caught my eye.
First, the article says the units are "inspired by Cantabria class" which to me means that there are significant differences between them.
Second, the engines on the AUS AORs are significantly more powerful and newer than those in Cantabria.
Third the power generation will also be higher with newer generators. 1760x4Kw vs 1270x4Kw
It seems to me that the AUS AORs are going to be quite different and more capable than the Cantabria even if the externals remain quite similar.

Navantia traslada a Ferrol los motores del primer AOR de Australia - Noticias Infodefensa España


Regards.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The article referred to hydro dynamic efficiency, low speed manoeuvrability, redundancy and the ability to undertake maintenance while underway. The main point appeared to be that Cantabria is a modernised, double hulled, legacy design while most, if not all the other options are clean sheet designs that seem to have settled on two shafts, more efficient hull profiles etc.

On the commonality side I know the original ASC Aegir proposal was specified with as many common systems to the DDGs and LHDs. This was possible because it was a clean sheet design.

Not second guessing, the RAN is getting two great ships, I just thought it was interesting that open source data appears to show other options could have been significantly cheaper without a reduction in capability yet not a peep from the usual suspects.
Hi Volk

The RAN had the opportunity to have a good look at the Cantabria when it spent many months down south in these Australian waters. The RAN knew the ship very well so I guess they liked what they saw. As to price I cannot say, but we do know South Korea build a lot of ships and I'm sure their offering was well priced and a good product; however I do recall not seeing too much information about the ship in the public domain. Not a good sales pitch for the public.

The Cantabria does seem to offer a lot, not just the refuelling stuff but also dry storage, containers, aviation deck with two hangars,medical and what appear very modern systems across the ship for command and control / logistics and habitability.
I think the ship is a good package and fit for the RAN. A pity a third was not envisaged and sort.


Regards S
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Hi Volk

The RAN had the opportunity to have a good look at the Cantabria when it spent many months down south in these Australian waters. The RAN knew the ship very well so I guess they liked what they saw. As to price I cannot say, but we do know South Korea build a lot of ships and I'm sure their offering was well priced and a good product; however I do recall not seeing too much information about the ship in the public domain. Not a good sales pitch for the public.

The Cantabria does seem to offer a lot, not just the refuelling stuff but also dry storage, containers, aviation deck with two hangars,medical and what appear very modern systems across the ship for command and control / logistics and habitability.
I think the ship is a good package and fit for the RAN. A pity a third was not envisaged and sort.


Regards S
Actually there is a very good chance that a third ship will be sought. The 2016 white paper calls for either another replenishment ship or logistics ship to be acquired in the late 20s. I would think that a third Cantabria would be the front runner.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Was there no competitive evaluation before the decision to go with Navantia? Because surely contract negotiations come afterwards, and there'd have been an announcement of the decision, then another that it wasn't going ahead. Sounds a lot like Canadian purchasing to me.

I'm also astonished to learn that the Daewoo ships were to have more in common with the LHD and DDG than the Cantabrias. Kind of counter to what one expects when all three are Navantia designs...

oldsig
Makes sense when you look at the development histories of the three Spanish designs.

The LHD as I understand it is probably the most Spanish of the three but with some Dutch DNA. The AORs are very much Dutch and the F-100 has a lot of US FFG in them, with NF-90 (a cancelled NATO frigate project) and more than a little Tromp and a little F-124. They were all also designed in different decades, with different types of systems from established supply chains.

The Aegir was designed by BMT to be adapted quite extensively to a user's specific requirements. There was not legacy supply chain or preferred systems, just a blank canvas that could be tailored to the buyers needs.
 
In other words, everything comes back to a political motive. Except...the announcement is expected to be in Q2 (which is still this month), and the polls, which could have been held much earlier, aren't to be held until July, so Rex Patrick gets his wish despite the Conservatives having been able to hold the ballot before the announcements.

Not everything comes down to politics, except paranoia apparently.

oldsig
Seems I'm not the only individual speculating on a revised announcement date. On another forum, a 30/31 July announcement is tipped. I did read an article this week that used "mid year" as the decision time, which provides room to move.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Seems I'm not the only individual speculating on a revised announcement date. On another forum, a 30/31 July announcement is tipped. I did read an article this week that used "mid year" as the decision time, which provides room to move.
Nobody, except perhaps the decision makers, really knows when the winner will be announced. There is no real need to delay the decision until the end of July unless of course, it is a technical issue. I suspect that the other forum might be thinking that the decision will be put off until after the by-elections but there is no reason to do that. It isn't like a federal election where a government is in caretaker mode. If anything the government would like to time that announcement so that they will gain maximum benefit at those polls. I would tip that will be either the end of this month or early July.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nobody, except perhaps the decision makers, really knows when the winner will be announced. There is no real need to delay the decision until the end of July unless of course, it is a technical issue. I suspect that the other forum might be thinking that the decision will be put off until after the by-elections but there is no reason to do that. It isn't like a federal election where a government is in caretaker mode. If anything the government would like to time that announcement so that they will gain maximum benefit at those polls. I would tip that will be either the end of this month or early July.
I know nothing about the by election or any effect it may or may not have on the timing of the announcement but I do know that the news blackout, in fact any information on the decision is very tight with people intimently involved in the project having no insight on who the winner is.

Not a bad thing but interesting as not even the submarine and OPV selections had things things this tightly under raps.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I know nothing about the by election or any effect it may or may not have on the timing of the announcement but I do know that the news blackout, in fact any information on the decision is very tight with people intimently involved in the project having no insight on who the winner is.

Not a bad thing but interesting as not even the submarine and OPV selections had things things this tightly under raps.
Agree, compared to previous processess these have been very tightly controlled. Not a bad thing in my view. If the OPV is anything ot go by the first inclination we will have the decision has been made is when it is announced. I will not be betting on the outcome.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I know nothing about the by election or any effect it may or may not have on the timing of the announcement but I do know that the news blackout, in fact any information on the decision is very tight with people intimently involved in the project having no insight on who the winner is.

Not a bad thing but interesting as not even the submarine and OPV selections had things things this tightly under raps.
Yep ... a lot of money to be made in the share market if there was a leak. The risk is that the longer they wait before they announce a winner the greater the chance that the information will be leaked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top