Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Not my intention, I was just thinking of sharing information. Nothing else. I would have written to one of the journalists that flooded your newspapers if that was the purpose.

Im sorry if my posts looked tedious and out of place, again not my intention.

I sincerely thought after reading your procurement history that you would be sensitive to some aspects of it. I was wrong and you corrected me.

I ask then one last question. Would have it been out of place and disrespectful to make an analogy to the ARH and Collins logistic and crewing problems (FI for the ARH) ?
I hope this answer isnt perceived as passive aggressive.

Meriv90 said:

I ask then one last question. Would have it been out of place and disrespectful to make an analogy to the ARH and Collins logistic and crewing problems (FI for the ARH) ?
I hope this answer isnt perceived as passive aggressive.

Click to expand...

Without already knowing what analogy you plan on making it is hard to say. Having said that though, it is also difficult to see how a relevant analogy could be made between issues with the Tiger ARH, the Collins-class SSG, and what could happen with the SEA 5000 project, due to what and how different the various projects were/are.

With the Tiger ARH, the impression many have gotten was that the helicopter was still very much in development but was getting presented by the company to decision makers as a finished product.

With the Collins-class sub, the unfortunately realities were that apart from Japan, no eligible company was designing and building conventional subs in the size and with the capability set Australia was looking for. Adding to this complication is the fact that due to the environment a sub operates in, it is not as simple as just increasing the height, length and beam in proportion to reach or keep a certain set of characteristics. Also as mentioned recently in this thread, there were a number of external factors which were completely outside of both the RAN's and ASC's control which impacted the Collins-class.

The last reason why I am having trouble seeing how someone could come up with a relevant analogy for the potential SEA 5000 project designs is the fact that regardless of which design is ultimately selected, they are all going to be fitted with certain systems in common. For instance, Australia has already announced that the frigates will use an Aegis CMS and radar panels from CEA. Given that Australia already has the Mk 45 5"/127 mm gun in service with two classes, and has the ability to produce shells and maintain the guns domestically, I think it highly unlikely that a different gun would be selected. The air defence missiles are going to be ESSM and versions of the Standard missile, all able to be stored and launched from Mk 41 VLS cells. I could go on, but the basic notion is that if there were to be an issue which could cause availability problems for the selected SEA 5000 design, it would most likely be with a specific subsystem or systems, and many of these subsystem requirements are being dictated to the designers as opposed to selected by them so these problems could potentially appear in all the designs.

lisab said:

none of the companies with competing designs will be ..........operating the shipyard where the SEA 5000 frigates will be constructed

I think you will find that IS exactly the plan hence why the australian senate is trying to stop it.

Click to expand...

lisab said:

This misses the point that the materials will; mostly sourced through the parent and most of the supply chain will funnel through the parent as well.

Click to expand...

How do you know that? Back this statement up with a verifiable reliable source. Secondly there is no need to yell. I strongly suggest that you change your posting demeanour or your time on here will be short. This is a warning.

lisab said:

none of the companies with competing designs will be ..........operating the shipyard where the SEA 5000 frigates will be constructed

I think you will find that IS exactly the plan hence why the australian senate is trying to stop it.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for information that supports Navantia, BAE or Fincantieri assuming operations of the Techport common user facility, replacing ASC?

So far I have seen where the contenders need to build local supply chains for their respective designs, but nothing I have read has stated that the company that wins the SEA 5000 contract will be responsible for actually building the vessels.

Similarly there was a statement made earlier asserting that Navantia had already failed or fallen short in one evaluation. Can the source for that assert be brought to light.

lisab said:

Navantia Australia, a Spanish public company that belongs to the SEPI (a state-owned enterprise subordinate to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Treasury), is a world leader in the products it offers:

Click to expand...

Nope.

Navantia Australia is an Australian registered proprietary held company subject to Australian company law and taxation requirements. It thus has legal person status solely under its jurisdiction Australia. Directing control and location of its originating share subscription has as I said before has ZERO to do with it.

lisab said:

Future Frigates The Government has also committed over $78 million to preliminary engineering and design work to ascertain whether continued production of the current AWD hull would be appropriate to develop the Future Frigate

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...d_binary/3331839.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

Click to expand...

That document is nearly 4 years old.

It does not prove anything with respect to ASC or TechPort. You will have to try harder than that.

lisab said:

Navantia Australia is a 100% owned subsidary of Navantia it will definately be part of the navantia GSC just like AWD and LHD which as I said is a good thing or otherwise any of their ships would not be supportable

Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that it is an Australian company irrespective whether or not it is a subsidiary of an offshore parent. Any contracts it has flow from Australian contract and company law and are enforced locally under that jurisdiction and through to the international court of arbitration.

If any of the vendors offshore parents go belly up there are over 150 years of commercial and contract law as well as a myriad of Australian statue protection mechanisms right up to the arcane such as equitable estoppel.

lisab said:

none of the companies with competing designs will be ..........operating the shipyard where the SEA 5000 frigates will be constructed

Click to expand...

Having read thru your comments & your attempt to shut down the moderators, I have to ask this - WHAT do you know, that those within the defence professional community, don't ?

Are you an advisor to a senator ?
An employee of one of the companies tendering ?
A nationalised Australian citizen, originally from Spain?
A reporter, aiming to effect the decision, by promotion of one supplier over an other ?

In my understanding of the project, the whole point is that the ships will be built in Australia,by Australian's, with the technical support of the winning bidder. Nowhere has it stated that the winning bidder will build the ships 'off-shore' & transport them to AUS for fitting out / testing (like the way LHD was done). Nowhere has it stated that the winning bidder must own a shipyard in AUS.

Finally, why do YOU think Navantia will win ? Do they offer equipment (in the way of systems), that are already on use on other AUS vessels that would give them a technological advantage, in way of the spares & operability route ? Or is it simply because of their involvement in the F-105 / LHD projects ?

SEA5000PH1_FutureFrigates | Capability Acquisition and Sustainment

SEA 5000 contenders ramp up marketing as project approaches final decision - Defence Connect

Future Frigate Program - Wikipedia

lisab said:

thats because the study was done 4 years ago LOL the results of which namely that the AWD hull (not suprisingly) was a high risk and this led to the current CEP it is very very straight forward.

As to the builder if you think the Aust government will repeat the mistake of AWD and contract with itself to build using ASC your chance of being right is less than 0% as that mistake is listed as one off the key lessons learned and will noot be repeated. The tender clearly requires the contract to be with the Design Prime this is stated in all the releases by all the tenderers and has been the focus of much media and has directly led to the action in the senate this is very basic stuff astounds me u dont know this.

Click to expand...

My comments were strictly related to the legal jurisdiction, the consequences of that and your inability to distinguish or understand the significance of these basic legal concept in Australian commercial law.

lisab said:

Makes no difference they will still do due financial dilligence assesment IAW with the tender docs as government understands like u dont that if the parent falls over the program will be a disaster. Are you disputing the tender docs?

Click to expand...

Go back and you will see that I clearly stated that the CoA will do its due diligence on SEA 5000 and the tender documents are part of that process. It is legally obliged to do that under its own fiscal responsibility legislation.

Why do you think I am disputing the tender documents? They are what they are. Tender documents. They are neither here nor there with respect to my issue with your posts. I am going back to your original confusion about the EU rules and the non efficacy that they have in a legal sense with Australian law. That has been the focus of my point with respect to that originating post.

I have made no comment either way whether it would be a disaster or not for one of the successful parties to the eventual SEA 5000 contracts fails. What I do know is that the fact that the CoA or any other Australian based entity in dealing with an Australian commercial entity has a lot more opportunity for and mitigation of contractual failure through the courts and the enforcement said contracts, than say dealing directly with corporate entity that is not Australian.

I frankly don't care who wins as long as the vessel is capable and serves the Australian public well in the future.

MrConservative said:

I frankly don't care who wins as long as the vessel is capable and serves the Australian public well in the future.

Click to expand...

Exactly my attitude with respect to Canada’s CSC program.

Wasnt Eurocpoter pacific and ASC also full Austrlian companies under your law?

It didnt stop the programs to end as they did.

That was my analogy. Celsius sold Kockums to HDW because it wasnt making enought money (just like Navantia). Other than development you ended up setting the logistic support just in 2008.

Systems Adict said:

Having read thru your comments & your attempt to shut down the moderators, I have to ask this - WHAT do you know, that those within the defence professional community, don't ?

Are you an advisor to a senator ?
An employee of one of the companies tendering ?
A nationalised Australian citizen, originally from Spain?
A reporter, aiming to effect the decision, by promotion of one supplier over an other ?

In my understanding of the project, the whole point is that the ships will be built in Australia,by Australian's, with the technical support of the winning bidder. Nowhere has it stated that the winning bidder will build the ships 'off-shore' & transport them to AUS for fitting out / testing (like the way LHD was done). Nowhere has it stated that the winning bidder must own a shipyard in AUS.

Finally, why do YOU think Navantia will win ? Do they offer equipment (in the way of systems), that are already on use on other AUS vessels that would give them a technological advantage, in way of the spares & operability route ? Or is it simply because of their involvement in the F-105 / LHD projects ?

SEA5000PH1_FutureFrigates | Capability Acquisition and Sustainment

SEA 5000 contenders ramp up marketing as project approaches final decision - Defence Connect

Future Frigate Program - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

I doubt very much that Lisab or Basil is Spanish or routing for Navantia, seems to be gone now, more of a T26 kind of guy I would say.
I have been reading this forum for a few years now and posting very little. The quality and knowledge of many of the posters in this forum (by far excede mine) make me more of a reader than writer.
However, It does puzzle me why, from time to time and coinciding with decisions regarding procurement programs, new members keep hatching up with the ( I assume) intentions of influencing the outcome of those. It is some times even comical, as if the decision makers where waiting for them to post in here their last bit of smear or hidden knowledge that will finally tip them in the right direction.
I will continue to read this forum as I find the information and depth of knowledge of many of the posters in here very interesting indeed, and also from time to time contributing with a bit of info that I may find around.
I have read in these pages that the decision for Sea5000 will be announce on next coming Thursday, It should be pretty clear IMO that somewhere in Australia, those that matter, already know.

Meriv90 said:

Wasnt Eurocpoter pacific and ASC also full Austrlian companies under your law?

It didnt stop the programs to end as they did.

That was my analogy. Celsius sold Kockums to HDW because it wasnt making enought money (just like Navantia). Other than development you ended up setting the logistic support just in 2008.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is just me not understanding something, but I do not see the relevance of what I assume is the attempt to make an analogy between Airbus Group A-P, ASC, and the current situation with the SEA 5000 project.

The old Australian Aerospace Ltd. has now been re-named Airbus Group Australia Pacific, is still in operation and is involved in both the Australian Tiger ARH and MRH-90 Taipan programmes, both of which are still very much running. For those that follow Australian procurement programmes, both helicopters have had (still have?) a number of issues, however these issues have to do with the actual helicopter design and not with the company's (subsidiary or parent) finances or economic situation. From my outsider's POV, it looks as though slick marketing on the part of Eurocopter & NH Industries sales reps along with performance data that was much more projected than actually based on real-world data managed to sell Australia helicopters still undergoing development, when at least some in Australia seemed to think a finished product was what was being purchased. As a side note, this is also sort of why some on DT are a bit leery of some of the SEA 5000 and SEA 1000 (the Collins-class SSG replacement) project contenders since until there are actual units that have been finished which can serve as examples, there is a lack of real-world data to support estimates.

As for ASC, that company still exists and is in operation, providing maintenance support of the Collins-class SSG, as well as going to have a part in production of the SEA 1180 project OPV's in addition to the having built both the SSG's and the Hobart-class AWD's. IMO there is no relevance in the history of what happened to Kockums being taken over by HDW which in turn was taken over by ThyssenKrupp and the SEA 5000 project because those takeovers seem to have been more about competitors taking each other over to eliminate business rivals. In fact, by the time Kockums was taken over by HDW, the last Australian sub had already been laid down. Now if there was an expectation that Australia would have naval vessels built (and modified, supported and upgraded) in overseas yards, and that whoever was awarded the SEA 5000 project would be using their yards in their home country, and then there was concern that a rival shipbuilder might do a hostile takeover and then close the shipyards belonging to the company recently taken over, the situation could have relevance.

Given that the SEA 5000, SEA 1180 and SEA 1000 projects are all involved in raising and then sustaining a sovereign, Australian naval shipbuilding industry, then I do not see the relevance of whether a foreign designer/builder of naval vessels is profitable or not. After all, Australia is working towards creating a sustainable domestic warship production capability for strategic reasons, and not as a business venture seeking to make a profit.

Blas de Lezo said:

I doubt very much that Lisab or Basil is Spanish or routing for Navantia, seems to be gone now, more of a T26 kind of guy I would say.
I have been reading this forum for a few years now and posting very little. The quality and knowledge of many of the posters in this forum (by far excede mine) make me more of a reader than writer.
However, It does puzzle me why, from time to time and coinciding with decisions regarding procurement programs, new members keep hatching up with the ( I assume) intentions of influencing the outcome of those. It is some times even comical, as if the decision makers where waiting for them to post in here their last bit of smear or hidden knowledge that will finally tip them in the right direction.
I will continue to read this forum as I find the information and depth of knowledge of many of the posters in here very interesting indeed, and also from time to time contributing with a bit of info that I may find around.
I have read in these pages that the decision for Sea5000 will be announce on next coming Thursday, It should be pretty clear IMO that somewhere in Australia, those that matter, already know.

Click to expand...

That was my impression after reading the extraordinary exchanges between Lisab and forum members. Was it a coincidence these issues were being raised at this time?

Jack Wyatt said:

That was my impression after reading the extraordinary exchanges between Lisab and forum members. Was it a coincidence these issues were being raised at this time?

Click to expand...

Lisab and Merv appear to have a particular view about Navantia and their F-5000 product. I would not attempt to assume I know why but passion for a particular option can often generate vigorous debate and some very one sided views.

All options in the Sea5000 debate have pros and cons. The fact is the response to the RFT has been played very close to the chest and, except for one outburst from BAE, most commentary from the three has focused on their product.

We cannot assume and outcome but Navantia for their part have delivered four vessels to the RAN (noting Brisbane is not yet commissioned) and just launched another .... with two more in build. This is a known entity and the malicious commentary about them going broke adds nothing to the debate.

Trying to compare to the helo issue is also not helpful noting the LHD hulls were delivered on time and to order and the same appears to be the case for the Supply class AOR. Building the DDG was a little more difficult as we had to restart ship building ....... again!

In the end .... what we think is a moot point .... It will the the NSC that decide.

I will follow others here and agree that I don’t really care provided it is the right vessel for the mission.

Meriv90 said:

Exactly because i see the good sides of the Type, since the FREMM doesn't have a growth potential, I must underline the bad sides no?

About prototype time the F-101 Took 5 years and two months, so there wasn't a difference between the first and last ship of the series.

The first FREMM took 5 years and 3 months.

And yes the F-5000 is clearly your best option, but it doesn't mean i cant be a fan boy for my team.

Click to expand...

Quoting myself you can read i have nothing against the F-5000 on the contrary as i wrote it is the most solid option.

It is just my perception that buying a ship from a company that looses 300-400 mln per year is highly risky and the same goes for an unproven design.


P.S. Aspi report is out on the race.

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws... frigate.pdf?1vB8T7DDSTHcqxcbs.uvz4t9IoYtCEzE

Meriv90 said:

Quoting myself you can read i have nothing against the F-5000 on the contrary as i wrote it is the most solid option.

It is just my perception that buying a ship from a company that looses 300-400 mln per year is highly risky and the same goes for an unproven design.


P.S. Aspi report is out on the race.

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2018-05/SI 131 Choosing Australia's next frigate.pdf?1vB8T7DDSTHcqxcbs.uvz4t9IoYtCEzE

Click to expand...

Your perception is just that and it matters nought in the selection of a winner.

The ASPI article is quite a good summation of the pros and cons of each of the bidders but when it trails off into the realm of ASW Warfare it leaves some glaring holes.
The two most important elements in ASW are aircraft, fixed wing and rotary, which Messrs Davies and co covered despite resorting to computer games but the second equally, if not more important element is friendly submarines and one of the prime reasons for increasing SEA 1000 numbers to 12.
"Set a thief to catch a thief".

Meriv90 said:

Quoting myself you can read i have nothing against the F-5000 on the contrary as i wrote it is the most solid option.

It is just my perception that buying a ship from a company that looses 300-400 mln per year is highly risky and the same goes for an unproven design.


P.S. Aspi report is out on the race.

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2018-05/SI 131 Choosing Australia's next frigate.pdf?1vB8T7DDSTHcqxcbs.uvz4t9IoYtCEzE

Click to expand...

When looking at this it is important to note all three contenders are looking to set up an Australian entity building ships in an Australian government owned shipyard with IP being transferred. Even in the unlikely event that the Spanish government let Navantia go to the wall it does not necessarily hold that this will result in a consequential collapse of the process.

If Navantia viability was a problem it would have been identified earlier. Navantia has competed and won on a number of programs so it doesn't appear to be an issue for the AusGov either on a local build or overseas build.

They seem focused on the gadget itself.

But what does my head in, is then the OPV don't have a hangar (even a telescopic type), even though having that type of ship capable of embarking a proper helicopter to assist in a ASW screen would seem a very obvious and very cheap insurance and boost in capability. A future frigate with two, and a OPV with one would provide 3 helicopters which then gives a significant boost in capability over one or two. The sheer number of OPV's would mean they would likely be available for some sort of tasking if required. Having a hangar would also assist in many roles outside of ASW, useful as a OPV.

While the OPV are limited themselves, being able to operate a MH-60R in-conjunction with a future frigate or DDG would be a huge enabler. Even just from a training perspective. I would imagine future drones large enough to mount MH-60R type systems and weapons would also be useful.

I also love how our ASW ships will also feature aegis and we openly talk about mounting SM-6 and SM-3 on them. Like that isn't significant capability in its own right. There aren't many air focused destroyers and cruisers that mount SM-6 or SM-3 or that level of capability. Combining with Land/sea strike. SM-3 I think is some way off, throwing it in is a bit disingenuous.

As for the ASPI article:
The F-5000 is the cheapest? May have electric drive?
Given the lack of public information, it is pretty hard to make these statements and back up this analysis. On reflection, I think ASPI have opened a can of worms on some of their statements without providing actual evidence or sources. IMO they probably should have waited until after the announcement to clear themselves.

We won't have to wait long.. This Wed/Thurs is supposed to be the time of the announcement.

Edit: clarifying my comments re: ASPI.