Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

I think the comments on the Type 26 in the article are absurd speculation - plus, they can't even spell "superb" apparently. There's nothing, zip, zilch, nada known about the warm water performance of the Type 26, and I'm going to do with the idea that they are conflating the Type 45's issues with the Type 26 here. Neither are there any hints that the ships will have any issues maintaining speed. Yes, it'd be a lot better if we'd built a bunch of them already but most of the points in that article range from speculation to "making stuff up"

It's hard to say because they don't identify any source or reference or explain how. It does seem like speculation or conflating/confusing Type 45 issues. But they published it anyway.

However, when looking at some specs, it seemed like the Type 26 may have a lower advertised or designed top speed than the other ships. But I would hardly think that is a significant issue or even a real issue as things like top speed area rarely actual top speeds and these days many just publish 26+kt or 30+kt and who knows what limitations there are with that anyway (noise, range, heat, electrical, etc).

I do think the Type 26 biggest problem is that they aren't building many and it isn't currently in the water. The UK (as well as other western nations) don't seem to have the same urgency. There seems to be tremendous urgency and unwavering bi-partisan commitment to defense in Australia. From Australia's perspective the UK might as well be India or Canada, off in their own world. Numbers and capability cuts all over the place, changes, time frames seem very leisurely and funding seems, disappearing and non-priority. Throw in no one seems to have a proper long term plan with brexit, or even consistency within the government, budget holes, UK is starting to look pretty flakey. Even trade talk seems to come back negative (oh the welsh sheep farmers!) or ambiguous.

Italy and Spain seem pretty focused, even though economically they seem to be under much greater pressure.

There has been some stories published about doubts regarding contingency funding for the ship building, and planed start date for steel being 2020. Pyne has shot both stories down. I think BAE wanting to push the build start date out told everyone where they are in the process. Meanwhile in Australia, I am sure some would like the build date moved further forward than 2020, like Q4 2018.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The F-5000 is becoming more and more the obvious choice.

The British only have themselves to blame for dawdling along with this project. It may eventually cost them a sale to Australia and of course they have already been rejected by the Americans. A little more urgency in getting the type 26 project up and running and it might have been a different story.

They, MoD only signed up in 2017!. After cutting numbers!

The whole reason why the yanks are going for an existing design is because they needs it ASAP. Same as Australia. The US is fully capable of designing a ship from scratch, but things need to get rolling now. I would have thought the MoD would have been keener with Canada, Australia and the US looking for designs.

I still wouldn't write them out yet, after all the first French sub has yet to hit the water. Anything is possible

 

[TheRealist]

I'll bet my left baby maker that the F-5000 gets the nod. If this happens and with it looking like it will be a bigger, better version of the AWD, at what point do we start calling the F-5000 a Destroyer?

 

[Meriv90]

Arent you worried by Navantia economic performance? Last year it lost 300+ mln and it has been like this since a decade

Spanish government had to inject 500mln to save it.

Sooner or later some other European country will call it "state help" and the spanish goverment will have its hands tied.

 

[Todjaeger]

Arent you worried by Navantia economic performance? Last year it lost 300+ mln and it has been like this since a decade
Spanish government had to inject 500mln to save it.

Sooner or later some other European country will call it "state help" and the spanish goverment will have its hands tied.

What does Navantia's economic performance have to do with (or even be a concern of) the RAN?

Australia used a Navantia design for the Hobart-class AWD, is having two replenishment oilers built as well having built the two LHD's, and might be the source of the Future Frigate design.

Unless something happens to Navantia so that the two oilers cannot be completed, I do not imagine that Navantia's economic position makes much difference one way or another to the RAN.

 

[ASSAIL]

Arent you worried by Navantia economic performance? Last year it lost 300+ mln and it has been like this since a decade

Spanish government had to inject 500mln to save it.

Sooner or later some other European country will call it "state help" and the spanish goverment will have its hands tied.

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.

 

[spoz]

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.

 

[ngatimozart]

u can be sure this will be a MAJOR consideration as it drives behaviour and costs in the sustainment phase

its a 2 horse race fremm and t26 with t26 the front runner degraded by its own government such that fremm has to be the winner with t26 a runner up but still a possibility if the risk appetite is higher lets not forget the navantia option has already failed an evaluation

And what evaluation was that?

 

[ngatimozart]

The Australian Naval Graves Project looks after sailors war graves from the pre 1914 era.

The Naval Graves Project is a volunteer group that researches, locates, photographs & if possible tends the last resting place of sailors of the Royal Navy, Australian Colonial Navies, Commonwealth Naval Forces & the Royal Australian Navy pre 1914. The volunteer group has grown in membership and is looking out for all naval graves within Australian territory.

If people are able to help contact details and more info in the link below.

Naval Graves Project – The Australian Naval Institute

 

[alexsa]

u can be sure this will be a MAJOR consideration as it drives behaviour and costs in the sustainment phase

its a 2 horse race fremm and t26 with t26 the front runner degraded by its own government such that fremm has to be the winner with t26 a runner up but still a possibility if the risk appetite is higher lets not forget the navantia option has already failed an evaluation

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.

 

[ASSAIL]

i can assure u might and maybe dont apply in corporate financial risk assessments

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.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

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.

 

[MrConservative]

as to the risk treatments you espouse they are largely phohibited by EU rules also on the internet so no exclusive insight at all

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.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

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.

 

[ngatimozart]

so you concede absolutely that the CoA will look at Navantia financial viability? once you do that we will adress the EU state subsidy regulations

Cast your mind back to when Navantia was paid to explore the sole source option

well as to whether this stuff is considered that is on the Aus DoD internet and it is took me 5 minutes to find it as to the risk treatments you espouse they are largely phohibited by EU rules also on the internet so no exclusive insight at all

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.

 

[hauritz]

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.

 

[MrConservative]

so you concede absolutely that the CoA will look at Navantia financial viability? once you do that we will adress the EU state subsidy regulations

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.

 

[John Fedup]

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

 

[Meriv90]

[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?

 

[76mmGuns]

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.