The Spanish Navy - Armada Española

[contedicavour]

If Uk and France collaborate for a joint "aircraft carrier" i think that all is possible

For the new LPDH/LHD :
IMO it would be cheaper and faster to build an extended Santi LPD class with some features taken from the Cavour design.
The Santi are cheap after all and with plenty of civilian standards adopted, proof we can build cheap for ships which are not combat ships after all.

For the new carrier supposed to replace Garibaldi :
A 2nd Cavour might cost less than a joint design with Spain, unless miraculously the 2 navies align all specifications.

cheers

 

[Gladius]

How much does S-80 cost?

The cost approved by the Cabinet for the S-80 Program (4 AIP SSKs) was of 1759,9 Million €.

 

[European]

The cost approved by the Cabinet for the S-80 Program (4 AIP SSKs) was of 1759,9 Million €.

Italy just payed for each U121A something like 500 milions €. The first U212A named 'S. Todaro' is in service since April 2006 and the next one is ready to take service.

Spain will build in the future a more modern and bigger submarine less than 450 millions€ ???


It sounds strange for me.

 

[turin]

Italy just payed for each U121A something like 500 milions €. The first U212A named 'S. Todaro' is in service since April 2006 and the next one is ready to take service.

Spain will build in the future a more modern and bigger submarine less than 450 millions€ ???


It sounds strange for me.

The german government paid something along the lines of 450 Million Euros for 4 U-212A and that included R&D. I can imagine that the S-80 safes a good part of R&D, since its based on the Scorpene design.

 

[contedicavour]

The german government paid something along the lines of 450 Million Euros for 4 U-212A and that included R&D. I can imagine that the S-80 safes a good part of R&D, since its based on the Scorpene design.

I'm very surprised by your numbers. I've always read that unitary cost of U212A excluding R&D is more in the order of 280-300 mln euro.
If indeed your numbers were correct unitary cost excl R&D for U212A in Germany would be below 100 mln euro, ie approx the cost of a big OPVH without SSM or SAM or ASW. That's simply impossible.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Italy just payed for each U121A something like 500 milions €. The first U212A named 'S. Todaro' is in service since April 2006 and the next one is ready to take service.

Spain will build in the future a more modern and bigger submarine less than 450 millions€ ???


It sounds strange for me.

The 2nd batch (3rd and 4th U212A) should not cost more than 800 mln euro, so the unitary cost without R&D is probably closer to 400 mln apiece.

cheers

 

[santi]

Spain will build in the future a more modern and bigger submarine less than 450 millions€ ???

That's the cost approved by the cabinet 3 years ago. Would be a miracle that 1750 milion € were enough

4 F-100 was quoted at 425 million € each at the beginning, the final cost is about 550 million €. I will be surprised if every S-80 cost less than 600 million €.

I can imagine that the S-80 safes a good part of R&D, since its based on the Scorpene design.

Hydrodynamics of the S-80 will be nearly identical to that of Scorpene, although the ship is 30-40 % bigger. Internally it will be quite different (propulsion, AIP system, combat system…). The great risk would be in the AIP system, based in a completely new ethanol reformer and fuel-cells from an USA builder.

Regards

 

[Gladius]

Santi, the budgets approved for any program all are planned over the predicted cost of actuations, the designs and the monetary situation at the time of sign of the contract.
Obviously all program of any country with a payment calendar extended on a large time period, like we have in Spain, must be actualized with the inflation changes and if there are credits involved (again like we have in Spain with many Defence Programs) with the interest rates for them. Plus, we have to pay any changes or design modifications decided after the sign of the contract.

But any modification or actualization of the payments must be announced as were done the last November with the increments of payment compromises (2007-2025) on the programs: Leopard, Pizarro, F-100, EF-2000, Tigre, & Iris-T. We have the spanish figures, but we have the approved by different governments? I don't have the majority. Do you have them?

Talking of the cost of a program, is usually referred to the signed figures because those were the payments accorded with the contractors and published by the media. If you want compare figures of an "X" program with those of the "Y" program take all at the same level. The two figures signed in the contracts or the two global payments figures, but better would be that we don't mix the figures when we talk about them or we will confuse the arguments.

Hydrodynamics of the S-80 will be nearly identical to that of Scorpene, although the ship is 30-40 % bigger. Internally it will be quite different (propulsion, AIP system, combat system…). The great risk would be in the AIP system, based in a completely new ethanol reformer and fuel-cells from an USA builder.

Ummm, but AFAIK the AIP selected to be fitted on the S-80s is the Fuel-Cell System of Abengoa (A Spanish Company). In that case why you said that is "from an USA builder". Any info about new changes decided on the AIP Chapter?

 

[Mangusta CBT]

http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/article_default_view.fcm?articleid=13042&subsite=420

 

[Gladius]

Thank you, but I was referring to the selected design, that is:

Has been discarded the Abengoa's design in favor of the UTC design?

The UTC Power product is the Navantia's favorite, but the Spanish Navy maintain the preference for the Abengoa's design. It this don't change the AIP would be from Abengoa. IIRC this is one of the reasons for the last delay (and 145 Million € added) of the S-80 program. However AFAIK the question remained unresolved at the moment with Navantia testing the UTC product.

My last info over this question was the article published yesterday by the economy and bussines newspaper Cinco Dias. Is the article wrong about that?

...

El retraso tiene que ver, por ejemplo, con la adjudicación del sistema de propulsión independiente del aire (anaeróbico) con el que irán equipados los submarinos, basado en células de combustible que funcionarán con hidrógeno. En este punto, la Armada apoya la investigación que desarrolla Hynergreen (Abengoa), mientras Navantia prueba una célula diseñada por la estadounidense UTC Power.

....

Translation:

"The delay has to see, for example, with the adjudication of the air independent propulsion system (anaerobic) that will be equipped the submarines, based on fuel-cells that will function with hydrogen. On this point, the Spanish Navy supports the investigation that develops Hynergreen (Abengoa), while Navantia tests a cell designed by the American one UTC Power."

 

[Ligreton]

Hola,
I was sure that the fuel cells were for UTC and the reformer for Abengoa, but, if this new is from yesterday, now i have the doubt...


Why Navantia prefers the UTC's design and the Armada prefers Abengoa??

 

[santi]

Talking of the cost of a program, is usually referred to the signed figures because those were the payments accorded with the contractors and published by the media. If you want compare figures of an "X" program with those of the "Y" program take all at the same level. The two figures signed in the contracts or the two global payments figures, but better would be that we don't mix the figures when we talk about them or we will confuse the arguments

.

Of course, but the case is that official figures are sometimes far away from the "real", including (or not) different concepts (development of some items may be included in other projects). Seldom, is easy to know the figures first accorded but no so easy to know the additional investment made along the life of the program.

You know that the first four F-100 was officially quoted at 435 million € each, but the fifth is near 750 million. Too much inflation I think (yes, I know that some additional development is included, but…).

F-35 were publicised two or three years ago in a range from 35-55 million $ dependant of the version. Some partners are actually envisaging a cost around 100 million $ a piece or more (for the simplest "A" version). May be are concepts included not considered in the ancient figures but, at last, is money you will must to pay….

It would be better don’t mix the figures, but in the real world can be so wrong take only one kind of figures like mix different fonts not preventing the nature of everyone.

Regards

 

[Gladius]

You know that the first four F-100 was officially quoted at 435 million € each, but the fifth is near 750 million. Too much inflation I think (yes, I know that some additional development is included, but…).

No Santi, the cost approved for the 5th F-100 include the modernization of the previous frigates to the standard planned for the F-105, and the cost of the design modifications ordered by the Navy for the F-105, not only inflation revisions or development inversions. That is, the modernization to SPY-1D(V) and upgrade the AEGIS Combat System to Baseline 7 Phase II (Approved by the Cabinet in December 2004), integration of the ESSM, integration of a unnamed Cruise Missile weapon system (Tomahawk if we trust in the AJEMA - Admiral Zaragoza Soto), an upgrade to our Harpoons, etc... Also the integration of the system, the exercises for system calibration with the US-Navy and some purchases of reserve gadgets like an additional 127mm Mk-45 Mod 1 were included in the budget package of the F-105.

It would be better don’t mix the figures, but in the real world can be so wrong take only one kind of figures like mix different fonts not preventing the nature of everyone.

Yeah, but to said it in our mother language: Si lo hacemos, y mezclamos las cifras vamos a terminar armándonos un lío del copón.

Many defence programs on many countries only publish in the Media the initial figures (I.E. take a peek on some French programs and the discrepant figures on the Budgets). Compare the projected prices of some ships/vehicles/weaponry with the final cost of others may result on distorted perceptions. Yeah, the best situation would be that we had the final figures for all but normally that is not the situation on a public forum.

The variations suffered between the cost approved and final price paid at the end by many programs are in occasions huge. A recent example of this are the Australian SH-2G, but different countries without the special requirements for them paid the signed cost only (Egypt, Poland, etc...) Is the platform more expensive, in truth no, but the special requirements, gadgets and mods wanted and problems have raised the cost of the Australian program out of every forecast. Would be right use as price reference for the SH-2G Seasprite the final figures of the SH-2G (A) Program? I don't think so.

About the JSF, buff... My only wish is a not repeat of the case RAH-66 Comanche.

 

[contedicavour]

No Santi, the cost approved for the 5th F-100 include the modernization of the previous frigates to the standard planned for the F-105, and the cost of the design modifications ordered by the Navy for the F-105, not only inflation revisions or development inversions. That is, the modernization to SPY-1D(V) and upgrade the AEGIS Combat System to Baseline 7 Phase II (Approved by the Cabinet in December 2004), integration of the ESSM, integration of a unnamed Cruise Missile weapon system (Tomahawk if we trust in the AJEMA - Admiral Zaragoza Soto), an upgrade to our Harpoons, etc... Also the integration of the system, the exercises for system calibration with the US-Navy and some purchases of reserve gadgets like an additional 127mm Mk-45 Mod 1 were included in the budget package of the F-105.
.

Wow, if the F100s carry Tomahawks they will gain amazing potential previously more limited towards AAW.
I'm just praying that our FREMM will get the Scalp Naval...

cheers

 

[santi]

No Santi, the cost approved for the 5th F-100 include the modernization of the previous frigates to the standard planned for the F-105, and the cost of the design modifications ordered by the Navy for the F-105, not only inflation revisions or development inversions

Sorry, Gladius. I think you are mistaken. The modernization of the F-101/104 are, may be, software actualizations but not carry them to SPY-1D(V) standard. "Victor" is nearly a "new system" compared with "Delta", not an easy actualization.
What is included in the F-105 cost is some developments like the integration of the new SCOMBA combat system, more automation, upgraded Aldebaran MAE, and so. That development would be discounted in a possible F-106, being slightly cheaper than F-105, but F-106 isn’t approved at the moment....

Un placer debatir contigo Gladius
Saludos

 

[Gladius]

Sorry, Gladius. I think you are mistaken. The modernization of the F-101/104 are, may be, software actualizations but not carry them to SPY-1D(V) standard. "Victor" is nearly a "new system" compared with "Delta", not an easy actualization.

But Santi, the Baseline VII Phase II include AFAIK the upgrade of the SPY-1D to the (V) standard for litoral warfare. And by the 85 Million US$ approved only for this upgrade, the program can't be limited to software updates.

Un placer debatir contigo Gladius

Igualmente.

 

[santi]

Some well informed guys in spanish forums are clear in that point: SPY-1D in F-101/104 will be periodically actualised but NOT to "Victor" Standard, at least in years....
An upgrade to "Victor" supposes a lot of expensive changes in a system only one to four years old!!!! and really efficient, may be less than "Victor" but really, really efficient.
85 million $ (70 million €) for 4 ships is not a small quantity, sure, but not enough to upgrade 4 SPY-1D to SPY-1D(V)

Regards

 

[Gladius]

Mmmm, perhaps.

But if upgrade to SPY-1D(V) 3 Burkes and 1 Kongo, hardware included (SPY transmisors, 3 Mk-99 each, etc...) cost 138 million US$ (data 2004*) only .

On that case, where will go those millions, only on software chapter? Because all the money was planned to go on the update to Phase II. Well the popes will knows...

Thank you for the correction.

*When our Cabined approved the funds for the F-100 upgrade.

 

[santi]

Well, like you said before, it's not only for "software actualisation of SPY-1d" but also adaptation to use ESSM and TLAM. It seems that an upgrade to the Aldebaran system is also feasible. Other hardware that are now incorporating all the ships are Tecnobit optronic masts, althought I don't know if that is included in the quantity you speak about.

Saludos

 

[alexsa]

If none of the real Spanish speakers (such as you) are available, & anyone wants something explained, I'm happy to have a go at a translation. Just don't expect perfection.

Please do

Cheers
Alex