A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The point of buying the Bay is to get it asap...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
and our government is gonna spend another 100m+ it doesnt have to, to get it early?
It depends what it counts in the price, the 60 m pounds can be just the platform from the yard, with engines, propellers, lifts, and not other equipment. I paste:
"This seems a strong, safe choice–particularly if the ship can be purchased for nothing–However, my first pass at old articles suggests that the initial contract for Largs Bay clocked in at around $160 million pounds, so buying it now for $300 million Australian seems to be a bit high (if my numbers are off, do let me know). But the ship, commissioned in 2006, is relatively new and ready to operate with Australia’s brace of heavy-lift Chinooks (giving the platform the flexibility to accept the U.S. Marine Corps’ MV-22 as well). As a candidate for a hot transfer, the Largs Bay is positioned to fit seamlessly into the Australian Navy."
Or
"Garry
Largs Bay cost $488 million dollars (309 million pounds) to build in 2006. The current estimated purchase price is $300 million dollars. "
"This seems a strong, safe choice–particularly if the ship can be purchased for nothing–However, my first pass at old articles suggests that the initial contract for Largs Bay clocked in at around $160 million pounds, so buying it now for $300 million Australian seems to be a bit high (if my numbers are off, do let me know). But the ship, commissioned in 2006, is relatively new and ready to operate with Australia’s brace of heavy-lift Chinooks (giving the platform the flexibility to accept the U.S. Marine Corps’ MV-22 as well). As a candidate for a hot transfer, the Largs Bay is positioned to fit seamlessly into the Australian Navy."
Or
"Garry
Largs Bay cost $488 million dollars (309 million pounds) to build in 2006. The current estimated purchase price is $300 million dollars. "
Another link suggesting A$300 million... How many links do I have to link, this link sources the Sydney Morning Herald? While no sale or lease has been finalized, A$300 million is probably in the neighborhood for the RFA Largs Bay...
DC International - Australia Views RFA Largs Bay
I have yet to see anyone link 60 million pounds....
DC International - Australia Views RFA Largs Bay
I have yet to see anyone link 60 million pounds....
JoeMcFriday
New Member
300mAUD is about 186m GBP at the moment, a far cry from the original contracted total cost for 4 Bay Class which was 300m GBP. ie 75m GBP each [c2000AD].
Whether the Largs Bay represents value for money [at whatever the final offer is] depends on the needs of the purchaser and I doubt that the publicity surrounding our 'urgent' sealift needs has helped reduce the asking price to oft mentioned "fire sale" level.
Trying to work out what the British project should have cost, compared to an unproblematical new build, is next to impossible for a layman. I'm hopeful the RAN would have a good idea on that figure though.
The article linked below lists many problems/costs which more reflect ineptitude on the lead shipyard than the build costs at BAE. Even so, BAE added millions to their final costs due to delays from Swan Hunter.
Navy Matters | LSD(A)
Both ships built at Swans had problems, Largs was launched in 2003 and much delayed in finishing. The Swan Hunter yard closed down after her sister ship [Lyme Bay] was removed to BAE for finishing.
The Brits were lucky in that they had two yards building the same class, some Bays may have joined Nimrod. What did the ships cost the Brits? A whole lot more than they should have!
When it comes to what Australia should pay, providing the ship is squared away, none of the above means anything really. What counts is the need of the purchaser, compounded by the time constraints of any alternative to servicing that need. Both have varying dollar values. The more pressing the need, the higher the asking price, usually.
A Bay Class, new or a used, can fulfill the capability part of the need therefore, as AD has suggested, time is a major factor.
Can we afford to wait to build one or what will/could it cost us if we don't have the capability in the meantime? This is the crucial equation [IMO] that will determine how much we're prepared to pay, not the murky and obscure build costs of the original project.
I doubt anyone in the public domain has any real idea of the price being negotiated, I just hope it's good value for money.
Cheers,
Mac
Whether the Largs Bay represents value for money [at whatever the final offer is] depends on the needs of the purchaser and I doubt that the publicity surrounding our 'urgent' sealift needs has helped reduce the asking price to oft mentioned "fire sale" level.
Trying to work out what the British project should have cost, compared to an unproblematical new build, is next to impossible for a layman. I'm hopeful the RAN would have a good idea on that figure though.
The article linked below lists many problems/costs which more reflect ineptitude on the lead shipyard than the build costs at BAE. Even so, BAE added millions to their final costs due to delays from Swan Hunter.
Navy Matters | LSD(A)
Both ships built at Swans had problems, Largs was launched in 2003 and much delayed in finishing. The Swan Hunter yard closed down after her sister ship [Lyme Bay] was removed to BAE for finishing.
The Brits were lucky in that they had two yards building the same class, some Bays may have joined Nimrod. What did the ships cost the Brits? A whole lot more than they should have!
When it comes to what Australia should pay, providing the ship is squared away, none of the above means anything really. What counts is the need of the purchaser, compounded by the time constraints of any alternative to servicing that need. Both have varying dollar values. The more pressing the need, the higher the asking price, usually.
A Bay Class, new or a used, can fulfill the capability part of the need therefore, as AD has suggested, time is a major factor.
Can we afford to wait to build one or what will/could it cost us if we don't have the capability in the meantime? This is the crucial equation [IMO] that will determine how much we're prepared to pay, not the murky and obscure build costs of the original project.
I doubt anyone in the public domain has any real idea of the price being negotiated, I just hope it's good value for money.
Cheers,
Mac
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5,066
YouTube - 2011 LHD Launch (Full Cut Version)
Very Very nice walk around
Very Very nice walk around
The total cost for FOUR ships, including all the cost overruns, e.g. propping up Swan Hunter for a few years when it had no other business & would have had to close leaving two ships incomplete if not supported, was £596 mn. £280 mn of that was paid to Swan Hunter to build two ships, & £132 mn was extra costs at BAe, mostly due to delays & failures at Swan Hunter, e.g. having to complete Lyme Bay.
Including cost overruns, yard support, etc., costs for building Lyme Bay & Largs Bay were probably somewhere between £340 mn & £410 mn, & Lyme Bay probably accounts for over half of that. £309 mn comes from Richard Beedall's site, & refers to a November 2005 figure for the combined costs of both Swan Hunter built ships, not Largs Bay alone.
What you're doing is, in effect, repeating the same link over & over again. If I tell ten people something, & they repeat it, I'm still the only source. Listing the ten people who've repeated it does not increase its credibility.
BTW, two of your last three posted links don't work.
£122 mn was the contract price for the two BAe-built ships. There were also costs at Swan Hunter for those builds, for design data & some equipment, so £122 mn/2 is actually a bit less than the contracted for build cost, but it's hard to say exactly how much less.
AUD300 million is more than the average price of all four ships, & we know that includes a lot of avoidable waste, e.g. yard support costs for Swan Hunter, because out taxes were paying to keep the yard open when it was running at way below capacity. There's no basis for it at all.
The range of possible build costs is between £61 mn (contracted for build price at BAe) & £149 mn (total cost including excess, much of which would be easily avoidable as long as you don't let your choice of builders be purely political). Anything more is invention.
If Largs was $350 million and another new build LHD was $800 million both were affordable what should the RAN choose? Also a large percentage would be spent within Australia on fitout supporting Australian industry and its economy.
While largs is quiet capable, the LHD is in another leage. $350 is a lot of money, Nativia might be able to build us something (Galacia, mini LHD or LHD) with that money.
While it wouldn't be inservice tomorrow, it would be new build, proberly more capable, exactly meeting Australian requirements (Largs would still need minor modifications anyway for the RAN hanger etc).
In the intrim Australia could lease a ferry/roro etc until something decent is finished. Even if the RAN had a ship, how are our helos going? What about our landing craft?
If the UK is going to dick around on price, then fine, the RAN has other options, its not a ransom situation. They can then palm it off the the Canadians or something. Buying the only ship to come out of a yard before it closed and its follow on was finished at another yard seems like a can of worms. While new, its not like Australia was able to supervise the build etc.
While largs is quiet capable, the LHD is in another leage. $350 is a lot of money, Nativia might be able to build us something (Galacia, mini LHD or LHD) with that money.
While it wouldn't be inservice tomorrow, it would be new build, proberly more capable, exactly meeting Australian requirements (Largs would still need minor modifications anyway for the RAN hanger etc).
In the intrim Australia could lease a ferry/roro etc until something decent is finished. Even if the RAN had a ship, how are our helos going? What about our landing craft?
If the UK is going to dick around on price, then fine, the RAN has other options, its not a ransom situation. They can then palm it off the the Canadians or something. Buying the only ship to come out of a yard before it closed and its follow on was finished at another yard seems like a can of worms. While new, its not like Australia was able to supervise the build etc.
It depends, politically the Government and Defmin have dug themselves into a bit of a hole with this situation and point scoring, so a lot of the decision process will now be guided by public opinion and not what is the right thing to do
Largs Bay fits the requirement nicely compared to the white paper but will it be value for money compared to either building a new Bay or a new Galicia class ? Not really much difference between them and can we survive with the Canterbury and a leased RO/RO until then ?
There is currently a lot of reoprting in Spain as to the future of many of the workers at Ferrol as the work is basically drying up and IIRC one report stated that up to 1500 jobs are at stake ? with no new contracts in sight. It might make for a good price on a Galicia or if the price is right maybe a baby LHD ? Although it comes in at 190m and 21,000t could it be a viable option adding much more capability and flexibility to the RAN and ADF as a whole ?
Productos de Navantia
Blas de Lezo
Member
Before the BPE project came about Navantia (IZAR then) had a hole family of boats based on the Galicia class but flat tops, 8000 to 12000 tons, they where offered to Chile at the time 2005. If 21000 tons is a bit much for a third LHD, how about something like this? As somebody said on a previous post when you order new should be tailored to your needs.It depends, politically the Government and Defmin have dug themselves into a bit of a hole with this situation and point scoring, so a lot of the decision process will now be guided by public opinion and not what is the right thing to do
Largs Bay fits the requirement nicely compared to the white paper but will it be value for money compared to either building a new Bay or a new Galicia class ? Not really much difference between them and can we survive with the Canterbury and a leased RO/RO until then ?
There is currently a lot of reoprting in Spain as to the future of many of the workers at Ferrol as the work is basically drying up and IIRC one report stated that up to 1500 jobs are at stake ? with no new contracts in sight. It might make for a good price on a Galicia or if the price is right maybe a baby LHD ? Although it comes in at 190m and 21,000t could it be a viable option adding much more capability and flexibility to the RAN and ADF as a whole ?
Productos de Navantia
8000 tons
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9139/lhde.jpg
12000 tons
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/11/aragonl61.jpg
No pods, are based on the Galicia
Last edited:
feed back
I thought you guys would like to know that Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine has several articles upon Australian military developments in it’s February 21, issue with only one of the shorter articles posted on their websight. The articles were less critical than you guys seem to be, about military procurement in Australia. You might be interested in reading them. Do not flame me if you disagree with them, I don’t have a dog in this fight I am just interested in how you guys see it.
In the USA; AW&ST is considered the gold standard in their reporting of all associated aerospace matters, and has great influence throughout the world. When I was in Australia I didn’t see AW&ST for sale and only found it in the Sydney main library where it was only available on a J subscription basses, which it was like three month out of date, so I do not know if you can get access. I would like your input if you think the article was fair and accurate.
I thought you guys would like to know that Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine has several articles upon Australian military developments in it’s February 21, issue with only one of the shorter articles posted on their websight. The articles were less critical than you guys seem to be, about military procurement in Australia. You might be interested in reading them. Do not flame me if you disagree with them, I don’t have a dog in this fight I am just interested in how you guys see it.
In the USA; AW&ST is considered the gold standard in their reporting of all associated aerospace matters, and has great influence throughout the world. When I was in Australia I didn’t see AW&ST for sale and only found it in the Sydney main library where it was only available on a J subscription basses, which it was like three month out of date, so I do not know if you can get access. I would like your input if you think the article was fair and accurate.
Thanks for the pics, interesting concept, the main requirement for the Sealift ship is ongoing sustainment of the LHD's and deployed forces, so as long as it can do this the addition of the flat top would be handy, no real need for the ski ramp but the extra space would be very handy for Vertrep and additional troop landings etc. Assuming we have enough helo's of course
Are you also hearing the reports of possible job losses at Navantia ? I understand at this stage they are only talking about Ferrol ? As the other yard has enough work for now
Don't know about the skijump, but as a flat top maybe. Seems a bit small. Interesting tho.
We would want atleast as much capability as a Bay. We can afford a bay, we just want better value (either same price more capability, or less price same capability).
Honestly if we can afford a 3rd LHD I think we would be silly to pass it up (either full sized or mini). If we can get a new build Galacia class for the same money, then we need to weigh up if we should short lease something and get that or buy a Bay.
There are options, lease/buy a Foudre for example as it was offered to Argentine(2010) recently. 12,000 ton it should still be a reasonably capable ship. (450 troop, surge 900, 4 helos with hanger etc).
We would want atleast as much capability as a Bay. We can afford a bay, we just want better value (either same price more capability, or less price same capability).
Honestly if we can afford a 3rd LHD I think we would be silly to pass it up (either full sized or mini). If we can get a new build Galacia class for the same money, then we need to weigh up if we should short lease something and get that or buy a Bay.
There are options, lease/buy a Foudre for example as it was offered to Argentine(2010) recently. 12,000 ton it should still be a reasonably capable ship. (450 troop, surge 900, 4 helos with hanger etc).
Blas de Lezo
Member
The problem at this time is only at Ferrol, the other yards have plenty of work at this time. San Fernando( Cadiz) with the BAMs for Spain ( I think they have launched the fourth of a required series of twelve) and the Venezuelan OPVs ( I think they have launched the third). Cartagena has their hands full with the S80´s and the Scorpenes.Thanks for the pics, interesting concept, the main requirement for the Sealift ship is ongoing sustainment of the LHD's and deployed forces, so as long as it can do this the addition of the flat top would be handy, no real need for the ski ramp but the extra space would be very handy for Vertrep and additional troop landings etc. Assuming we have enough helo's of course
Are you also hearing the reports of possible job losses at Navantia ? I understand at this stage they are only talking about Ferrol ? As the other yard has enough work for now
Ferrol needs something and Navantia is involved at the moment with some 43 tenders around the world, from the AOR´s for Canada (where a modified CANTABRIA is finalist together with a modified BERLIN class) to Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia and many others.
The problem is not critical but it will get worrying by the end of this year for an approximately fourth of Navantia´s work force at Ferrol.
The crisis is also delaying decision and founding for the next generation of Spanish multi-porpoise frigates although concept drawings are already on the table.
It might be the best of times to negotiate something with Navantia, They would welcome a project to keep some of the Ferrol workshops busy for a year.
Blas de Lezo
Member
IMO I think you will get a good price for the Bays they need to sell the them more than you need to buy the Bays, As you say I think your options are better.
Really this is a rather silly discussion as few of here are actually involved in the negoitations, and those that are would be silly to post about it.
I think we will end up with a Bay, should be for a good price, if not a Bay, then a Foudre (which is very simular in capability if anything fits our requirements even closer). Or a Galacia class. Win either way.
I think we will end up with a Bay, should be for a good price, if not a Bay, then a Foudre (which is very simular in capability if anything fits our requirements even closer). Or a Galacia class. Win either way.
The bottom line is value for money and the decision at that point means that external agencies such as DOFD also get their 2 bobs worth in.
Fundamentally the govt would look at the $350m ship and ask whether RAN could establish $450m worth of risk in defence of purchasing the more expensive asset
the evaluation includes through life support, raise train sustain costs, platform life upgrades, deep cycle maint costs etc....
is there $450m worth of mitigation costs to provide capability equivalency? DOFD and their Minister would probably say yes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
separate response:
and for goodness sake, we will not be buying extra new spanish ships - that's not even on the radar
Are you sure about that ? I heard a really good buzz that the S-80........
- Status