TheRealist
Member
The realist in me says that the Spanish design is a no brainer. I could be wrong, but I'll be betting on Cantarbria.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Tide is a much bigger ship (even the 18a is fair wack bigger), hooks into UK operations and supply chain and is built by someone in the region and would seem to have smaller crewing requirements. We have done a fair amount of business with the Spanish and they are super keen. However comparing JP-5 fuel loads between the 18a and Canta are interesting given current thought bubbles.
Not surprised. That being said you could make a pretty capable frigate out of those pieces. Depends where they take it and how flexible the awd hull is at being reconfigured.
Hi all, I was watching the LHD discussion and promted to join the site. Look forward to getting back to that discussion in the future.
Just thought I would throw my 2-cents worth in here though.
Cantabria (19,500t) looks like Success (18,200t) and Tide (37,000t) looks like Sirius (46,700t). Basically it looks like everyone wins except ASC who get punished for being too slow with the AWD if I read DefMin right. (ASC were going to bid with Daewoo)
knightrider4
Active Member
Very sensible decision to use the AWD hull as the basis of the design. I'm sure associated updated machinary could be incorporated if peoples concern is a dated propulsion system??? The various flights of the AB's is a great example of how to use a common hull platform. Ive never understood why there is a need to reinvent the wheel every time a new class of ship is designed. As for the tankers, well if we struggle to build a relatively low risk design (AWD) then we have pretty much lost the right to expect the work. Good sensible decisions from what appears to be a sensible PM and his minister.
Looking at the raw data available online the Cantabria seems to have the edge in all areas except for personnel support, ie the extra berths and medical facilities on the Aegir 18.
At this point it would just make sense to go with the Spanish option as they are a known partner who can deliver the goods.
Also good news on the reuse of the F100 hull/design, I'm a fan of using the US approach and operating a single major surface combatant design(or as close to this as we can get). Plus the mention of 8, rather than 6 hulls.
At this point it would just make sense to go with the Spanish option as they are a known partner who can deliver the goods.
Also good news on the reuse of the F100 hull/design, I'm a fan of using the US approach and operating a single major surface combatant design(or as close to this as we can get). Plus the mention of 8, rather than 6 hulls.
There will likely be other benefits in choosing the Navantia/Cantabria class.
I imagine that there will be a benefits parts wise across AWD, LHD and replenishment ships - pumps, switchgear etc etc - making the spare parts pool common should be a saving as well. This should also translate into training schedules and maintenance.
MB
Nick underscore
Member
Great news for the RAN. This was expected to be announced soon.
Navantia should get the gig for Success and Sirius replacement. Agree with others on reusing the F100 baseline for the Future Frigates.
Any ideas on the steel hull proposal designs for the twenty pacific patrol boats? I hope we look at options with some organic growth and capability.. Numbers will be pared down anyway.
What are the long term plans with ADV Ocean Shield?
Navantia should get the gig for Success and Sirius replacement. Agree with others on reusing the F100 baseline for the Future Frigates.
Any ideas on the steel hull proposal designs for the twenty pacific patrol boats? I hope we look at options with some organic growth and capability.. Numbers will be pared down anyway.
What are the long term plans with ADV Ocean Shield?
Ironically the fabrication work done in Adelaide has been top notch, this is from overseas experts, BIW, ABS, Lloyds etc. Its the management if anything that has been the problem and that in turn is driven by the owners, the Commonwealth of Australia. So basically blokes doing a good job are being punished for the mistakes made by the owners in how they are going to do things.
ABC
"The Federal Government says Spain's Navantia and South Korea's Daewoo will compete for the tenders to replace HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius."
I would imagine that is one for the new whitepaper. I would imagine they would comeback to the idea of a common hull, but how that all fits together and numbers and capability will be interesting.
I would imagine that is one for the new whitepaper. I would imagine they would comeback to the idea of a common hull, but how that all fits together and numbers and capability will be interesting.
Is the 2 Spanish vs 3 South Korean ships for the same price still on the table?
Low risk? Far from it, it was high risk its just that successive governments lacked to understanding to realise that. Navantia also had issues with F105 relating to the deterioration of the supply chain during the GFC, if they, after building four near identical ships and another five derived ships struggled why is everyone so shocked that Australia has had issues with a greenfields ship yard?
In this era of technology to have 2 systems operated incorrectly and fail seems absurd. Things like that should surely require a specific override (i.e. to trigger a "this might be a bad idea" thought), and so to me sounds like a bit of a design oversight. This is especially true for the thrusters which should need nothing more than a software feature.
You just described the majority of industries/businesses, gov departments included.
The Pacific Class is the one we give away free to our Pacific neighbours. The interesting thing here is that we seem to be using that ship building exercise to get the steel hull skills necessary to provide the interim Armidale Class replacement before the OPV. The aluminium hulls inspired by the Bay Class have been a disaster and the interim replacement hull has been mandated - steel! Perhaps Austal are being offered a set of training wheels.
i
i
Nick underscore
Member
Cheers gf, I did notice that they mentioned Daewoo, but still believe this is going to Navantia for various reasons. Tender process at least will make it look fair. /cynical/
It should be a common hull. Hopefully the new white paper will also elaborate further as to the Huons and their replacement or maybe these are within the number, as per previous plan of the 20 OCV..
The government owes no one a good paying job. We live in a global economy today. Governments worldwide are deciding who they will subsidize. The governments don't mind subsidizing efficient proficient industries, but do mind when they aren't proficient. When it becomes cheaper for the government to put you on the dole than pay the subsidy, any sound government will choose to do so. The taxpayers demand this. Yes, it is better to subsidize and keep the money inside a nation, but there is a limit to the subsidy.
The government nationalised ASC in 2000 they are the owner and it is their (Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbott) fault, end of story.
Korea has a world leading shipbuilding industry because their government paid for it and supported it until it could stand on its own feet. If not for USN orders the majority of US shipyards would fall over, are you suggesting the US should buy their ships from Korea or maybe China or Vietnam who are cheaper again?
Successive Australian governments have spent billions reforming and rebuilding the shipbuilding industry only to see their successors kill it off through lack of work and then spent billions rebuilding it again, absolutely stupid.
In its short life (7 years) ASC shipbuilding has been established a separate company, reabsorbed into ASC submarines (with many of the experienced headhunted managers made redundant), control given over to Raytheon, had most of its senior mangers replaced and reshuffled and now looks to be separated out of ASC submarines again with new experienced shipbuilding managers to be head hunted, its a F**king merry-go-round!
How in gods name does anyone expect ships to be built with that sort of shite happening continually? Like I said government owned, government driven changes and cost cutting and the government blaming the company for the result.
Three years ago BEA (Tennix) were the worst shipbuilder in Australia, the quality of their work was shoddy and it was significantly behind schedule. As a private company determined to succeed they replaced some key personnel, recruited and trained additional staff and fixed the problems, they are now arguably the best shipbuilder in Australia. They basically did what ASC Shipbuilding did when they were set up in the first place and it worked, ASC on the other hand was forced to make cuts by its owner resulting in under performance. My team for instance was meant to have four people, it had one and then I left, I was replaced but my replacement has been moved on and no one knows what is happening now. The problem is national and international legislation says the work I was doing has to be done or the ships cant be accepted. I anticipate about a year before ship one is due to be handed over they will hire a team of a dozen and also contract an external agency and consultants (at ludicrous expense) to help complete what I was doing on my own for ship one and would have needed an extra person or two to help with ships two an three.
Again it is the governments fault, they make the decisions so they need to accept the blame. Interestingly ever one seems to forget Smith getting up and stretching the schedule to save money short term through more redundancies and a recruitment freeze, now its the company's fault when in fact it was government policy!
- Status