Requests For Tender for $2 Billion Amphibious Ships Released

Ok let me just clear something up here:

We had a requirement to replace HMAS Tobruk with a new LPD, this ship will be of a similar standard to the two LHD’s and have a twin helo spot aft, and a heavy troop-lift capability.

The two LHD’s are to replace the LPA’s HMAS’s Kanimbla and Manoora, one in 2012 and the other in 2015. The new LPD is expected on line in 2017 by which time HMAS Tobruk will certainly need replacing.

The original concept was for the winning bidder of the LHD concept to also build the LPD, so does Navantia and Amaris have an adaptable LPD design based on te LHD’s they have offered?

The Rotterdam class is very impressive but from what I can gather, it is a little too small for what we need (go figure). The real reason, it think, is that the winner of the LHD contract must also offer the LPD design with a discount for all three ships.

Why not look at the Dutch Rotterdam LPD, with similar ships built for Spain and the UK they seem an effective and economical LPD design, with much of the equipment and construction using established and low risk commercial techniques and off the shelf machinery.

Thanks TW, I have seen those two pics before, though not that big and the layout drawing is very interesting.

What gets me is the fact that we all seem to be focused on the two LHD’s and no one is looking at the LPD that will be ordered at the same time to replace HMAS Tobruk (the LHD’s replacing HMAS’s Kanimbla and Manoora).

It might even be a case of the LHD’s going to the Spanish Aussie team and the LPD going to the French Aussie team, though this does seem unlikely, due to the requirement that they share a commonality for parts and service. My point, does Navantia have a designed LPD based on the LHD? For that matter does Amaris?

Oh, I didn’t realize that the RAN also had a requirement for 2-LPD’s in addition to the forthcome 2-LHD’s? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to have one design with four LPH’s instead………………….. :rolleyes:

Thanks TW, I have seen those two pics before, though not that big and the layout drawing is very interesting.

What gets me is the fact that we all seem to be focused on the two LHD’s and no one is looking at the LPD that will be ordered at the same time to replace HMAS Tobruk (the LHD’s replacing HMAS’s Kanimbla and Manoora).

It might even be a case of the LHD’s going to the Spanish Aussie team and the LPD going to the French Aussie team, though this does seem unlikely, due to the requirement that they share a commonality for parts and service. My point, does Navantia have a designed LPD based on the LHD? For that matter does Amaris?

I was trying to find info and pics on the Indonesian LPD’s, I know one is KRI Dalpele 972, but I can’t find anything at all and Naval-Technology’s gap ibetween what they have posted and what is out there is just growing bigger and bigger. might have to fire off another email, I have offered to help them but I have always gotten nowhere.

There have been reports of additional LPDs on order, but I haven’t seen any details. All I can offer is the drawing and two pictures.

Does anyone have any dimensions or specs?

I was trying to find info and pics on the Indonesian LPD’s, I know one is KRI Dalpele 972, but I can’t find anything at all and Naval-Technology’s gap ibetween what they have posted and what is out there is just growing bigger and bigger. might have to fire off another email, I have offered to help them but I have always gotten nowhere.

Always time for a good picture!

So that is why captains say they have more confidence in 10-year old Japanese ships than they have in a 3-year old Korean one? However, what you say is true in the way that they pay for low stuff and get low stuff. First they went to Japan, excellent ships and low on cost due to low manpower costs. Then Korea was cheaper, again quality sinking, now China is cheapest…

But again, as Wanshan mentioned, we’re talking warships. Any idea if Korea already has built warships for export before? And if so, which ones? Wanshan, you should at least know that (I’m sure of it).

AFAIK the South Koreans have exported 1 OPV (Musytari class), and 1 Multirole support ship (Sri Indera Sakti class) to Malaysia, in both cases with a second of class built in Malaysia. Also FAC/FPBs (‘Patrol Ship Killer—Missiles’/PSK-Mk5 Mandau class PGM) and Tacoma landing ship tank (Teluk Semangka class) to Indonesia. Most recently an 2300 ton DW 2000 (Ulsan class based) helicopter capable frigate and gun armed patrol boats to Bangladesh (100 million U.S. dollars, paid by Saudi Arabia). IIRC there were system integration problems with the latter, leading to the ship initially being refused by the client. The South Koreans fixed the problems and she’s now in service with BN. They’ve also exported ex-ROK navy ships to Phillippines (5-12 Sea Hawk class small patrol boats)

The customer is usually to blame when these things happen, but it is true yards do have variable quality. We had some offshore semi subs converted in Singapore and initially the yard wasn’t dressing the steel, they weren’t doing the NDT required, the pre/post heat treatment etc was inadequate and the pipe fitting an abortion. When told in no uncertain terms the contract would be cancelled and the next time they’d see our company would be in court their work suddenly improved beyond all recognition, it was a miracle 🙂 The superintendent and the crew who stand by in the yard have to be well on top of things to maintain good standards, that applies to yards in any country.

I’m not sure which yard you are talking about, but I’m talking about xxxx. Indeed I think our owners are the cause of our trouble. They always want the cheapest of all things… Although welding standards are sometimes doubtfull as their workforce isn’t really that high tech yet.
On the other hand the ships I sailed from that yard were “loners” in their species, both of them being “second of class” and hence not all bugs were worked out yet. Still, the captain and chief officers complained a lot about the standard of those ships. They didn’t think the thing would make 20 years of service… Possibly bad paint too as they wanted to shift that.

Interesting to see what you’re doing. I’ll send you a PM.

Always time for a good picture!

So that is why captains say they have more confidence in 10-year old Japanese ships than they have in a 3-year old Korean one? However, what you say is true in the way that they pay for low stuff and get low stuff. First they went to Japan, excellent ships and low on cost due to low manpower costs. Then Korea was cheaper, again quality sinking, now China is cheapest…

But again, as Wanshan mentioned, we’re talking warships. Any idea if Korea already has built warships for export before? And if so, which ones? Wanshan, you should at least know that (I’m sure of it).

When ordering a vessel all material specifications are agreed to recognised standards, weld standards are agreed, the propulsion package is chosen by the customer usually and the yard will offer a range of potential auxilliary equipment at varying prices. The ships are built under class supervision and with the owners superintendents doing regular checks, if the owners accpt a low quality ship then usually it is because that is what they’ve paid for and accepted. In recent years I’ve overseen construction of FPSO’s in South Korean yards as an engineer superintendent and build quality and commissioning procedures were as good as anything I superintended in Japan or Europe, and the crews spoke very highly of them. The same company I worked for was building more and more high value regular merchant vessels in South Korea too as they offered good quality (equivalent to Japanese and European yards) and very competitive prices, the old prejudices about South Korean ships being cheap and nasty are way out of date unless that is what the owner asks them to build.

Shall we take bets as to who will win?

I’m giving 2:1 on the Spanish ship being the favourite and 5:1 on the French design

I would be shocked if Spain doesn’t win! The same could be said for the US with the AWD Design…………… 😀

FLY NAVY 😎

Always time for a good picture!

South Korea builds merchant vessels to the standard the customer demands and pays for, there are plenty of Korean built merchant vessels of a quality as good as Japanese, German, Norwegian etc. built ships.

So that is why captains say they have more confidence in 10-year old Japanese ships than they have in a 3-year old Korean one? However, what you say is true in the way that they pay for low stuff and get low stuff. First they went to Japan, excellent ships and low on cost due to low manpower costs. Then Korea was cheaper, again quality sinking, now China is cheapest…

But again, as Wanshan mentioned, we’re talking warships. Any idea if Korea already has built warships for export before? And if so, which ones? Wanshan, you should at least know that (I’m sure of it).

Korea, maybe their indigous warships are ok, but for the merchant ships they produce in great volume, those are of a low quality, maybe they fear for getting low quality stuff too.

And since we are talking warships…

Shall we take bets as to who will win?

I’m giving 2:1 on the Spanish ship being the favourite and 5:1 on the French design

Because the contracts require a local lead and ADI and Tennix are the only two games in town really. ADI is already part owned by French interests so its partners were sewn up long ago and the Spanish were the only other folks with a design already (or almost at least) in service.

Daniel

South Korea builds merchant vessels to the standard the customer demands and pays for, there are plenty of Korean built merchant vessels of a quality as good as Japanese, German, Norwegian etc. built ships. China does have quality problems though, often companies use Chinese yards to build the hull, the labour intensive bit, and then tow the hull to be fitted out elsewhere with the high value equipment.

Because they can hardly build any good ships! China has the bad reputation in warships since the delivery of two or three frigates with non-watertight doors (that were meant to be watertight) and not following the order correctly by placing on Chinese weapons while Thailand wanted to put her own weapons on them afterwards. The ships were in such a bad condition when they arrived that they were directly taken to the dry dock.

Korea, maybe their indigous warships are ok, but for the merchant ships they produce in great volume, those are of a low quality, maybe they fear for getting low quality stuff too.

At the time of conception China was at odds with Australia and Korean officials were under investigation over corruption charges. The Government felt that rather than open the competition to these countries and in turn become caught up in some scandle that had nothing to do with us, we would not offer the tender at all to those countries. Basically it was a self protection method for us, besides, China is a political hot spot for most governments these days, for one reason or another.

Two Australian companies – ADI and Tenix – will team with the designers to compete for the contract to supply the ships. ADI will team with the French designer Armaris, and Tenix with the Spanish designer Navantia.

Why are South Korean and Chinese shipyards excluded from the bidding?

If you want to be able to operate F-53B, the Spanish ship is undoubtedly the better choice. But Australia hasn’t made a decision on that yet.