1. ASTARTEZ Defense and Rescue Solutions (Philippines) - Coastal Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore/Vietnam) Joint Venture;
2. Daewoo International Corp. / Dae Sun Shipbuilding & Engineering Co. Ltd. (South Korea);
3. Keppel Philippines Marine, Inc. (Singapore/Philippines);
4. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. / L&T Shipbuilding (India);
5. PROPMECH Corp. (Philippines)
6. PT Citra Shipyard (Indonesia)
7. PT PAL (Indonesia)
8. Stone of David (Philippines);
9. STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. (South Korea)
Let us get to know these companies, below are MaxDefense' initial information about them:
ASTARTEZ Defense and Rescue Solutions is a company based in Paranaque City, which specializes in supplying small arms, tactical and rescue gear and personal combat equipment, and has no experience in shipbuilding or marine products. The company has identified its marine component joint venture as Coastal Industries Pte. Ltd., said to be a Singaporean-Vietnamese company. MaxDefense tried to find anything about this foreign company but have failed miserably. MaxDefense will try to find out more about Coastal Industries Pte. Ltd.
Daewoo International Corp. and Dae Sun Shipbuilding & Engineering Co. Ltd. are large South Korean companies, and prides itself of being the designer and builder of the Makassar-class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) for the Indonesian Navy (TNI-AL), and is currently involved in supplying the Peruvian Navy with a similar ship under is "Buque Multiproposito" project. It was known before that they offered the Philippine Navy with a Makassar-class derived design for the PN's Multirole Vessel (MRV) project before, and is believed to be offering a smaller derivative for the SSV project. Due to their previous cooperations with Hanjin, it may be possible for Daewoo / Dae Sun to tap Hanjin's Subic Shipyard for local production as it would be more palatable to DND officials due to its ability to convert the project as a local investment.
 |
| Daewoo / Dae Sun have previously offered the Makassar-class LPD for the PN's MRV project, before it was put on hold in favor of the smaller SSV. They may offer a derivative of the Makassar-class for the SSV. Photo taken from Timawa.net forums c/o Adroth. |
Keppel Philippines Marine Inc. is the local subsidiary of Singapore conglomerate Keppel Corporation. It has shipyards in Batangas and in Subic, and has been involved in several projects of the Philippine Navy in the past, including the refitting and refurbishment of the PN's 2 Gregorio del Pilar-class frigates before their commissioning. Due to some tie-ups with Singapore's ST Engineering Ltd., there is a possibility that Keppel Philippines will be using ST Engineering's designs including the Endurance 120 series which was reported previously in MaxDefense to have been offered separately by ST Engineering. Having a local shipyard that can do the work is also an added advantage for KPMI.
 |
| Keppel Philippines may probably cooperate with ST Engineering to use the Endurance 120 series design for the SSV. Photo taken from ST Engineering website. |
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. is one of India's largest conglomerates, and its subsidiary L&T Shipbuilding has been actively involved in India's naval shipbuilding industry. It's latest involvement is in the construction of India's first indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, the INS Arihant, which it was the prime integrator. It also prides of having the largest naval shipyard in India. Their representatives were spotted in Cavite Naval Base early this year and are speculated to be involved in other projects of the Philippine Navy.
 |
| L&T Shipbuilding is recently involved in the construction of India's first indigenous nuclear powered submarine, the INS Arihant. But no indication that they were able to build an SSV or similar platform before. |
The Philippines' PROPMECH Corporation is one of the active marine suppliers of the Philippine Navy in recent years, being involved in upgrading several of the PN's patrol boats, and have been successful in delivering the 1st (supply) and 2nd batches (supply and build) of Multipurpose Attack Craft (MPAC) and the largest locally made PN ship, the BRP Tagbanua (AT-296). In building AT-296, PROPMECH got the services of Philippine Iron Construction and Marine Works, so it is expected that they will carry out the same arrangement.
 |
| PROPMECH has previously delivered the PN"s newest LCU the BRP Tagbanua (AT-296). |
PT Citra Shipyard is an Indonesian company, with their shipyard just opposite Singapore in Batam Island. MaxDefense doesn't have much on the shipbuilding experience of this company, but their website indicate that they have built numerous commercial barges. MaxDefense will try to find out more about this company, stay tuned on this blog's commentary section.
 |
| PT Citra's website indicate that they are specialized in building commercial barges, like this one. Photo taken from PT Citra's website. |
PT PAL is Indonesia's largest naval shipbuilder, and has extensive experience in building amphibious transport vessels for the Indonesian Navy. They are the recipient of the technology transfer deal from South Korea's Dae Sun Shipbuilding to locally build some of Indonesian Navy's Makassar-class Landing Platform Docks (LPD). PT PAL has already offered the PN their own LPD design derived from the Makassar-class, and has also previously offered their proposal for the SSV. So far they are the only entity that we have some familiarity on their SSV proposal.
 |
| PT PAL previously offered the DND and PN it's SSV proposal. MaxDefense believes that the PN based the specifications for its SSV on PT PAL's offer. |
Stone of David, if MaxDefense is not mistaken, is actually a tactical equipment supplier, and is an active bidder for individual weapons & personal protection systems (please correct us if we are wrong on this). Due to its inexperience in shipbuilding and marine industry, it may be possible that they will have either a joint venture or sub-contractor to do the ships on their behalf. So far MaxDefense is unaware of who their appointed shipbuilder will be so we cannot assess what it can do.
 |
| Is MaxDefense correct? We believe the Stone of David company that is interested in the SSV project is the same Stone of David that supplies handguns and personal protection gear. Photo taken from Stone of David's FB page. |
South Korea's STX Offshore & Shipbuilding is the world's 4th largest shipbuilding company, and has extensive experience in building large commercial vessels (supertankers, etc) and they also have designs that will suit naval requirements. STX through its European subsidiaries, has been involved in building the French Navy's Mistral-class amphibious assault ships. No doubt that they can carry out the PN's SSV project. Like Dae Sun and Daewoo, it might be possible for STX to have shipbuilding agreements with Hanjin Subic Shipyard to build the ships in the Philippines if necessary to make their offer more acceptable.
 |
| As the world's 4th largest shipbuilder, STX Offshore & Marine, through its European subsidiaries, was also greatly involved in the construction of France' Mistral-class amphibious assault ships. |
Surprisingly, there were a number of expected bidders that did not bought the bid documents. These are Spain's Navantia which previously offered the Athlas 8000 to the PN for its MRV project. Another is Australia's Austal, which has a shipyard in Cebu that can be used as an offset for the project. European companies are also absent, which may have found the budget for the SSV as unattractive for profit. American shipbuilders are also absent, like the Singaporean-owned VT Halter Marine which built the PN's Bacolod City-class LSVs.
 |
| Navantia did not purchased the bid documents, but they still have time to do so. They have been offering the Athlas 8000 to the PN for some time now. Photo taken from Navantia's website. |
As the submission of bids is still scheduled on August 29, 2013, there is possibility that other entities may be interested in procuring the bid documents and submitting a bid besides the 9 that bought earlier. MaxDefense will be closely monitoring any updates regarding the bidding of this project, as this is a major procurement item that would increase the capability of the PN.
Of the 9 prospective bidders, MaxDefense believes that there will be several entities that would not submit the bid, so we expect less than 9 bid submissions on the deadline. The schedule of the SSV project has already been delayed by 1 1/2 months so it is hoped that this won't be a failed bid.
For reference about the PN's SSV program, you may refer to MaxDefense' previous blog here:
Developments on Strategic Sealift Vessel Purchase for the Philippine Navy - Invitation to Bid Released. (http://maxdefense.blogspot.sg/2013/06/developments-on-strategic-sealift.html)
===================================
Updates:
August 29, 2013:
Of the 9 potential contenders for the SSV project, only 2 submitted their bids: PT PAL Indonesia (builder of Banjarsamin-class) and Daewoo-Daesun of South Korea (builder of Makassar-class). But after further examination, the DND only qualified the bid of PT PAL, while Daewoo-Daesun was disqualified. It is still a hanging project as PT PAL needs to pass the post bid qualifications, which may start soon.
More of the news here and here.
they should give it to local ship builders like Propmech who already build some ships for the navy.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, if they are not commissioned to build the MPAC's I'd rather the contract be given to someone else. Designing the developing takes time and a certain amount of financial obligations, the faster the ship gets built the better and used immediately.
DeleteI think they building a lot of MPAC's and patrol boat for PN. I would like to see their actual designs and the time frame to get into production line. It would be nice if they locally build it though.
DeleteAwarding of the project must not only consider the bidder's country of origin, but first and foremost the product they offer. It should be a something that would not give the PN headaches in the future.
DeleteI have a strong feeling that the Koreans will win.
ReplyDeleteI agree. A Korean company but built in the Philippines.
DeleteMay I know your reasons, for discussion's sake?
DeleteSipbuilders with experience and with products proven and an offer for local building of the ships. That would make a nice bid indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe offer to include local production is a good bonus indeed, except if it was specified in the specifications that it should really be made locally.
DeleteNice read Max, I know this will be very exciting. happy to see that quite a lot of companies are interested with the project, hope that will be the same for the frigates.though I want the deal to go to local companies, this is one project that should go to the company with the most experience and will give us the best bang for the buck.minsan lang tayo magkaroon ng ganito so better be sure. maybe austal and navantia wants to aim for the bigger ticket items.
ReplyDeleteQuite true, first and foremost the capability to provide the best product, then the local production.
DeleteStone of David is a front runner company of Israel defense company. Based from the past transaction they are connected with Israeli companies. As usual they do have tie up with Israeli shipyard. I will not be surprised if they will also the join the Frigate program competition.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. Do you have an idea if they have close dealings with Israel Shipyards (they produce the Sa'ar 72)?
DeleteSoD is under Joavi which mostly sells Israeli made weaponry. one of their sglobal supplier which they posted is israel shipyard .they also bought bid docs for the 21 hueys but didn't pursued it
DeleteStone of David is also related to JOAVI Philippines Corporation. Consider them as one in terms of conducting business deals.JOAVI and Stone of David Tactical Equipment Company has been a constant supplier for the Philippine Navy for quiet long already.Ranging from Ammunition's down to gears and etc. As far as i could remember they also pitch the Israeli used AH-1 for Attack Helicopter Program when Sec. Gonzales was still the DND/NSA head. Try to scour and research some old PITC bidding, award notice and contract as reference for this company. JOAVI has closer ties with Israeli Shipyards the maker's of SAAR 5 and the latest variant of SAAR.
DeleteThanks for the info on Stone of David, actually I was able to point out their connection to Joavi on my blog regarding the bid fot 21 UH-1H. But I didn't know they are also the one that offered the Cobeas to Sec. Gonzales before. Very helpful info you got there.
DeleteI would think the Endurance-class landing platform dock and the Makassar-class landing platform dock would be a better choice for the Philippine Navy. Thailand and Singapore for example has the Endurance-class landing platform dock. While Malaysia and Peru has the Makassar-class landing platform dock.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at how many people it would take and how many to man the LPD, it would give you an indication on what kind of LPD that the Philippine Navy should have.
Endurance-class landing platform dock
Crew:65 + 300-500 troops
Makassar-class landing platform dock
Crew:126 + Up to 518 troops
Nicky, the last time e Koreans offered the Makassar to the PN, the cost was Php 5 billion each (price escalation already on-hold) but it included 4 KAAV-7s, 2 LCUs, a number of trucks, RHIB, and a mobile hospital (see photo of MRV under the Daewoo/Daesun part of this blog). The Arroyo administration should have bought 2, but time was not on her side. Now the price is higher. So now that the SSV's budget is only Php 2 billion per ship...
DeleteBesides, the Singapore Navy version of the Endurance class is even more expensive than the Thai version which they bought for around Php 8 billion for 1 ship.
If the Philippines wants an LPD then they are going to have to make sacrifices to get an LPD. The current price tag for brand new ones will surely price out the Philippines. They might as well go for the cheapest LPD in the market
DeleteIf they submitted their bid, do they have a smaller version of those mention by Nicky. If not it would be fair to say that Propmech win these easily.
DeleteThe Endurance-class landing platform dock and Makassar-class landing platform dock maybe very expensive, but would you want an LPD built to commercial shipping standards and suffer huge problems from poor sea keeping performance issues, RHIB & Landing craft issues. Cause an example of what not to build an LPD comes from New Zealand and the HMNZS Canterbury (L421). The HMNZS Canterbury (L421) is an example what happens when you use commercial shipping standards to build a Military LPD. They have an LPD who can't perform it's LPD role because the ship was originally designed as a RORO ferry ship and not a Military ship.
DeleteWhich is why I think for the sake of the Philippines, the Endurance class LPD or the Makassar-class landing platform dock is their only viable choice.
Like I said in the other blog topic, the Makassar is also based on a car ferry design, similar to the Canterbury.
DeleteI think that the Philippines may go for the Endurance class LPD or the Makassar Class Landing Platform Docks.
ReplyDeleteI think so too, with their experience, machinery, tooling, parts etc. that they already have in placed it would be better. I love to see what the local builder vision of their designs and the time frame they’ll make it into production line. It all depends who can deliver it on time. The loading and unloading of equipment’s are the most important part of this project such as dispersing amphibious craft while close to the shore.
DeleteWhat about the feasibility of getting the Austin class ship from the US?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Whidbey LSD Class of the USN arent they scheduled to be retire soon for their downsizing. They just underwent refurbishing & upgrades . Can the US govt, sell these ships with the same arrangement with the " Hamiltons". The PN can dispense w/o the LCAC and settle with AAV & LCM perhaps some reconditioned UHN1 helos as starter for their entry level on modern amphibious warfare. Come to think of it because of its size and current electronic and communication equipments it can be as the HQ or flagship depending on some modifications . I believe we should exhaust all options w/ Uncle Sam since this would benefit both countries bilaterally and because of the Sudden shift of balance in the Pacific rim. Probably save some money too.
ReplyDeleteAs previously discussed in other commentary sections here on MaxDefense, the Whidbey Island is a very complicated and expensive vessel to operate, and would not be a good choice even if the Americans give it for free.
DeleteI've read those commentaries from the previous topics re: SSV and its true that it could be expensive if you would base on the USN standard of operation but if it would be tailored cut to the PN standards and requirements then it would be a different story. If the US govt. is really interested in helping the Philippines then with that intention it could be possible. The advantages of the Whidbley Class vs the other platforms are far more. Let say if the Americans are willing to give it to PN almost for free minus some classified electronic & communications( but I would certainly keep in mind their surface array radar )then we could cut the cost of maintaining these vessel. I've mentioned from my previous blog that the PN can use LCM instead of LCAC and UH1N Helos instead of Chinook. It uses diesel which is the choice of fuel for the PN and it is primarily design as military amphibious vessel which eliminates the doubt re: it's structural integrity as oppose to commercial / military design. They could stretch the current fund of P 2 B / ship & use this to suit the PN theater of operations . Also keep in mind the possibility of having the 1st command & control vessel for the PN base on the current capability of the Whidbley Class. Just a thought.
DeleteHi Oplan X, if you noticed the DND already adjusted the purchase of the MRV to a smaller SSV to fit within the budget allocated by the government. While your idea is not really bad, the problem is the refurbishment alone may already cost more than buying both new SSV. You also have to consider the operating and maintenance cost since these are far more complicated than your average MRV and SSV. These are practically the same reasons why the PN did not put much interest on the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates before.
DeleteMax, It might be easy to think that this is a downgraded LPD specs, but it's also possible that its an 'LST' or LSV derived or uprated design. In the absence of access to the Bid specs, then we can only speculative.
ReplyDeleteThe SSV's main 'client' is the Phil Marines and at times the Phil Army or other gov't agencies. PMC had long had a plan to acquire AAVs. Over-The-Horizon or beaching delivery of the PMC could be one of its spec'd capability, though AAV can still launch even if the SSV has no floodable dock well, as long as (up-to-the waterline) ramp access is available. Without a floodable dock well, them LCM might have to be carried above deck via davits or cranes.
Plug-in Modules may not be as we want it because of budget constraints. Again budget would definitely define the size of the proposed designs.
Hi 49r, like you said we can only speculate, but I doubt that the ship would be similar to the LSV like what the PN already have. The SSV could be a big improvement over the LSV, and as previous announcements by the DND indicated, it is similar but smaller to the MRV. Most notable design is PT PAL's offer which is actually a small MRV.
DeleteCurrent LST designs from some countries actually have floodable well decks like Singapore's Endurance class, so far India and Korea (both represented in the SSV bid) have recently-produced models although I'm not sure on the presence of floodable well decks on their LST.
As you said, budget is indeed a problem. Andnif not for that I think we have almost nothing to worry about.
Buying 3 more Hamiltons then converting it to Multi Purpose Support Vessels is way much
ReplyDelete1. Cheaper
2. Faster
3. More Defense capabilities
4. Develop Naval Shipyard capabilities better
5. Fleet uniformity
Along the lines of the Danish Absalon support vessel concept
Cons
1. less capacity per ship
2. older but still maintainable platform
3. higher maintenance cost in exchange for low acquisition cost
Hi Rene,
Delete- the Danish Absalon-class were built with a large Multipurpose deck. You can't just make a similar deck to a Hamilton-class without making a major structural reconfiguration works. That is not going to be cheap.
- there are no immediately available Hamilton-class ships. The next ship to be retired, the USCGC Gallatin, is already committed to the Nigerians as far as I know.
- in the long run it would be cheaper to buy a new ship, like the SSV which is tailor-made as a support vessel.
Hi Max
ReplyDelete1. The Absalon class is specially designed as a Multi Purpose Support Vessel from the beginning and very expensive. The Hamilton class alternative is way much cheaper by a large magnitude and will have maybe just 60% of its capabilities. And it's what we can afford given the catching up we have to do on multiple fronts after more than 20 years of negligence on our defense posture.
2. Based on a US Congressional Research Service report dated July 2013, "first three NSCs are now in service, the fourth and fifth are under construction, and the sixth
was funded in FY2013." There will be "decommissioning of two cutters in fiscal year 2014." That will be three with the Gallatin by 2014, a much faster pace than two new SSV's with no contract yet. This is feasible given the moves of the US for more access to bases in the Philippines.
3. This alternative will be the most cost effective way to
- have Multi Purpose Support Vessel capabilities faster
- additional deterrence capabilities with the 76mm Oto Melaras
- fleet commonality
- enhance Naval and local shipyard capabilities
Also, the initial annual cash outlays will be lower and extended.
PN can possibly have 3 Hamiltons as MultiPurpose Support Vessels for P2 billion already modified, based on the costing of the 2 PF's acquired. That leaves P2 billion for the uparming of the 2 PF's. The net result is having 2 Frigates supported by 3 MPSV's instead of just 2 new SSV's.
Hi Rene, I think some of the points you posted again were answered earlier, but for the sake of discussion:
Delete1. The Absalon was expensive not because of the hull but because of the onboard systems, majority of the cost for it was for the C&C features, radar systems, weapons systems, and mechanical capabilities. The hull did not cost much. As for the Hamilton, stripping it, and making structural modifications will increase the cost, and probably will cost as buying a new ship. It is not always cheaper to make modifications especially to an almost 50-year old ship.
2. The PH has a lot of competitors for the ships. For 2014, the scheduled 2 units are Gallatin and Rush. Gallatin was already allocated to the Nigerians. Rush will probably be free for the PN and if i does, it will only be in Philippine service earliest by late 2014, without modifications. If you modify the Hamilton, even just to arm it as a frigate, it is expected to be out for a few months. If you try to make major modifications, it would be faster to build a new ship from scratch as it is easier to build a new one.
3. As I said earlier, it probably cost more to structurally modify the ship, especially an old one.
But there's actually another way: a Hamilton can be converted to a fast troop carrier, not capable of carrying vehicles, but capable of carrying troops. It can only be used to drop troops to a prepared deep port, and will have almost no use on amphibious operations. But it would be cheaper, faster and more efficient to do so by airlift using a C-130.
#2. Both US House and Senate bills had given back funding to USCG to continue to operate one of two WHECs slated for decommissioning in FY14. CGC Gallatin had been already promised to Nigeria. The 4th WMSL (Hamilton) has just been launched, so it would still take more than a year before it's comm'd into service. Think of 2015, as the earliest time for PN to have a chance for another WHEC.
DeleteHi Max
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head - a present day version of an APD high speed transport that can carry troops, vehicles and cargo. Way much more capable and cheaper than C-130's. The first Philippine Navy destroyer was an APD, completing the circle.
Just the appropriate solution for the Navy's credible deterrence requirement, NOW and AFFORDABLE.
If I may, I summed it up in my blog http://deftechph.blogspot.com/2013/08/hamilton-class-as-multi-purpose-support.html, if you don't mind. Thanks for your comments.
Hi RGA, The SSVs (or MRVs) are part of the PN's Sail Plan 2020 and Desired Force Mix. Those plans support the DND Phil Def Transformation (PDT) White Paper of having a rapid deployable maneuver brigade, as well as for humanitarian relief operation.
DeleteThe WHECs and SSV differs in design principles. WHECs have heavy compartmentalization suited for combat, as USCG was designed on the onset to be part of USN in times of war.
Meanwhile in SSV/LSD/LPD, we are talking about being a cargo, vehicle and troop carrier in a relatively extended period of time. It's essentially a hollow box with bunks, helideck and possible with floodable docking facilities for easier ship to shore transfer. It may also have at least a large crane which would require a good structural foundation.
Indeed the APDs of WWII were DE converts to speed up troop transport, but the concept of operations back then was quite different now. Also habitability would be quite different.
Hi 49r. You are right in the Hamilton class advantages of high speed (assuming the turbine power train is not removed for extra load weight and volume), and suitability for combat like having a Naval Gun Support built in.
DeleteAny policy paper has to be reviewed regularly or any time a substantial opportunity or threat is on the horizon. Some on this forum also believe that our defense establishment is too much inclined to the U.S. model at the expense of other more appropriate models like the Scandinavian and Russian models, specially in coastal and EEZ defense. The U.S. is a world power and have world wide commitments and this is best exemplified by the large size of their vessels, luxurious accommodations, and very high cost. Ours is EEZ defense out to the Kalayaan Islands defending our "Moat".
And we're not rich as the U.S., with limited financial resources needing multi front capability upgrades after more than 20 years of negligence of our external defense. We're only out to defend robustly our EEZ, and we let the superpowers play their own games and avoiding getting caught in their crossfires.
We have to implement PILIPINO SOLUTIONS APPROPRIATE TO OUR SITUATION.
This is the rationale for my Multi Purpose Support Vessel based on the Hamilton class. It's cheaper, good naval defense, faster in implementation and speed, local naval industry strengthening, spread out cash outlays, fleet commonality etc.
Of course it will have just maybe 70% of the capabilities of the SSV but 3 x 0.7 = 2.1, that's 10% better overall than 2 SSV's. It will be hard to deploy LVT's from it but we have the LSV's to do that. Maybe the savings can even upgrade some of the LST's that we still have for the same purpose. Based on U.S. experience on the APD's, the twice larger Hamilton class MPSV will deploy a larger load at a faster speed.
If the DND and PN decision makers are interested, I have some design ideas already for its implementation. And they can easily derive this on their own by studying the first PN destroyer, the Soliman APD.
good idea.
DeleteMax, just a heads up. DND has posted their Aug 15 Supplemental Bulletin[AFPMP-PN-SSV-13-03], which clarified some questions from potential bidders.
ReplyDeleteIt has revealed details about the SSV acquisition, which is to --
"design, construction and delivery of vessels with all the functionality similar to passenger / cargo vessel capable of handling heavy cargoes and vehicles"
Specs are :
- minimum displacement of at least 7,300 tons
- minimum length of 120 meters
- cruising speed of at least 13 knots
- maximum speed of not less than 16 knots
- well deck hoist for lifting of LCM/U for positioning towards the well deck at full load.
- minimum of 800 sqm or storage space for 12 M35 trucks
- vehicle lift or ramp access from helideck to interior tank deck (AAV-weight capacity not included)
- boat davits with capacity of 15 tons
- aft helideck for two 10-tonner helos, with a hangar for a single helo with helicopter traversing system
- supply of two LCM/U with 18-ton payload or 80-men capacity and two RHIBs
- training support for more than 130 crews before actual delivery of vessel
Hi 49r, thanks. Actually i got a copy of it as well but your summary is very helpful. I believe a newer version ( #4) is already out. I'll be consolidating them for a separate topic as the information they released are good enough to create a picture of what the PN wanted.
DeleteTnx, Max. Looking forward to your new analysis. Pls enlighten some of the readers on the insistence of the Navy for more expensive(accdg to one vendor) -- 15-ton RHIB davit and cradle(s), as well as the well-deck hoist for loaded LCU/M.
ReplyDeleteBulletin #4's PDF-pg9-10, on Q46-48 re:clarifications sought by Stone of David and PT Citra. Responses do lead some suggestions that weapons and most sensors will be provided for by PN, and not part of the contractor's cost. CMIIW.
I got a suspicion would be used for the 13-15t MPACS deployment. What I don't like is a system is not mentioned for ship to ship replenishment (either using cables or side by side). Only an air replenishment implied capability is mentioned.
DeleteMax, is there a limitation to the height side embarkation opening? Some designs I saw are too near the waterline. This may be good for easier access on port but may provide challenges on high sea-state. Another feature I would like to see is access from/to tank cargo space to the landing craft (in addition to helideck to cargo access). This will provide additional flexibility on context of landing craft instead of being fixed at the time it is loaded. - ballboy
DeleteSuppl Bulletin#4 PDF-Pg.10&Pg.40. Q#50/Q21 respectively; describes Replenishment at Sea (RAS) station requirements, so it's part of the SSV's specs.
DeleteBltn#4 PDF-Pg.5. My understanding is Q#18 somehow describe a floodable well deck, where LCM/U or MPACs can be carried and deployed. Flooding of the well deck is via controlled ballasts.
Side Port door are water-sealed vertical hatches and also aids in disembarkation into boats/LCVPs, without the need of Jacob's ladder. Sea state is always a consideration.
I think PROPMECH could do this. It's just a commercial RORO with light weapons and two LCMs right?
ReplyDeleteFrom what the Supplemental Bulletin says, it appears to be an LPD and not just a RoRo. Stay tuned for my blog on this matter. We're starting to clearly see what the SSV looks like.
Deletecool can't wait
DeleteNagsasayang ng pera ang Navy dito. Ang daming pwedeng Ro-Ro at LCT na marerentahan pag may emergency na. Meron din silang LSV, LST, Tagbanua at mga iba pa.
ReplyDeleteGastosin na lang itong P4 bilyon na ito sa pagbili ng mga 'shooters' na corvettes at FACs, na walang wala ang navy natin. Huwag na ring bago dahil matatagalan pa ang dating, at mahal.
Para sa mga bago, gawa sila ng multi year acquisition ng Philippine fabricated corvettes, FACs, gunboats, patrol boats etc. Baka mas makamura pa kung gawin sa Naval Shipyard in cooperation sa mga lokal na shipyards tulad noong panahon ni Marcos. Improve siguro yong Aguinaldo at Kagitingan class o mga mas malaki pang corvette tulad ng Jacinto at Malvar class. Gawin lang efficient at corruptless.
Dahil kaya sa ayaw ng US na magkaroon tayo ng totoong firepower kaya itong SSV ang pinopondohan ng Navy. Baka nga naman maging epektibong depensa na tayong mga Pilipino at mapilitan ang US sa laban na wala sa kanila pang schedule dahil sa Mutual Defense Treaty. Pag lumakas din ang firepower natin, hihina ang dependency natin sa kanila.
Para sa akin lang at siguro sa mga iba pa dito, ang wala pa ang Navy natin ang dapat bilhin - SHOOTERS, hindi mga cargo ships na marami na sa civilian sector na pwedeng gamitin sa emergency.
It is not easy for the military to rent from the civilian fleets according to the time they needed them. Not only are they vulnerable and more expensive in the long run, they are also incapable of many requirements for combat transport.
DeleteYou also have to remember that Php 4 billion won't even buy you a single missile corvette.