i dont care if Drilon is just grandstanding or politicking or whether he is seeking the truth. basta ako I am happy that the australians are now squirming . we got the vessels already so they better listen to us or we wont pay them. .itong mga aussies ayaw nilang papasukin ating mga bananas tapos tayo ang dami nating ini-import na gatas at baka sa kanila.
dapat yung DOTC appropriation ibinili ng PCG vessels na gawa sa pilipinas e. for you info, one of the Aguinaldo class 44 meter vessel cost only 150 million pesos to make in the early 1990s dito sa pilipinas. ang makina pa niyan ay German MTU(Motorinen Turbinen Union). even allowing for inflation, etc, they could have built seven PCG ships for 500 million pesos each based on the 3.5 billion pesos allocated by DOTC. ang bonus pa niyan ay puede nating kabitan ng 40mm bofors o30mm emerlec yung vessels dahil gawa dito. e itong mga australyano ay mga pa-effect pa, we will give you a loan to build the ships in australia pero walang armas. ano gusto nila gagawing ramming ships itong PCG ships. ano bubunguin na lang natin ang mga barko ng mga komunistang insik? anong magagawa nitong .50 caliber pop-gun?
for once bina-barbeque natin itong mga puting nangloloko at ang kanilang mga tutang pinoy na korakot na sumipsip sa kanila. walang magagawa ang mga australyano dahil mas malaki ang import natin sa kanila e they need us more than we need them.

see article below:
P3.5B PCG deal illegal daw
Malaya and Philstar Feb 6, 2005
SENATE President Franklin Drilon yesterday slammed former officials of the Department of Transportation and Communication for buying P3.52 billion worth of vessels for the Coast Guard without appropriation from Congress.

Drilon also directed Transportation Secretary Leandro Mendoza to withhold the remaining payment of P649.99 million to Tenix Pty, the Australian firm that supplied the six search and rescue vessels, following reports these "were not in good order."

Two vessels were delivered in December 2000 and the last four in February last year.

During deliberations on the DOTC budget Thursday evening, Drilon moved that "a special provision" be included in the budget stating that no further payments should be made under the Follow-On Search and Rescue Vessel Acquisition (FOSARV) project unless the Australian firm conducts repairs on the vessels that were delivered to the Coast Guard last year.

During interpellation by Drilon, Sen. Joker Arroyo, chairman of the Senate finance sub-committee that reviewed the DOTC budget, said Coast Guard officers have complained to him "in private" that the vessels were "not really good."

Drilon said the process adopted by former Transportation Secretary Pantaleon Alvarez in implementing the FOSARV project "made a mockery of the power of appropriation vested by the Constitution in Congress."

Drilon said DOTC records showed payments for the purchase were never appropriated in the budgets for 2002 to 2004 but funds were released for it. He said the funding was sourced from "unprogrammed funds and realigned funds" from other DOTC projects.

In the proposed 2005 DOTC budget, an appropriation of P649.99 million is included for the FOSARV project, Drilon said.

It will be recalled that in 2003, Drilon and other senators warned the DOTC it would receive a budget of only P1 for 2004 if it is proven that its officials committed technical malversation of funds in the purchase of the rescue vessels from Australia. However, the Senate did not have the chance to scrutinize the 2004 GAA as the 2003 national budget was re-enacted.

Drilon cleared Mendoza of involvement in the project as the purchase was made before his time.

During the interpellations last Thursday, Arroyo said he could not figure out how the DOTC was able to get away with the payments for the project without appropriations from Congress.

Arroyo said there was no budget for the project to begin with. "This is a mysterious deal," Arroyo told Drilon.

"Let me warn those responsible officials in the DOTC that we will not stand for this. This project clearly disregarded the authority of Congress to appropriate funds. This is something we will not tolerate," Drilon said.

"This is reprehensible," Drilon said during the DOTC budget debates. "We are aghast at the way these DOTC officials have disregarded the authority of Congress to appropriate funds. We are confronted here with a situation where billions of public money was paid out without authority from Congress."

The Aussies have every right to get the boats back. It would be unethical of us not to turn them over if we cannot pay for them. Its not the Aussie's fault that our bureaucracy screwed up . . . again.

Ive said it before, If you want to do deals you have to follow the rules, Or i suggest that you try to do the same to your bank and then se if any bank will have you as customer.

We will in the end pay our debt for those ships with pop-guns. as you can see it is obvious that those ships could have been built in the Philippines. that news article mentions that the DOTC allocated 3.5 billion pesos from its budget thru the years to pay for the ships. in addition, if you look at the Dept of budget website on the DOTC budget, you will see as clear as night and day, that there is a yearly installement allocation to pay for those ships.
with 3.5 billion pesos, no loan was ever needed, those ships could have been built in the philippines.
like i said before, the Aguinaldo class 44 meter ship only cost 150 million pesos to build in the philippines. now you guys know that this aid assistance thing was just a cover for their shipyard workers to keep their jobs and for their banks to earn interest.
i am glad that this corvette/OPV deal that foreign companies are lusting after is currently on hold. this corvette/OPV hull can be easily built in the philippines. in fact , the British already gave us the blueprints for the Peacock ships. even without blueprints, we have many naval architects who can design the hull etc.
the only time we need foreign companies is for the guns, radar, fire control, etc. one of my high school mates who is now a naval architect made a blueprint for a cheap warship.

ROFL. I told you so.
No inclusion in the national budget, no PN buying. No borrowing on its own either.
(Heck, I even hinted at the impending payment default in the other thread.)

But LapuLapu,
just when it's possible you've learned something at everyone else's expense,
you scatter more pearls of your amazing ignorance in your latest post!
Just one out so of many:

Are really THAT ignorant a hack? And on so many very public forums?
The Aguinaldo class were the local-build counterparts to the German-built Kagitingan class.
Those MTU engines that give you such a stiffy can only move the boats at 17 plodding knots!
They're gluttons for repair, and there's a boatload of other reasons we stopped building them.
Unbelievable.

Absolutely.
Tenix made a deal with the Philippine Dept. of Finance, and kept their end of the it.

As for Drilon's hot air:
-If the boats are deficient, as supposedly claimed by anonymous PCG personnel,
then have Tenix fix them under the existing contract warranty.
The boats are pretty new and deficiencies should be attributable
to design defect or misuse EASILY. No need for a scandal that hurts our ability
to do necessry business with foreign contractors.

-If this follow-on contract is unauthorized, why his epiphany only in 2003 and now in 2005?
The follow-on order for 35meter boats was common knowledge before 2000.
If a case of malversation will prosper, then file it and let it proceed.

This is another classic, corrupt case of trial by press.
That tub of lard claims he knows of a crime committed,
but won't bring the alleged culprits up on charges.
Is he shaming them into something he can profit from?
Or is this legislator merely that ignorant of the law's punitive power?

What I see is just one senator mouthing off.
You see his sort in Legislative bodies the world over,
and it doesn't necessarily prevent
the real business of military capability-building.



h

viking,

are you worried about Senator Drilon's plan with the PCG ships? you worried too that we won't also pay for the 4 CB-90 Swedish combat boats that the PN ordered?

for a country like the philippines whose defense budget is tiny, i still cannot believe we ordered those overpriced CB-90 boats. the technology in those CB-90s is nothing complicated that it cannot be duplicated or built in Philippine shipyards.
its just a small assault boat for goodness sake. we build 50,000 ton ships in cebu and no one is going to convince me that we cannot build a small combat assault boat in cebu or luzon.

thats another fishy deal there.

jorge,

your info on the aguinaldo is not accurate. that same info you are quoting is in Janes fighting ships which is incorrect as well.

I have on first hand knowledge the following info:

1)The german-designed vessels you are referring to is the kagitingan class which is a 37 meter ship. A PN officer who was on the sea trials for the kagitingan said that the 16 knots is just cruisng speed.It can do 24 knots for chases

2) the aguinaldo class is 44 meters long and is based on the Japanese 44 meter ship that they gave to the PCG as war reparations.

3) both the kagitingan and the aguinaldo class uses MTU engines.

Why thank you for the corrections--
EDIT: The Aggy hull takes after the Japanese-built Tirad Pass,
but the superstructure, engine and almost everything else takes after the German Kaggy's.
It seems you CAN be a source of possible information after all.
:armyLol: :armyLol: :armyLol:
I'll check on those shakedown speed claims... but wait, you said it was only from pers.comms?? Anyway...

You want to build your own version of CB90's
:armyLol: :armyLol: :armyLol:
You don't know the first thing about commercial boatbuilding,
much less the building of high speed navy boats.
I've built 7 and 9 meter boats, and that really means I've built hulls.
The engines, the sonar, the radio ---even the bloody stanchions are foreign made.
Where would the rolled aluminium come from?

With small boats, it's often difficult to make a hull that provides the correct interior space
AND the correct seahandling. Even if you copy the hull lines and the interior,
even if you copy the CB90's bow doors, there are still the issues of electronics and more,
Just one example: if you try to incorporate a stabilized remote gun,
you're back to dealing with foreigners.
Every component of the way, you find yourself closer and closer to wondering why
you don't just buy or license-build the thing for cheaper.
Even if you want to copy, you have to BUY something to copy....
and good luck with the tachnology license.


Now let's get back to the Tenix follow-on deal...

Of the three, the BRP San Juan have the most reliable op record, its downtime is better than its rated MTBF. The point here is this, during acceptance, sea trials are conducted, if the sea trials are not done properly, you can not shake down probable points of failure. I do not blame TENIX for this, it is the sea trials crew of the succeeding boats that may be amiss on their duties.

Further, some PCG guy is shaking something that his predecessors accepted. It is really absurd that Drilon is forcing the DOTC to back pedal on this deal for some stupid reason. We only pay a portion of the acquistion ( as in what can 11MUSD really buy now?) and the EXIM cover is enough to guarantee TENIX payments. All Drilon is doing is creating ill will and notch down our credit rating.

jorge,

your info on the aguinaldo is not accurate. that same info you are quoting is in Janes fighting ships which is incorrect as well.

I have on first hand knowledge the following info:

1)The german-designed vessels you are referring to is the kagitingan class which is a 37 meter ship. A PN officer who was on the sea trials for the kagitingan said that the 16 knots is just cruisng speed.It can do 24 knots for chases

2) the aguinaldo class is 44 meters long and is based on the Japanese 44 meter ship that they gave to the PCG as war reparations.

3) both the kagitingan and the aguinaldo class uses MTU engines.

Yes. Tenix is already paid.
The banks are already covered by guarantee at this point.

The Australians are squirming all right ---with laughter and derision.

"Even from a fool, you can learn something"

Chinese saying

:agree: We should consider the bigger picture of this and prevent the negative effects of carelessly screwing up the deal.

:dunno:

:agree: Let's see how much more can we lose from defaulting from our obligation first.

It 's our fault anyway and not the Aussies.

Our credit rating or.... our credibility .... in the eyes of our neighbors will be affected again as what happened with teh NAIA3 deal.

The PCG people.... ( NAKU KAYU TALAGA :grrr: ) .... who pocketed something here and their cohorts in other govt offices must be investigated and punished for putting us in this shameful situation again.

Let's jail the real culprits here! :sniper:

Let's see the brigther side in Sen. Drilon's expose though.

This is the rallying point we need to compel the PCG and even AFP and the PNP to really start doing things within the legal boundaries so that anomalous deals like this one will not be repeated.

This is the right time to punish the culprits so that the rest will not repeat the same evil. :armywink:

jorge,

since you mentioned that you have built boats, why don't you share with us your boat building experiences.. how would you go about building a small patrol boat or a civilian boat?

thanks

LaboLabo,

I take it you mean just construction as opposed to designing and building?
Then the answer is: follow the design specifictions and plans diligently, , finishing it all on time and within contract price. Sorry but without further detail (not even hull material was mentioned, let alone functional specifictions), that's the only real answer to give.

If, on top of construction, you mean to include design as well, then that's more than a book's worth of answers ---more like 11 books, from good old Muckle's onward. Worse still if you include project management and financing.

I'm primarily an architect, and if, say, a commercial mixed-use building carries a lot of considerations (accesibility, storage, power, lighting, communications, water supply, sanitary, mechanicals, food supply, quartering, etc..), imagine if the structure had no access to utility power supply, none to utility water supply, none to proper sewerage and waste disposal utilities, AND had to float, move fast with agility, not get lost out at sea, AND fight.

Tell you what, I'll consider starting a fresh, separate thread, featuring specs and maybe details of pet designs I have for particular vessel types that I feel the PN needs. Why don't we let your thread stay on topic, so you can describe exactly how it is you believe that Sentor Drilon's recent antics are

1) good for the Philippines and her security concerns
2) making the Australians squirm

ok then, can you start a fresh, separate thread featuring specs,details of your pet designs for particular vessel types for PN ?

i already gave my opinion on what drilon said ,and everyone already saw your opinion on drilon so let's just leave it at that by respecting each other's opinions.

thanks

Docstavarvet is a private company, so i really dont care since my taxmoney isnt affected. And sure it is a hull whith engines and you can easyly copy the concept by putting a outborder on a bathtub and sail away. When you buy CB90 you get a proven and god design that works, that is what you pay for.

Sure you can start to design, build prototypes, test them, build as preseries boats, test them and after 4 years put them into production, no problem. BUT the cost of all this has to be payed for. if you build 10 series boats, those 10 have to share all the costs of designing and testing. so more boats => less cost per boat ( or tanks, cars, whatever)

And NO you cant steal protected designs.

-TANSTAAFL

Yes, Viking
As a designer, I'm actually pretty ticked-off about most IPR violation.

East Asia can be a pretty terrible place for someone with a great idea:
Within hours of flogging it, someone can rip it off and mass produce it faster
and sell it for cheaper. No R&D investment, as you say.

The problem with a lot of the carpers on this forum is that
they look at a boat/plane/tank as a pile of parts and are unable to reconcile that
with a pricetag that INCLUDES the cost of developing and testing a design that
functions as advertised. Still, as I intimated earlier
-even if you want to copy, you have to have something on hand to copy off of
-even if you have something to copy off of, construction techniques may have to be developed
-even if you have something to copy off of, many components may have to be imported

...and often fom the very people you're stealing a design from.

I will indeed consider starting a thread and adding to it over a couple of weeks:
Idle posting is one thing, but transcribing actual notes ---editing out proprietary aspects-- takes some time, moreso 'sanitizing' any drawing-scans to be included.

Now, my pre-requisite.
You must first provide something from YOUR apparent field of preference,
on which you've posted so insistently:

I'd like a formal* description of a fundraising and procurement model for the PN,
executable independent of both Houses of Congress, citation-crosschecked with relevant portions of our Constitution and standing law; and only detailed as fr as to...say, graph applicable interest rates against time.

The quality of your document will determine how much I release into public domain.










*Try to follow the format of standard paper, citing all necessary and related supporting documents.

sorry I cant supply the detailed documents you needed due to the nature of my job. I was just thinking of a really informal thread on potential PN ship types that you can start since boatbuilding is your expertise.
anyway, happy posting to you all.

What's the latest word on these Tenix ships? The last I heard of them was during Drilon's words about it. Even if they're expensive things they're already here and have been paid for. Better to make use of them and learn from the mistake (if any) on how we got them.

As for building our own ships. We certainly have the tech and people for it. Unfortunately, I'd admit that we would need foreign help on the materials and updated tech on how to better make them. And instead of fighting, wouldn't it be better for those attacking the AFP or the Filipinos for that matter offer positive help instead? We would certainly do the same to them given the chance (anyone out there needing the tech to make a working hydrogen engine that can be made at a cheap cost and easily installable to your automobile right now? I doubt any other country had a similar success at present.)

Some related topics:

http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=2747&st=15

The Australian government has already donated eight brand new vessels to reinforce the maritime capability in the sea lanes and modernize search and rescue operations of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG).

This was revealed Friday by Commodore Edmund C. Tan, coast guard commander of the Southeastern Mindanao District, one of the fifty four coast guard districts all over the Philippines.

Speaking before members and officers of the Davao Christian Leadership (DCL), Commodore Tan said the reinforcement coming from the neighboring continent has helped the country modernize its aging fleet of patrol vessels.

Tan, the youngest ranking commodore in the entire Philippine maritime forces, said that the donation of the Australia government was a very big help to the modernization program of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

As to the suggestion of the PCG being absorbed by the Philippine Navy, it should be the other way around if you compare the eight new vessels to the aging World War II vintage crafts of the PN, the commodore said talking in jest before a mixed audience of Davao businessmen, media and American missionaries.

He said the need to modernize and strengthen the country's patrol vessels and maritime capability is a primary concern noting that the Philippines possesses a very rich coastal resource and coastlines which when put together and measured, is twice as much longer than that of the USA.

Commodore Tan said the eight donated patrol ships are the modern 56-meter long speedy patrol vessels which will also be used in search and rescue operations with a built-in recompression chamber and other life-saving equipment aside from its big contribution in the overall maritime environmental concerns.

Delivery of the search and rescue patrol vessels which can accommodate as much as 300 passengers and survivors started in the year 2001 in graduated schemes with the last delivery made two years ago, Commodore Tan said.

http://www.pia.gov.ph/news.asp?fi=p060520.htm&no=05

Leave the PCG as it is and not have it absorbed with the PN. Unless we have the capabilities (that we DON'T), then why corrupt a program that is already producing wonders (be whatever the donnors are)?

Is he speaking of the Tenix built SAR vessels? I thought it was granted thru loans as discussed in other threads that's why we can't build one because no local banks are willing to shoulder the cost? If those were donated then we don't need to pay for it, right?

:agree:
Putting the PCG under the Navy will complicate the operations of the Navy. It may also jeopardize the budgetary allocations for the Navy.

Worse, corruption in the militarty may get worsen, since the PCG DIRECTLY INTERACTS WITH SHIP CREWS.

It's a lot better to let the DOTC manage the PCG.

Less window for corruption plus the modernization of the PCG and Navy will be given focus by the respective organizations they belong to.

Correction to Commodore Tan's statement that the eight patrol boats was not donated by the Australian Government. It was done thru soft loans with zero interest rates. And still the Philippine Government pays for it thru DOTC, is the agency mandated to pay the Tenix Patrol Boats Loans.

i found this statement amusing at first but after rolling the idea inside my head for a few minutes i think its realistic and practical for the PN to be ABSORBED by the PCG, most of the PN assets are now only capable of littoral and interisland patrols, so why not?

PN to be ABSORED by PCG?

How can PCG absorbed the big body such as PN. Remember that PCG is now under DOTC together with the other implementing agencies such as MARINA and PPA.

try to imagine that until now DOTC is paying for the soft loans of the TENIX Boats.

can anyone show us pics of this things were talking about? :demon:

If these are what he's talking about, it's no donation





http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=885

For more clarification also the 8 vessels. There 2 56m Search and Rescue Vessel and the rest are 35 m Patrol Craft. (6 of them).

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=416

http://www.timawa.net/contributions.htm

The reference of the vessel from Tenix brochure itself confirmed that there are 2 56m Search and Rescue vessel that was constructed for the PCG-DOTC.

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=422

A much clearer insight about the vessel donation issue.

According to the agreement between RP and AUSSIE Gov if i could recall also the PCG-DOTC has a provision in the agreement that they can add more vessels... i cannot confirm how many must be slated for additional order if the DOTC want to add more.

BTW, how about BRP Pampanga? Is it a 56m or a 35m SAR vessel?

If there are more 56meter vessels from australia, could some of these be upgraded to carry more weapons like missiles and 5-inch gun?

I think 8 are just too many for SAR roles, maybe 2 or 4 could be adpted to augment coastal patrol of the navy.

Two 56 m Search and Rescue Vessel for Coast Guard is not enough to cover the whole area of operation like our long coastal boundary. We have a longer coastal lines, twice or even 3 times larger than the coastal lines of the US.

This brand new 8 vessel which consist of two 56m SAR Vessel and 6 Patrol Craft is not enough. Majority of the members here agree that PCG and PN needs more vessel to cover their area of responsibility. They are lightly armed vessels also.

*If there are three confirmed 56 m SAR vessel then PCG should assign them in three major Ports and Shipping Docks like Manila, Cebu and Davao. And the rest of the 35 m Patrol Craft will be assigned to the other ports and PCG detachments.

He probably means the grants and loan guarantees extended by the Australian government to finance the project.

http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=2747&st=15

Interestingly, the contract includes an option for ten more ships. Meaning the PCG paid Tenix a fee to reserve production capability for a future order. I hope it doesn't go to waste.