Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There was discussion in the public space about large Frigates with 96 VLS and Secdef Richardson saying, no chance.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Brissy1982
Active Member
As @spoz has pointed out, Australian naval procurement estimates include estimated whole of life costs including personnel costs. Whole of life costs can absolutely dwarf the cost of building the ship itself over a 20-30 year timescale, so trying to compare Australian naval procurement estimates to those of other countries that don't include whole of life costs is like comparing apples and oranges.
I recall that not long after I joined the RAN, I became aware of some unclassified information about the cost of operating the Perth-class DDGs -the three ships each cost over $100,000 per day (in 1997 dollars) in sustainment and crew costs (salary, allowances and superannuation) just to keep them in commission - a total of ~$110,000,000 per year is a lot of money just to keep three ships tied up alongside. That figure would obviously have been considerably higher when the ships were spending time at sea due to the additional cost of fuel, ammunition for training and exercises, rations for 310 crew members at 3-4 meals per person per day, etc.
I can also recall seeing a news article a while back that gave examples of the cost of operating the FFGs and Anzac-class frigates. From memory, despite the fact that both classes had much smaller crews than the Perth-class DDGs, their ordinary sustainment and operating costs were well north of $200,000 per ship per day, which shows the effect that inflation has over time. I'll see if I can find the article and post a link to it.
I recall that not long after I joined the RAN, I became aware of some unclassified information about the cost of operating the Perth-class DDGs -the three ships each cost over $100,000 per day (in 1997 dollars) in sustainment and crew costs (salary, allowances and superannuation) just to keep them in commission - a total of ~$110,000,000 per year is a lot of money just to keep three ships tied up alongside. That figure would obviously have been considerably higher when the ships were spending time at sea due to the additional cost of fuel, ammunition for training and exercises, rations for 310 crew members at 3-4 meals per person per day, etc.
I can also recall seeing a news article a while back that gave examples of the cost of operating the FFGs and Anzac-class frigates. From memory, despite the fact that both classes had much smaller crews than the Perth-class DDGs, their ordinary sustainment and operating costs were well north of $200,000 per ship per day, which shows the effect that inflation has over time. I'll see if I can find the article and post a link to it.
Yes. Hence why I quoted….. $90 billion Australian to build 12 subs ($7.5 billion each) and $145 billion to maintain them
Brissy1982
Active Member
Understood @Bob53. I agree that Australia does pay more to build ships and submarines here in Australia, and to customise designs to include Australian systems. My point was that the figures that get quoted when other countries are acquiring ships and submarines often do not include figures for customisation which as others have pointed out can add significantly to the cost of acquiring the platform, so the differences in acquisition cost between Australian and overseas ships and submarines may not actually be as extreme as might initially appear.
Brissy1982
Active Member
Further to my earlier post, here is a link to the article I mentioned about the cost of operating the FFGs and Anzac-class frigates - it's from 2012 so 12 years ago now, but it gives an idea of how much it costs to operate ships, and no doubt the figures would be substantially higher today:
Cash-hungry ship costs navy $300,000 a day - 9News
The navy's old supply ship HMAS Success costs almost $300,000 a day to run while an Admiral's Barge costs j...
www.9news.com.au
Many of the customisations are quite literally design changes that are required to permit the capability to function at all.
Others relate to the ability to maintain and sustain the capability.
Some relate to durability in our climate and operational areas.
Then there's the operational side, minimum changes required just so the capability can be safely operated as part of the ADF.
If we bought a capability off the shelf, it still needs to be, to an extent, stripped and refitted to be useful.
Think of it like a police car or ambulance, maybe a tradies van or ute. They are very very different to an outwardly identical vehicle on the showroom floor.
None of these relate to providing the actual operational effects required. That is we are not the US, we are not NATO, for the most part, if the ADF does not possess a capability, then it does not have access to that capability.
Last edited:
Which is also an argument why we need newer ships.
Old ships, like old planes, cost lots of money. At some point you are spending more money than it would cost to build a new ship.
Newer ships are not just capability improvements, but reliability improvements, more economical generally on things like fuel, and crew, and more suitable for modern crew needs and deployments. Refitting old ships often do not allow to get those economies. Old ships tend to wear out crews. Old ships also tend to have uncertain futures, so getting new young crews onto them is harder, because people see them as being short lived and also a pain to work on.
Australian costings tend to be very extensive, where other nations sail away costs tend to be very optimistic. Its not like Australia is unfamiliar with overseas builds. Look at the AOR or the Antarctic ship builds. They have their own problems.
The military also isn't quite the same as a business. Part of it, is that it can deliver what we need when we need it. So part of that is being able to make things here. If that costs more, its costs more. Of which anything that is around 30-40% more expensive, actually costs the same, because the benefit of the Australian economy as wages, suppliers business taxes, etc go back into the economy, which is taxed by the government. In really big countries like the US, it can be even higher, perhaps 60%.. So your money goes a lot further. Which is why often many countries subsidize their defence industry to get overseas work. As sometimes, a subsidy still becomes a net profit, and additional employment, and success is politically useful as well. As a side, by building here, you also set up a pipeline to maintain here, so your operational costs come down. Germany, Spain, France, UK do this. They all have unions and blue collar workers on excellent pay. It comes down to being able to effectively manage projects and having a steady stream of work. Not killing the industry after every project, and then moving it, then restarting it.
Purchase price of platforms are typically dwarfed by their operational costs. A billion dollar sub will probably have 5 billion in maintenance, two billion in crew costs, etc. Mooring facilities aren't free either, fuel, weapons, upgrades all cost big dollars over the life of the platform.
The military power is a function of the countries economy. The better the economy the better military you can afford, the more technologically advanced the economy, the more advanced your weapon systems. Typically paid for in taxes off the economy and those within it.
iambuzzard
Active Member
In essence new ships should be cheaper to run and easier to maintain, plus more attractive for recruitment.
Sadly for the Royal Navy this has not happened for the Type 45 and QE classes.
Hopefully our Hunters and the new Tier 2 frigates won't have this problem.
Sadly for the Royal Navy this has not happened for the Type 45 and QE classes.
Hopefully our Hunters and the new Tier 2 frigates won't have this problem.
The article (issue actually) is an interesting read - based around a war in the Taiwan strait In 2026.On the US SSNs, there was an article on a recent issue of USNI Proceedings that gives some insight into their use in a Taiwan Strait conflict. The article is an essay written as a future history, presumably based on wargaming.
You Can’t Win Without (More) Submarines
Submarines were one of the few forces that could penetrate denied areas inside the exclusion zone declared by Chinawww.usni.org
Of course they are written from a point of view that supports capabilities that the author wants more of (in this case attack submarines with torpedoes) but there were some takeaways for the RAN worth discussing.
The author thought Harpoons and Tomahawks were useless for USN SSNs in a major war (revealing their firing position to ASW assets) but that
PLAN subs would spread out across the Pacific in advance of a conflict and interdict shipping with AShM rather than with torpedoes.
Scenarios like that provide some context for the acquisition of 17 ASW/ undersea optimised platforms for RAN with moderate air defences (though all of those arrive much later than 2026, by which time the scenarios may be very different!).
Last edited:
Given the unmanned ships don't exist yet, imho, I think the number of Tier 1/2 ships is going to change again. Circumstances change, budgets and governments change. If they stick to the now 6 hunter's, that's plenty of time for things to change. They might even double the building facilities and pump out 12 Hunter ASubW's and 9 Hunter AAW versions.
Be interesting if they do choose the Japanese more highly automated option.
Be interesting if they do choose the Japanese more highly automated option.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/bf102549746d7dfaddf661fe1c028d41
Looks like the Government has released the cost of the UK SSN industry contribution at $4.7B over 10 years. Sounds like a significant portion of this goes to RR to expand reactor manufacturing capacity.
That's the next bit of the $58B locked in and goes with the $8B for WA, $2B for SA and $4.5B to the US.
Looks like the Government has released the cost of the UK SSN industry contribution at $4.7B over 10 years. Sounds like a significant portion of this goes to RR to expand reactor manufacturing capacity.
That's the next bit of the $58B locked in and goes with the $8B for WA, $2B for SA and $4.5B to the US.
Australia to spend $5b on UK subs in AUKUS pact
folks
Another follow on article on the UK spend (Andrew Tillett), and it refers to RR trippling in size (seems a suprisingly large upgrade). Unfortunately its a paywall, however the other point to note is that it provides a bit more information on the industry investment, this time the Australian component. I have included an exerpt below.
The additional $30B for industry over 25 years is a large sum of money by any measure. It shows some serious investment in local businesses and I look forward to seeing how this goes. From what I have read elsewhere, there is significant work going into Australin vendor qualifications for the US and UK submarine supply chains, with a number of businesses doing this now.
Overall, it would appear the Government is putting their money where their mouth is.
Lastly I think someone asked a while back what the plan was to train civilian people, and it would appear this will start next year with 100 ASC employees in Hawaii.
folks
Another follow on article on the UK spend (Andrew Tillett), and it refers to RR trippling in size (seems a suprisingly large upgrade). Unfortunately its a paywall, however the other point to note is that it provides a bit more information on the industry investment, this time the Australian component. I have included an exerpt below.
Previously the Government had only announced $10B in infrastructure investments ($8B WA, $2B SA), so there is another $8B of stuff to be built that has not been publicised. That's a lot of money on top of the other investments in port, maintenance and construction facilities, so it will be interesting to see what this is earmarked for (I can't think of what other infrastructure would be needed, any thoughts?).
The additional $30B for industry over 25 years is a large sum of money by any measure. It shows some serious investment in local businesses and I look forward to seeing how this goes. From what I have read elsewhere, there is significant work going into Australin vendor qualifications for the US and UK submarine supply chains, with a number of businesses doing this now.
Overall, it would appear the Government is putting their money where their mouth is.
Lastly I think someone asked a while back what the plan was to train civilian people, and it would appear this will start next year with 100 ASC employees in Hawaii.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Active Member
It seems Richard Marles takes his portfolio seriously. I wonder if he's taking to Kim Beazley?
thatsamguy
Member
I remember thinking when Aukus and SSNs for Aus were announced that I wonder what had changed in the forecast that pushed SSN being a better option than the Attack Class planned and worth the high risk / high cost process that SSNs would require. Sure, I expect there are many reasons including political, but this passage from Marles about expecting snorting subs to be more detectable in the coming future as one of those reasons is very interesting.
Ref: Transcript from ABC News Breakfast
Bold emphasis & truncation my own:
Ref: Transcript from ABC News Breakfast
Bold emphasis & truncation my own:
God I hope not. For all his interest in Defence, and understanding of at least some of the issues, don’t forget he gave us DoA, the original Anzac concept, and killed the THSS. And even his recent USA time wouldn’t make him all that current. Hopefully Marles is listening to his professional advice, from those who have access to intelligence and other information not in the public arena, not that of amateurs who don’t
Submarines don’t surface to snort, though they do of course come shallow.
Last edited:
Clearly massive amounts of money are being invested into these new SSNs and it seems as though it is fast becoming a “too big to fail”program.
All countries involved have their own motivations and agendas. It will be difficult for any of the partner nations to slow down or cut back their contributions without huge ramifications to the program as a whole.
In a way Australia does have a plan B in that it will be acquiring its subs from both the UK and the US. Having two seperate sources for our submarines does reduce the risk. That Australia has left the option open for additional submarines to be acquired from the US is a pretty clear warning to the UK that they need to deliver on the AUKUS submarines.
All countries involved have their own motivations and agendas. It will be difficult for any of the partner nations to slow down or cut back their contributions without huge ramifications to the program as a whole.
In a way Australia does have a plan B in that it will be acquiring its subs from both the UK and the US. Having two seperate sources for our submarines does reduce the risk. That Australia has left the option open for additional submarines to be acquired from the US is a pretty clear warning to the UK that they need to deliver on the AUKUS submarines.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The big win for the UK out of AUKUS, is the Americans will be involved in the design work from day 1. Like Australia and Spain with Collins and S-80, the UK ran into issues with the Astutes and eventually turned to the US (General Dynamics Electric Boat) for help.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Submarine launched Hypersonic weapons - a perfect example of why it’s essential that the RANS’s future SSN’s are fitted with payload tubes with the capability to launch these.
https://warriormaven.com/sea/navy-starts-tests-of-submarine-fired-hypersonic-weapons-systems
My guess is that the AUKUS SSN’s will have 4 payload tubes.
https://warriormaven.com/sea/navy-starts-tests-of-submarine-fired-hypersonic-weapons-systems
My guess is that the AUKUS SSN’s will have 4 payload tubes.
Life would be simpler if they all just settled on a single design. You would think that a anglosized version of a US design would be simpler than starting with a clean sheet.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
New British n-sub to have vertical launch system | The Australian Naval Institute
navalinstitute.com.au
Navy delays next-generation submarine start to early 2040s
The Navy moved its SSN(X) from a 2035 start to the "early 2040s," as it takes risk in modernization programs to pay for current operations and readiness.
www.defensenews.com