Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

My understanding is that a budget is simply an estimate of how much a project is likely to cost.

The way governments work is that they spend money that doesn't actually exist. Something like buying stuff with a credit card. The tax payer eventually has to pick up the bill and repay that debt.

The purpose of budgeting is simply to ensure that the level of debt never gets too much out of control.

So when a government says that a project will cost x amount of dollars it doesn't mean that it has allocated a certain amount of money and if there is any left over you can do something else with it. It simply means the a project is affordable and gives an estimate of how much it is likely to cost.

 

[t68]

My understanding is that a budget is simply an estimate of how much a project is likely to cost.

The way governments work is that they spend money that doesn't actually exist. Something like buying stuff with a credit card. The tax payer eventually has to pick up the bill and repay that debt.

The purpose of budgeting is simply to ensure that the level of debt never gets too much out of control.

So when a government says that a project will cost x amount of dollars it doesn't mean that it has allocated a certain amount of money and if there is any left over you can do something else with it. It simply means the a project is affordable and gives an estimate of how much it is likely to cost.

Yep the goverment is broke, it's the taxpayer who is guarantor of goverment liability.

 

[Blue Jay]

My understanding is that a budget is simply an estimate of how much a project is likely to cost.

The way governments work is that they spend money that doesn't actually exist. Something like buying stuff with a credit card. The tax payer eventually has to pick up the bill and repay that debt.

The purpose of budgeting is simply to ensure that the level of debt never gets too much out of control.

So when a government says that a project will cost x amount of dollars it doesn't mean that it has allocated a certain amount of money and if there is any left over you can do something else with it. It simply means the a project is affordable and gives an estimate of how much it is likely to cost.

When I first learned about this, it completely blew my mind. It was like discovering that humans share something like 50% of their DNA with bananas. You begin to question reality.

That said however, I wanted to mention that national debt (aka. borrowing, loaning, credit) isn't as much of a doomsday thing as many make it out to be. As long as good faith is maintained on both the creditors' and debtors' part it seems to have very significant benefits.

That said, I am not very familiar with the Aussie situation.

Sorry for the digression.

 

[SpazSinbad]

The DMO Defence Material Organisation explained the budget for the F-35A/JSF:

Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 Defence Materiel Organisation page 158

“...Joint Strike Fighter | Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft - AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin is contracted to the United States Government for the development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Australia is procuring the aircraft through a government-to-government agreement.

This project is approved to acquire 72 JSF aircraft and supporting elements to form three operational squadrons and one training squadron. This comprises 14 aircraft approved in 2009 and 58 approved in April 2014. The funding for the recently approved 58 aircraft and associated elements will be transferred to the DMO post the 2014-15 budget...."
404 Page not found!! : Department of Defence

add the 'h' for original URL: ttp://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/pbs/2014-2015_Defence_PBS_04_DMO.pdf

 

[vonnoobie]

When I first learned about this, it completely blew my mind. It was like discovering that humans share something like 50% of their DNA with bananas. You begin to question reality.

That said however, I wanted to mention that national debt (aka. borrowing, loaning, credit) isn't as much of a doomsday thing as many make it out to be. As long as good faith is maintained on both the creditors' and debtors' part it seems to have very significant benefits.

That said, I am not very familiar with the Aussie situation.

Sorry for the digression.

The Aussie situation is an odd one, We are doing better then most other OECD countries but seems out Government is more worried about our comparatively minor debt then other OECD nations.

Result is our Government wants to slash spending even though we take in little taxes as a whole (Just north of 25% of the GDP, Similar to the US but well below other comparable nations).

 

[ASSAIL]

It would be nice to get back to the RAN folks!

 

[t68]

It would be nice to get back to the RAN folks!

If they were placing bets on the future frigate, I wonder what the odds would be

 

[Volkodav]

If they were placing bets on the future frigate, I wonder what the odds would be

Go ask the Cheif of Navy, the FEG, the current and up and coming skimmer drivers, which option they least prefer, or perhaps which option does not meet requirements and will be least fit for service and you will likely have the answer. Failing that perhaps do a FOI on which designer is spending the most on wining and dining various polies and senior staffers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

After having 104 consecutive quarters of growth Australia is doing okay. I would rate defence pretty high and bi-partisan support. While the two sides might disagree a bit on exact platforms, they shouldn't go around killing things.

Given how defence and local industry are tied up currently it would be unpopular to slash defence for tax cuts.

But most procurement costs are not back breaking items for Australia. Operational costs can be many times the procurement cost.

So in Australia's situation we should generally go for the best equipment we can get.

Does anyone know why the Spanish BAM ships were ruled out for the OPV's?

 

[Volkodav]

After having 104 consecutive quarters of growth Australia is doing okay. I would rate defence pretty high and bi-partisan support. While the two sides might disagree a bit on exact platforms, they shouldn't go around killing things.

Given how defence and local industry are tied up currently it would be unpopular to slash defence for tax cuts.

But most procurement costs are not back breaking items for Australia. Operational costs can be many times the procurement cost.

So in Australia's situation we should generally go for the best equipment we can get.

Does anyone know why the Spanish BAM ships were ruled out for the OPV's?

Officially, too big and too flexible for the constabulary role for which the SEA 1180 ships are intended. Also I know the BAM was being considered for the USCG and BIW personnel familiar with Navantia were asked to report on the design, the report saying basically that the design would need to be gutted, even the hull structure being revised, i.e. basically redoing the whole thing.

 

[hauritz]

Officially, too big and too flexible for the constabulary role for which the SEA 1180 ships are intended. Also I know the BAM was being considered for the USCG and BIW personnel familiar with Navantia were asked to report on the design, the report saying basically that the design would need to be gutted, even the hull structure being revised, i.e. basically redoing the whole thing.

Australia will eventually need to replace its minehunter and survey ships. The DWP is pretty vague about how this will be done other than to suggest that the hydrographic and oceanographic capability will be achieved by a combination of commercial and military solutions and the Huon will have their life extended into the 2030s.

Of course the original plan was to incorporate these capabilities into a new class of OCVs

It makes me wonder whether a new class of larger more capable OPVs will be acquired after SEA 1180 ships have been built.

Something about the same size and capability as the BAM.

 

[Volkodav]

Australia will eventually need to replace its minehunter and survey ships. The DWP is pretty vague about how this will be done other than to suggest that the hydrographic and oceanographic capability will be achieved by a combination of commercial and military solutions and the Huon will have their life extended into the 2030s.

Of course the original plan was to incorporate these capabilities into a new class of OCVs

It makes me wonder whether a new class of larger more capable OPVs will be acquired after SEA 1180 ships have been built.

Something about the same size and capability as the BAM.

I believe all, or at least two of the contenders for SEA1180 are (or could be modified in build) to be able to embark the appropriate mission modules. If we were smart we would probably make a future batch capable of embarking USN LCS Mission Modules.

 

[SteveR]

Just read the following text from Damen's announcement of its tender submission for SEA 1180 OPV:

'The proven Damen design being offered uses innovative technology to improve seakeeping,.................' .

That implies a Sea Axe bow to me?

 

[t68]

Just read the following text from Damen's announcement of its tender submission for SEA 1180 OPV:

'The proven Damen design being offered uses innovative technology to improve seakeeping,.................' .

That implies a Sea Axe bow to me?

And a link to an announcement in Naval today,

Naval Today Mobile

 

[hauritz]

Just read the following text from Damen's announcement of its tender submission for SEA 1180 OPV:

'The proven Damen design being offered uses innovative technology to improve seakeeping,.................' .

That implies a Sea Axe bow to me?

Indeed the emphasis on sea keeping would suggest that this is the design being offered.

The OPV 1800 sea axe would seem to be the best match.

Offshore Patrol Vessel 1800 Sea Axe

 

[aussienscale]

Indeed the emphasis on sea keeping would suggest that this is the design being offered.

The OPV 1800 sea axe would seem to be the best match.

Offshore Patrol Vessel 1800 Sea Axe

Although we don't know what was requested in the RFT, the Sea Axe was discussed in depth about 12 month's ago.

Assail and probably Alexsa would be able to chirp in here, the issue with the Sea Axe is the draft and its ability to access ports around the country, and especially around the top end, North East and North West.

That restriction alone, I would have though, should rule it out ?

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Just read the following text from Damen's announcement of its tender submission for SEA 1180 OPV:

'The proven Damen design being offered uses innovative technology to improve seakeeping,.................' .

That implies a Sea Axe bow to me?

Don't forget Damen also developed the 'enlarged ship' (basically and extended bow in the hull form which then evolved into SeaAxe) and that is still preferred for some situations.

This is used on the current OPV1800 and OPV2400. I suspect the SeaAxe may be it but would not rule out the existing 1800 design (or bigger if stays within the 2000 tonnes noting Damen are will to adapt their designs).

 

[ASSAIL]

Although we don't know what was requested in the RFT, the Sea Axe was discussed in depth about 12 month's ago.

Assail and probably Alexsa would be able to chirp in here, the issue with the Sea Axe is the draft and its ability to access ports around the country, and especially around the top end, North East and North West.

That restriction alone, I would have though, should rule it out ?

Cheers

I see no restriction in their operational,area.
About the only real,consequence comes when they run aground! A normal hull will sled gracefully up the reef until it comes to rest, a sea axe will come to a screaming halt and throw everyone off their feet

 

[alexsa]

Although we don't know what was requested in the RFT, the Sea Axe was discussed in depth about 12 month's ago.

Assail and probably Alexsa would be able to chirp in here, the issue with the Sea Axe is the draft and its ability to access ports around the country, and especially around the top end, North East and North West.

That restriction alone, I would have though, should rule it out ?

Cheers

The Damen site is hard to access at the moment (probably being bombed by journos looking for information) but the forefoot of the Sea Axe is quite a bit deeper that the standard 'enlarged hull' OPV1800. Whether this is an issue really depends on the RFT.

In noting this we have to remember that border protection run 8 Cape Class patrol vessels that can still cover these areas (plus the two built as stop gaps for the Navy) leaving the OPV to work further offshore.

 

[hauritz]

Lurssen wants to export warships from Australia to regional allies. Also confirmation that their proposal will be based on the Darussalam Class corvette.

Nocookies | The Australian

For those that cannot access the Australian here is the abridged version ...

The family-owned Lurssen Werft, which has been building ships since the 1870s, is one of three contenders for the OPV project through a version of the *Darussalam Class corvette it built for the Royal Brunei Navy.

Lurssen chief executive Peter Lurssen told The Australian the corvettes had visited Australia and had exercised with the Royal Australian Navy so their capabilities were well known here. He said that to maintain an indigenous continuous shipbuilding industry, Australia would have to build an export market and Lurssen was well placed to do that.

Progressively upgrading and modernising the 12 OPVs through their life would provide Lurssen and Australia with the ability to design and build a whole class of replacement vessels in the future.