I truly would like to know how my statement could be interpreted as casting judgement? And even if it was, so what? Isn't this a discussion forum, where one should be able to voice opinions and ask questions?
Last edited:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Now, that statement is judgmental, and more than a little offensive. What do you mean by "in any Canadian program (defence or otherwise)"??
Last edited:
Is it? Remember we see it as outsiders without vested interests, so we do criticise from the point of view of having knowledge of how procurements systems generally work. Don't get us wrong, we've had some real fubars, but we've also learned from most of our more memorable fubars. If you think we are critical of Canada, don't feel special, you should read what we write about our own, or each others, the poms and the Indians - oh the Indians. There is no need to take it personal, because if we wanted to make it personal you would soon know about it. However we are nice people here in Australasia so we don't make things like this personal and hence there is no requirement for you to get all cranky and take the raw prawn about it. A couple of the aussie posters on here have pet drop bears, so they are risk takers. On the Kiwi side of things, us Maori haven't eaten anyone for oh about 180 years
Apparently it's immoral and not the done thing.Yep and it was probably some of my kids fore fathers were last on the menu.On the Kiwi side of things, us Maori haven't eaten anyone for oh about 180 years
I don't mind if you disagree with me. I don't mind casting judgement on a program, from that many discussions come forth that can be informative and productive. That is not a problem at all. However, it works both ways.
I don't mean to offend, but I know Australians can do this unintentionally through excessive directness and our laconic turn of phrase. Prove me wrong (why I used the word probably, to the limit of my feeble knowledge), tell me about a recent Canadian (or other middle power) procurement that is fully costed acquisition (procurement, sustainment, decommissioning) in turned out dollars that is larger and goes 60+ years into the future. My point is the Attack/sea1000 program is pretty unique for a middle power. It has a significant priority. Its not intended as a negative Canada statement, or a statement against you personally.
But to be fair some people are more delicious than others.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Perhaps try re-reading the follow comments by you from post #'s 27495, 27526 , and 27600.
Then take into account that while the Canadian and Australian procurement systems and programme cost projection mechanisms might be similar, they are not the same and would not factor in the same assumptions.
By way of example, look at the RCAF's CC-295 FWSAR programme with a CAN$2.4 bil. value as listed here. Reading through that link, the potential cost could be up to CAN$4.7 bil. if the options for maintenance and support services are extended until the end of 2042, rather than just the 5 years of maintenance and support covered in the initial CAN$2.4 bil. contract. From what I have read of the contract, neither of those values ($2.4 bil. or $4.7 bil.) include operating costs for the aircraft or the costs required for personnel, but does include the costs to setup new support and training facilities for the aircraft. Additionally, the contract, or at least what appears to be available publicly does not specify what dollar-year values are being used. I would expect that the initial CAN$2.4 bil. would be in FY2016 CAN$ since that is the year the contract was awarded, but what about the what the costs would be for extra maintenance and support circa ~2035? Assuming the CAN$ had an average annual inflation of ~1.8%, from a 2016 price to a 2035 price there would be an increase of ~41% in cost
When one starts to either ignore or forget the differences in claimed costs due to different dollar-years especially when dealing with long-running projects, as well as what different cost estimates include, there can be very drastic differences in the figures.
Add in the cost for personnel to a programme which IIRC is typically done in Australian defence procurement programme cost estimates to account for total costs of a programme, then the numbers can get even larger. Some very rough calculations suggest that a typical Collins-class sub ccomplement of 10 officers and 38 crew gets somewhere north of AUD$4.4 mil. p.a. in pay, with superannuation costing yet more atop that figure and that is in current or recent year-dollars. With that figure as a rough base, then it would seem likely that a larger fleet of submarines like the current plans for the Attack-class call for, with a total of eight subs planned to be active at any one time, over a period of 50 years then that pay cost would make up a small percentage but still significant figure and that would also be prior to adjusting for inflation.
To wind this up, one cannot take difference procurement programmes, especially when run for different countries and services, and assert any sort of apples to apples comparisons or predictions unless the information is really examined to determine that the data is the same.
OK, I reread those posts, and still don't see them as particularly inflammatory, but if that is how they were taken, I do apologize. It was not my intent to offend. So, peace.
It would have to include operating costs. That is GoC procurement "law". All projects must have a procurement budget and a sustainment budget. The procurement budget is mostly capital money, and includes ALL costs associated with getting a piece of equipment to IOC. That includes things like project staff salaries, travel, new (or improved) infrastructure, GFE, test equipment, simulators, training, initial provisioning (IP), currency fluctuation, project contingency, etc... In the case of the FWSAR, this is the initial $2.4Billion, and covers the first 6 years of acquisition, transition, and set-up. The sustainment budget is mostly operating money, and includes all the items needed to keep an asset operational through to the end of its expected life. This includes maintenance (PM and CM), POL, crew costs, training, ammunition (if applicable), contingency, etc, etc... For FSWAR, this is the following 20 years (5 + 15 option years). Taken together, the project total cost over 26 years (I don't know why it is 26, but that is what is shown on the DND link) is $4.7Billion. So, $2.4Billion to procure and get to IOC (over the first 6 years), and $2.3Billion to sustain it for another 20 years. Depending on the project, the sustainment budget can sometimes contain some capital funds for a mid-life upgrade, or scheduled block upgrades. It's capital because in Canada (and probably Australia), any upgrade that adds life or capability is considered to be a betterment, and will result in an increase in the value of the asset (which would have been subject to a depreciation schedule based on its expected life). The "dollar-years" are not specified, but whenever my department (I work for the GoC) enters into a procurement contract, we always have to budget in then years for the sustainment component, and we follow GoC procurement rules, so I would have to assume DND would be the same. By then years I mean the years during the the expected life of the asset. In other words, inflation is baked in. How could you even manage a departmental budget otherwise? If you use now years, you would run out of money at some point in the life of the asset.
Your point is taken, however. It is difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison of costs between different countries. The point I was trying to make above is the Canadian budget model does include a heck of a lot of costs, and SEEMS to follow the Australian model fairly closely in that respect. One thing though, that tends to inflate Canadian project budgets is the size of the project contingency. Depending on the complexity of the project as well as the degree of uncertainty when the initial budget was created, that can be as high as 25%. Do you know if Australia includes this in their project budgets? Some countries fund contingency out of a centralized contingency "pot" rather than have a contingency line item within the project budget itself.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
In today’s edition of the Sydney Daily Telegraph in the economic section Terry McCrann is double down on the costs of the future Submarines and is saying the price is between 80-100Billion plus. I tried to find it online to no avail I was going to post a photo of but have no idea how
But the part that raised a chuckle is he described them as nuclear designed but we have taken the nuclear part out and replaced it with 1950’s tech and even comparing it to the US taking the jet engines out of the F35 and replacing the them with propeller ‘s.
Good Greif looks like someone has a beef on cost but has not done any other reasearch typical bean counter
But the part that raised a chuckle is he described them as nuclear designed but we have taken the nuclear part out and replaced it with 1950’s tech and even comparing it to the US taking the jet engines out of the F35 and replacing the them with propeller ‘s.
Good Greif looks like someone has a beef on cost but has not done any other reasearch typical bean counter
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Time for corvettes for the Royal Australian Navy - via The Strategist
Making a case to expand the fleet and embrace distributed lethality, but with small surface combatants, more for the regional environment, to serve along with the global operations minded Hobarts & Hunters.
Making a case to expand the fleet and embrace distributed lethality, but with small surface combatants, more for the regional environment, to serve along with the global operations minded Hobarts & Hunters.
t68
Well-Known Member
Mmm interesting idea, reminds me of the shoot and scoot role of a SPG or even perhaps WWII PT fast attack boats.
They will certainly need overhead ISR as you will not be able to fit anything like Agies on them, but food for thought.
I found it online but it's behind a paywall.
Quick tutorial on how to post images on here: How do I .....
Keeps coming up and going nowhere.
WWII we had the seaward defence vessels that became the Bathurst Class Corvettes ( mine sweepers) but post war there was the Light Destroyer (DDL) program that grew into a full FFG before cancellation, the OPC of the mid 90s, that was cancelled in favour of the eventual ACPB program, then the 2009 White Paper OCV that evolved into the current OPV program.
The concept keeps coming up and keeps getting canned. Enough merit to be considered, even planned, but not seen as critical enough to ensure funding.
The February issue of Defence Technology Review reports that the RAN is considering the purchase of a small number of Cape class patrol boats (3 metre draught) to supplement the Arafura class OPVs (4 metre draught).
https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-feb-2020/flipbook/4/
I am all for the RAN continuing to operate half a dozen Cape class alongside the Arafuras to ensure optimum coverage of our EEZ. There will undoubtedly be current Patrol Boat Group crew wanting to move onto the more capable and comfortable OPVs, but I am sure there will be some preferring the more ‘intimate’ surroundings of the Cape class. So hopefully crewing will sort itself out.
The training and support requirements will be an extension of the eight Australian Border Force’s Cape class and the two Capes operated by the RAN.
Will this free up some of the later Arafuras to support MCMV or hydrographic work?
To ensure ‘complete’ coverage of our EEZ will we soon see the former HMAS Advance (2.2 metre draught and 107.5 feet of Fighting Fury), be requisitioned from the Australian Maritime Museum to rejoin the fleet.
https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-feb-2020/flipbook/4/
I am all for the RAN continuing to operate half a dozen Cape class alongside the Arafuras to ensure optimum coverage of our EEZ. There will undoubtedly be current Patrol Boat Group crew wanting to move onto the more capable and comfortable OPVs, but I am sure there will be some preferring the more ‘intimate’ surroundings of the Cape class. So hopefully crewing will sort itself out.
The training and support requirements will be an extension of the eight Australian Border Force’s Cape class and the two Capes operated by the RAN.
Will this free up some of the later Arafuras to support MCMV or hydrographic work?
To ensure ‘complete’ coverage of our EEZ will we soon see the former HMAS Advance (2.2 metre draught and 107.5 feet of Fighting Fury), be requisitioned from the Australian Maritime Museum to rejoin the fleet.
A
Absolutly nothing to do with the new head of CASG being ex Austal, or the WA Mafia being concerned about Austal having work after the Guardian program, purely down the the RAN needing the awesome, excellent, best warship in the world Cape Class....
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, when Australian defence programmes are being listed with a cost estimate, that cost estimate is the total cost estimate for the entire programme, and IIRC that cost is the estimate of the ENTIRE cost, for everything involved with the programme for the expected life of the programme. This is part of the reason why the interim SHornet purchase was stated as being AUD$6 bil. for the programme, for two dozen SHornets which were only to see a decade of service. This was despite the fact that the flyaway cost for the fighters was only something like AUD$2.4 bil. and around $475 mil. for a weapons package. IIRC there were (at the time anyway) no planned or expected major upgrades. For programmes which are expected to have a longer in-service life, then estimates are included for the cost of upgrades/service-life extensions in addition to the normal operations, support, sustainment and personnel costs, etc.
I am still looking for the write up of the Australian cost estimate process that GF posted a few years ago as it did a very good job covering why some of the Australian programme costs seem so high. Without seeing that, I cannot specifically recall where/how Australia budgets for programme contingencies but I believe that is factored into the programme costs along with risk.
Volk,A
Absolutly nothing to do with the new head of CASG being ex Austal, or the WA Mafia being concerned about Austal having work after the Guardian program, purely down the the RAN needing the awesome, excellent, best warship in the world Cape Class....
Tony Fraser worked for Finmeccanica and Airbus after he left full time service (he was my boss in HSD as a MajGen); I don't think he has worked for Austal. Sheryl Lutz, the head of ship's division, came from BAE and SAAB.
May have my wires crossed but there was a drn thing about a new boss, him starting with customs, going back and forth between government and austal and the highlight of his career being the procurement of patrol boats from Austal.
RADM Davyd Thomas RAN retd., Commander Australian Fleet 2005-2007 and Deputy Chief of Navy 2008-2011, a Novacastrian, has been a member of the Austal Board since 2012 and is currently Vice President, Defence for that company. A fine officer.
Eventhough Border Force have eight of these already and the RAN are operating two .... I cannot see the point. The Border force training system is entirely different as these vessels operate with civilian qualfications. Even the operation of the vessels is subject to civilian certification and a mandatory safety management system. The current manning issues are such that I would peg for additional OPVs for the Navy (the crewing is not much different and the envisaged life is longer) and leave the Cape Class with BPC.
- Status