Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gracie1234]

This is what is in the capability plan that describes the Maritime Sustainment Capability.

The replenishment capability is a key regional enabler especially in projecting and sustaining an NZDF Joint Task Force into the South Pacific. The naval combat force and other deployed NZDF assets are supported by a maritime sustainment
capability (currently the fleet replenishment ship, HMNZS Endeavour ) enabling them to operate at greater distances than if they were operating independently. This capability carries supplies and fuel for the NZDF and its partners. It can re-supply ships at sea, or in overseas ports. HMNZS Endeavour will soon reach
the end of its life. The replacement capability will be capable of refuelling and sustaining the Joint Task Force both at-sea and from-the-sea. When combined with other capabilities it would also offer options in terms of the sustainment of ground forces, and for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions, primarily within the Pacific region. The new capability is scheduled to be in service by mid-2019

Has the capability requirement changed? I am not sure as the above indicates sustaining forces at-sea and from-the-sea.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is what is in the capability plan that describes the Maritime Sustainment Capability.

The replenishment capability is a key regional enabler especially in projecting and sustaining an NZDF Joint Task Force into the South Pacific. The naval combat force and other deployed NZDF assets are supported by a maritime sustainment
capability (currently the fleet replenishment ship, HMNZS Endeavour ) enabling them to operate at greater distances than if they were operating independently. This capability carries supplies and fuel for the NZDF and its partners. It can re-supply ships at sea, or in overseas ports. HMNZS Endeavour will soon reach
the end of its life. The replacement capability will be capable of refuelling and sustaining the Joint Task Force both at-sea and from-the-sea. When combined with other capabilities it would also offer options in terms of the sustainment of ground forces, and for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions, primarily within the Pacific region. The new capability is scheduled to be in service by mid-2019

Has the capability requirement changed? I am not sure as the above indicates sustaining forces at-sea and from-the-sea.

Yes and no. They were originally looking at something different that not did the sustainment role but could also carry two landing craft, vehicles, support some extra bods on board etc., as per the first RFI. However when they received the replies and the cabinet directed that MOTS / COTS options would be taken in future NZDF acquisitions rather than breaking in a new concept, sanity reigned supreme and so they decided that they would go for a sustainment role.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am not suggesting swapping equipment between airframes but swapping entire airframes between ships, either NFH or NH, dependant on mission and lets be honest most missions our ships do, frigates included, are not warlike in nature. Training for combat is not true combat. The current piracy patrols are the first time in a few years they have deployed with an actual intent that will utilise the helos systems and even then is not to its potential.

ASW and ASuW is only priority on 1/3 of the capable fleet (ANZACs), semi-priority on another 1/3 (OPVs) and low priority on the remaining 1/3 (MRV, End 2) whereas for the most of the time (bar training) all this capability is actually wasted and the basic task of just being a helicopter is all that is needed for a very large percentage of an RNZN helo detachment. Supporting a DOC task, islands operation or army maritime excercise with a NFH is rather a waste and although will still be more useful than a current sprite, alittle overkill vs a stock NH and arguably a more exspensive endeavour. I'd go so far as to say we could aqquire 3 marinised NH90s for the price of 2 NFH90s, and for a small fleet this will add up. If we did not aqquire all the ex-RAN frames for the fleet at those prices do you really think we will get more new builds when the time comes? For example RNZAF 90s are the same, 8 NH90s for 16 hueys (more than double capacity, range, performance etc) therefore other than maybe full availability is not really an issue especially since if anything their main customer has gotten smaller over the years.

Also on numbers whilst I get the rule of 3s, in the same token it is not a hard and fast rule but merely a best case formula and as we well know in a perfect world it would be law however in the real world this is just not the case. We have to adjust accordingly and just make do otherwise we'll just go backwards in other areas. If we followed the rule to the letter we would have 3 MRVs, 3 tankers, 3 LWSVs, 6 frigates, 9 OPVs and so on but this is not feasable, doable or even warranted really. A number of defence capabilities are understrength by this rule, 757s, battalions etc but we just have utilise other options and make due rather than lose it or something else completely, a fine balancing act sometimes.

Reg I am positing what I see as the most cost effective long term option for NZDF maritime helos that are going to have to last us for 40 years from now. I'm not suggesting a rule of threes for major fleet items but you are missing the point. The RNZN helo is first and foremost a platform / system for the prosecution of combat against enemy surface and sub surface vessels. Anything else is secondary. Yes we do have many NZDF units under strength because of deliberate NZG under resourcing. I am very aware that NZDF are in a hostile financial environment and that will likely be the case for the foreseeable future. However when I cited the rule of threes I was using it specifically for the ASW / ASuW capable aircraft and having only one possibly two available at any given time is the height of bad management and stupidity. We've been down that road with the current Sprites.

We do not need to acquire aircraft specifically for the MSC but we would need to acquire extra 90s if we go down that road. Why buy extra Sprites with the costs of acquisition, regeneration, refurbishing, upgrading etc., when it would be probably be as cost effective purchasing MOTS 90s for VERTREP off the MSC? We don't need to get a standard TTH marinised - it's already done in the factory.

 

[chis73]

Chris, unsure if you are aware but the "Endeavour Replacement" is now the Maritime Sustainment Capability rather than the Maitime Projection & Sustainment Capability i.e. they have removed the Projection element from the scope of the project.

Does this effect your arguement about the ships helicopter needing to be a "primary logistical role" with the removal of projection of logisitcs over the shore? If the current SH-2G(NZ) is adequate for Endeavour then your do nothing (Status Quo) option of using SG-2G(I) for MSC as the 2 Capabilities are like for like makes sense.

If it does not effect your argument then I would be interested aound your basis that a refueling vessel needs a large helicopter.

Reaver, I'm glad that there has been a change. The concept that had been proposed was bizarre and likely to be expensive. My feeling is that the future tanker ship should be an AOR, with a larger than usual dry stores capacity. Sooner or later this ship is going to be called upon to support modest ship-to-shore HADR missions, preferably via helicopter slung loads. That does not mean it has to carry vehicles or large landing craft. A small landing craft (LCVP) on davits may be possible if the ship is large enough. I see the MSC as a vessel to only support an operation - shuttling back and forth, bringing in fuel and supplies for a land operation once our people are already there, and doing the usual AOR functions at sea with the fleet (including perhaps the RAN). It may be large enough to carry a small number of containers - but port access would be necessary to offload those. I would also think that NZ could only support a single embarked helicopter for this ship. So, the underslung load of the helicopter is important, and my feeling is that the Seasprite is too small for the job. Seahawk, Puma, NH90 or bigger for me please; it needs to do the kind of roles the cargo version of the Sea King has done for so many years. Therefore, I don't think the reduction in role changes the helicopter requirements I proposed much. Also, the sensors and armaments on the Seasprite seem unwarranted.

Whether NZ can afford even an AOR is questionable. Possibly - if we can get a bulk buy discount with the Australians and we are prepared to stretch our budget. They are looking at Cantabria & maybe the 18000t AOR version of the Aegir. If unaffordable, then we may have to reduce the requirements of the MSC back to an AO (like Endeavour). This would reduce the proportion of dry stores and with it the need for a helicopter. Even a Seasprite may then be too much and perhaps an AW109 would be adequate.

Also would you mind explaining to us further your point about how in fact the acquisition of the Sprites will somehow mean that we are less likely to replace the Anzacs. Is it based on the rational of simply cost factors of doing both projects within a shortened timeframe?

Mr C, as I see it, NZ defence procurement is governed by a fear of large numbers on the part of the politicians, rather than by any rational estimation of requirements or even a strategy, particularly since the frigate debate in the 1980s. They would rather ignore the problem and leave it for someone else to sort out. So, we now have a number of deferred defence projects that all need to be addressed between 2020 & 2030, rather than having them spread out over a 30 year cycle. The frigates have the biggest unit cost and are therefore the most at risk of cancellation or reduction in capability (ie reduced to a large OPV). For the Hercules & Orion replacements, a reduction in numbers is a possibility. Even before the Seasprite decision, I felt that at least one of the three was possibly going to miss out. Now that we have picked a 15-year solution for the naval helicopter instead of a 30-year solution and dumped the spending for its replacement right on top of the frigate replacement - I now feel it is probable that one of the big projects will miss out. Apart from the apathy for investment in defence, there are other factors that are going to work against a successful frigate replacement - ie demographics (aging population but no change in national superannuation entitlement age), the economy isn't looking that healthy, a wish to dole out more tax cuts, defence inflation etc.

 

[RegR]

Reg I am positing what I see as the most cost effective long term option for NZDF maritime helos that are going to have to last us for 40 years from now. I'm not suggesting a rule of threes for major fleet items but you are missing the point. The RNZN helo is first and foremost a platform / system for the prosecution of combat against enemy surface and sub surface vessels. Anything else is secondary. Yes we do have many NZDF units under strength because of deliberate NZG under resourcing. I am very aware that NZDF are in a hostile financial environment and that will likely be the case for the foreseeable future. However when I cited the rule of threes I was using it specifically for the ASW / ASuW capable aircraft and having only one possibly two available at any given time is the height of bad management and stupidity. We've been down that road with the current Sprites.

We do not need to acquire aircraft specifically for the MSC but we would need to acquire extra 90s if we go down that road. Why buy extra Sprites with the costs of acquisition, regeneration, refurbishing, upgrading etc., when it would be probably be as cost effective purchasing MOTS 90s for VERTREP off the MSC? We don't need to get a standard TTH marinised - it's already done in the factory.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the importance of ASW/ASuW in the naval context I just do not think we need our entire naval helo component to be geared towards this specifically when in reality we have alot more useful tasks able to be done by something cheaper and actually better.

I think your forgetting we got the 5 sprites to support the 4 frigates at the time, Endeavour was never able to support a sprite and we did not have Cy at that stage. We now only have 2 frigates therefore 4 NFHs will easily cover the 2 replacements when needed. The 2 current OPVs are not intended for sub hunting, taking on frigates or even direct combat as the norm so still not seeing why we need 8 dedicated sub/ship hunter killers especially when it comes down to cost.

The current 5 sprites are not being overworked from just sub hunting and firing missiles but from the full gambit of naval aviation ops, from supply tasks to civilian support to disaster relief and conversion/continuation training. We do not need a fully specced NFH when a standard NH will suffice to do most of these tasks the same if not better and all for a cheaper up front cost that when added up will be the difference between 1 more or 1 less frame as no matter how much we say they can afford to buy this and that in actuality funds are tight and are about to get tighter with some big spends coming up.

We have naval ships that are suited to task and have specific roles so why would'nt we have the same concept for their helos especially if they can come from within the same family.

Now if we somehow got more frigates or more combat orientated OPVs then the mix of NFH/NH should adjust accordingly, or better yet add numbers however we just do not have the financial stability or willingness to try and go top tier for everything.

I am only suggesting marinised NH90 as in specifically for navy and to differentiate from air force, even RNZAF 90s will need some prep and maintanence to survive in that type of enviroment and actually have 3 dedicated with built in flotation devices (these are obviously the frames for embarking) whilst the A109s attach to the outside for cook straight transits. Not sure what you are saying reference seasprites as I have not advocated getting more just said the current purchase was a good deal and will buy us time until we can replace ships with NH90 and/or chinook capable flightdecks and then hopefully a navy NFH/NH follow on purchase.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes and no. They were originally looking at something different that not did the sustainment role but could also carry two landing craft, vehicles, support some extra bods on board etc., as per the first RFI. However when they received the replies and the cabinet directed that MOTS / COTS options would be taken in future NZDF acquisitions rather than breaking in a new concept, sanity reigned supreme and so they decided that they would go for a sustainment role.

Strategic projection can now be focused on with respect to the CY replacement and not something half arsed.

 

[MrConservative]

Whether NZ can afford even an AOR is questionable. Possibly - if we can get a bulk buy discount with the Australians and we are prepared to stretch our budget. They are looking at Cantabria & maybe the 18000t AOR version of the Aegir. If unaffordable, then we may have to reduce the requirements of the MSC back to an AO (like Endeavour). This would reduce the proportion of dry stores and with it the need for a helicopter. Even a Seasprite may then be too much and perhaps an AW109 would be adequate.

Mr C, as I see it, NZ defence procurement is governed by a fear of large numbers on the part of the politicians, rather than by any rational estimation of requirements or even a strategy, particularly since the frigate debate in the 1980s. They would rather ignore the problem and leave it for someone else to sort out. So, we now have a number of deferred defence projects that all need to be addressed between 2020 & 2030, rather than having them spread out over a 30 year cycle. The frigates have the biggest unit cost and are therefore the most at risk of cancellation or reduction in capability (ie reduced to a large OPV). For the Hercules & Orion replacements, a reduction in numbers is a possibility. Even before the Seasprite decision, I felt that at least one of the three was possibly going to miss out. Now that we have picked a 15-year solution for the naval helicopter instead of a 30-year solution and dumped the spending for its replacement right on top of the frigate replacement - I now feel it is probable that one of the big projects will miss out. Apart from the apathy for investment in defence, there are other factors that are going to work against a successful frigate replacement - ie demographics (aging population but no change in national superannuation entitlement age), the economy isn't looking that healthy, a wish to dole out more tax cuts, defence inflation etc.

Chris. There is indeed more than an element of truth in what you say with respect to funding. There has been a tendancy for absolute rock bottom numbers for a generation - how little we can get away with for now was the unspoken meme. For a longtime that was a position that we were able to get way with. Not for much longer and that realisation has started to sink in. The big ticket items are safe especially the two that are ISR generators - we are not going to fubar the most important and privileged club membership that we actually belong to. Even Clark worked that one out. The Air Mobility project will be at the earlier part of the decade, The TINA rule applies.

Disagree about that state of the NZ economy. Then again I am not a socialist nor am I fed a diet of lightweight NZ media and actually work in North Asia and Europe for 11 months of the year giving me a entirely different perspective where our economy actually is on the pecking order.

 

[40 deg south]

Mr C, as I see it, NZ defence procurement is governed by a fear of large numbers on the part of the politicians, rather than by any rational estimation of requirements or even a strategy, particularly since the frigate debate in the 1980s. They would rather ignore the problem and leave it for someone else to sort out. So, we now have a number of deferred defence projects that all need to be addressed between 2020 & 2030, rather than having them spread out over a 30 year cycle. The frigates have the biggest unit cost and are therefore the most at risk of cancellation or reduction in capability (ie reduced to a large OPV). For the Hercules & Orion replacements, a reduction in numbers is a possibility. Even before the Seasprite decision, I felt that at least one of the three was possibly going to miss out. Now that we have picked a 15-year solution for the naval helicopter instead of a 30-year solution and dumped the spending for its replacement right on top of the frigate replacement - I now feel it is probable that one of the big projects will miss out. Apart from the apathy for investment in defence, there are other factors that are going to work against a successful frigate replacement - ie demographics (aging population but no change in national superannuation entitlement age), the economy isn't looking that healthy, a wish to dole out more tax cuts, defence inflation etc.

Defence is expensive and doesn't win many votes, hence it isn't popular with politicians. There is also a vocal minority stridently opposed to any defence purchases, while NZ seems to lack the pro-defence lobby common in most western countries. This may be a generational thing - the nay-sayers have been noticeably quiet over recent purchases.

I disagree about your 'three big projects between 2020 -2030'. The media releases when the Canadian upgrade to ANZACs was announced either had them serving 'until 2030' or 'into the 2030s'. Given NZ's track record of milking every last mile out of defence assets, the serious spending on a frigate will come in the 2030s. That leaves the air transport replacement (around 2020-21, I reckon) and the surveillance replacement (approx 2025) for the next decade.

If the Navy can get the ANZACs upgraded, a new replenishment ship and a combined hydrographic/ mine clearance/ dive support ship by 2020, it will be in good shape equipment-wise. Thus clearing the way for the air force to soak up most capital spending in the 2020s.

For what it's worth, my guess is that the Endeavour replacement will look something like Norway's proposed equivalent. They started out wanting something with RoRo capability and all the bells and whistles, and scaled back to a conventional AOR when they saw the cost. Price estimated around US$215 mil, probably inflated a bit by Norway's offset requirements.
BMT

NZ's planning is well advanced, with a tender due out early 2015, and an order placed sometime in 2016
New Zealand approves replenishment tanker replacement - IHS Jane's 360

I'm also more optimistic than you about the economy, which may be the underlying reason I have a more positive view of NZ's defence spending.

 

[Volkodav]

If you get a third (improved) OPV to replace some of the IPVs this should take some of the load off the ANZACs, potentially giving you more structural life to play with. The upgrades the RNZN has given the ANZACs to date are of the sort that improves performance and durability as well as reducing operating costs while your CS upgrade looks to also be reducing weight, not adding it as the RAN one did, as well as again improving performance and reducing operating cost. Your frigates should have a long future

 

[ngatimozart]

Strategic projection can now be focused on with respect to the CY replacement and not something half arsed.

Yes but my comment about the NZG doing it half arse is that they will try and take short cuts and do things cheap which will not be good for the JATF as a capability nor overall series of systems forming that capability. History has shown a lack of foresight in NZ defence procurement by the pollies and bean counters. For example, the Endeavor flight deck built and rated for the Wasp but not any possible replacement, hence the Sprites never being able to utiluse it. The lack of Sprite numbers, in that if there were four frigates being replaced by, supposedly at least, three new frigates with flight decks, then more than five Sprites should have been procured. Then we might not have been in the position of looking to replace the Sprites so quickly. We were just lucky the ex RAN ones were available. Then there is the HMNZS Charles Upham debacle which cost NZ Inc a small fortune for no gain. Bet NZDF wore the cost for that.

My point is that we are investing a lot of treasure in much needed capabilities, but we do need to ensure that we are getting value for money and that this vfm means we also have to ensure that the we invest wisely with long term outlooks.We need to invest in good quality material that is fit for purpose and that corners aren't cut just to reduce costs for short them gain.

 

[ngatimozart]

Volkodav has made and interesting point on the RN thread about the 1:3 rule regarding naval vessels.

1:3 only really applies to very high maintenance, limited number assets such as submarines where you can even find yourself with 1:4 when one is in deep maintenance for a year or more, one in a shorter maintenance availability, one in port and one deployed.

Modern surface ships actually tend to have much higher levels of availability, usually 2:5. That is for every two deployed you have two in port an one in an extended maintenance availability. Break that down for your 13 (RN)* frigates and you get 5:5:3, 5 deployed, 5 in port, 3 in refit / long maintenance. So you are really talking five frigates available all of the time with another five to surge extra hulls from as required and only the three hulls out of the water in maintenance being unavailable.

You can also trade service life for extra availability short term by deferring maintenance as the RAN did with their fat ships over an extended period. Not a good idea but it can be done, it just means you need to factor in early replacement of your ships due to shagged hulls and systems.

* My addition.

Therefore I stand corrected on the 1:3 rule. So with the OPVs we could get 5 OPVs with 2 operational at all times according to the 2:5 ratio. However with frigates we'd still have to have 3 in order to get one operational at all times. However as he has noted above, an improved OPV would take some of the work load off the FFHs. Don't know if this would work with helos though. Bit more fragile they are and more complexity in very close quarters so to speak.

 

[KiwiRob]

For example, the Endeavor flight deck built and rated for the Wasp but not any possible replacement, hence the Sprites never being able to utiluse it.

It should have been pretty easy to rebuild the helideck for the Sprite, I've never understood why they didn't. Would the hanger have been large enough to fit one?

 

[ngatimozart]

It should have been pretty easy to rebuild the helideck for the Sprite, I've never understood why they didn't. Would the hanger have been large enough to fit one?

Me either, maybe it was cost and they might have had to rebuild or enlarge the hangar. Could've been a weight and stability issue too when End was empty loaded but sure water ballast could've taken care of that. Wasps were smaller than the Sprites and lot lighter.

 

[MrConservative]

Volkodav has made and interesting point on the RN thread about the 1:3 rule regarding naval vessels.
* My addition.

Therefore I stand corrected on the 1:3 rule. So with the OPVs we could get 5 OPVs with 2 operational at all times according to the 2:5 ratio. However with frigates we'd still have to have 3 in order to get one operational at all times. However as he has noted above, an improved OPV would take some of the work load off the FFHs. Don't know if this would work with helos though. Bit more fragile they are and more complexity in very close quarters so to speak.

Volk is on to it. An improved long hull OPV with the right mission pallets on board could do a substantial part of the Frigate role in the normal course of things. Also a future CY replacement that encompasses a wider strategic remit than just Sealift as can also do a substantial part of the Frigate role in the normal course of things. We all recently have identified such vessels. They would take the workload off the 2 frigates. It would create greater flexibility within the Navy.

 

[MrConservative]

It should have been pretty easy to rebuild the helideck for the Sprite, I've never understood why they didn't. Would the hanger have been large enough to fit one?

The simple answer Rob is that they never had enough sprites in the firstplace to bother doing it. The E was never tasked to do much that would require a helicopter anyway.

 

[RegR]

Volk is on to it. An improved long hull OPV with the right mission pallets on board could do a substantial part of the Frigate role in the normal course of things. Also a future CY replacement that encompasses a wider strategic remit than just Sealift as can also do a substantial part of the Frigate role in the normal course of things. We all recently have identified such vessels. They would take the workload off the 2 frigates. It would create greater flexibility within the Navy.

I was in the beleif that the OPVs were there to take pressure off the frigates and release them for their primary duties and the IPVs were improved to in turn take pressure off the OPVs and free them up for their constabulary duties. I think we should get what we have up to a decent standard first (all classes incl air support) along with manning and systems before we consider adding anything above and beyond

Hopefully future OPV will be a much improved version again to take on even more lower to med 'frigate' work as per BAMs which has successfully conducted anti piracy ops whereas we have to send one of the ANZACs due to current OPVs limited capability in this area, the otagos probably could do it at a stretch however no fudge factor allowance so more liability than worth.

 

[40 deg south]

If you get a third (improved) OPV to replace some of the IPVs this should take some of the load off the ANZACs, potentially giving you more structural life to play with. The upgrades the RNZN has given the ANZACs to date are of the sort that improves performance and durability as well as reducing operating costs while your CS upgrade looks to also be reducing weight, not adding it as the RAN one did, as well as again improving performance and reducing operating cost. Your frigates should have a long future

I certainly hope you are right! A recent release on the NZDF website supports this view - key quote is

HMNZS Te Kaha has just completed phase two of her Platform System Upgrade - a mid-life upgrade for both frigates designed to ensure they remain a capable and modernised combat force through to the 2030s.

NZDF - Revamped Navy Warship Back at Sea, Visiting Wellington

 

[40 deg south]

Yes but my comment about the NZG doing it half arse is that they will try and take short cuts and do things cheap which will not be good for the JATF as a capability nor overall series of systems forming that capability. History has shown a lack of foresight in NZ defence procurement by the pollies and bean counters...

My point is that we are investing a lot of treasure in much needed capabilities, but we do need to ensure that we are getting value for money and that this vfm means we also have to ensure that the we invest wisely with long term outlooks.We need to invest in good quality material that is fit for purpose and that corners aren't cut just to reduce costs for short them gain.

The announcement (in 2012 or 13, from memory) that NZGovt would look at value for money over the entire life cycle of equipment rather than just up-front cost was an important recognition of this. I think this has been borne out in the big defence purchases of the current government. The MAN trucks and Texan trainers are both MOTS equipment, widely used by other nations, and purchased of 'hot' assembly lines. The Seasprite purchase doesn't fit this template, but there was a lot of research and analysis before the decision was made.

I have no idea whether this change is sufficiently institutionalised that it will survive a change of government. For this reason, I hope the current gov't pushes through as many of the pending purchases as possible in the current parliamentary term. For me, these are:
- Endeavour replacment (definite)
- littoral warfare vessel (probable)
- third OPV (unlikely)
- Strategic Bearer satellite comms project (definite)
- LAV upgrade (possible)
- misc. small arms replacements (probable)
- twin-engine training aircraft (possible)
- C130 replacement (possible/unlikely?) - not that an aircraft will be purchased or delivered by 2017, but that NZ will have gone sufficiently far down the track of choosing a replacement capability that any future government will simply stick with the decision.

Any other candidates?

 

[40 deg south]

Since I'm cluttering up the net today, I'll also point people at this media release on the NZDF website, with some good news about retention/recruitment.

NZDF - 20141022mfgb5

Of course, it doesn't mention that the spike in exits was caused in part by a poorly-handled civilianisation programme... Good news, nonetheless.

 

[ngatimozart]

This link was posted in the RAN thread by Joe Black earlier today. Pacific Sentinel: Industry: Australia NAVANTIA firm a contract to develop new frigates Possibly another option for the RNZN to consider as an ANZAC frigate replacement. Considering that this project is less riskier than the original ANZAC project and that the original project came in on time and on budget then it is seriously worth looking at.