The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Grim901]

Grim and Kev

I think we have established that we got two that doesn't understand basic finance theory, and keep not understanding relative simple concepts like Total Costs, Total average Costs and Marginal Costs.
And maybe that's why the discussion continues to go in circle because someone simply refuses to regard objective facts, and instead continues to debate non-debateable issues like what the total cost of the Type45, the TAC of the Type45 and MC of the Type45 means. "That this is surely worth it because it's a wonderfull thing" (I mean God damn. the national Audit more or less say the opposite - but ofcourse they are just evil bureaucrats, and not the persons employed by the people to look after how the executive power throws your money around )



Listen, the £500M pounds, you pulled out from the RN homepage, is a useless figure. It has nothing to do with anything, It doesn't make sense. That's why they post it there so that people who doesn't have a first idea about finance can think "Wow we got a type 45 for £500". No, you don't you got it for £6.5Bn divided by 6. That's a well know metric called: total average costs.

1) You're right, i'm absolutely crap with finance and money in general, if you look I haven't commented on the money figures once, I've watched you contradict yourself doing it though and make an argument that is obvious to anyone, doesn't make sense.

You said, this is how much these 3 Danish frigates cost, look how brilliant we are, it's so low, oh but we're not including all this stuff. Then you say this is how much the Type 45 costs including absolutely everything, it's so high! I'll listen to you, if and when you firstly back up all your numbers and secondly when you make a fair comparisons between the prices.

2) The national Audit office don't care about how good the system is in comparison to others. They don't think about it on a military/strategic level. They simply say what the figures are and sometimes cheapest possible way to go is, irrelevant of any other considerations. You find me one person who thinks the Type 45 is the opposite of wonderful i.e useless and i'll show you someone who knows nothing about naval warfare.

3) Like you've said before, the cost of a type 45 isn't £6.5bn divided by 6, that's the cost of the Type 45 and PAAMS and everything else, which you keep ignoring entirely with your figures on the Danish ships thanks to the Stanflex system.

4) Listen to Kev, he's making sense.

5) You still haven't addressed the fact that this R&D expenditure, which was quite high, would have been needed at some point by someone anyway and it'll be incredibly useful when it comes to the FSC programme, which is set to build about 18 frigates and several OPVs.

 

[Palnatoke]

Listen, in all due respect, you two are a little difficult for me. With one hand you cut me off; "Well he's wandering off in off topic" and with the other hand you keep the discussion running?

Kev;

YEs you are right I only comment on the things I find interesting, that's me being economical with my time, but I will try:

the ones from the National Audit Report? What about where I asked you where you got the figure of £1 - 1.5b for PAAMS from, no reply to that either.

I posted a link to the national Audit report concerning the Type45 cost benefit analysis. that's where the £6.5Bn comes from. The cost of the R&D of the Paams I got from the "Navymatters" link, someone posted above. I think they write that the british part of the PAAMs project amounted to £1bn or £1.5Bn but you are welcome to check me on that one.

The aprox £5bn for ships without PAAMs amount, I got by substracting the National audit's TC amount of £6.5Bn by the amortized PAAMs (£1.5bn). Last I checked that sums up to about £5Bn. Is this the truth? Probably not, on the otherhand I find that it's not completely out in the woods.

Which was rather the point everyone has been trying to get through to you for so long.

Which I agree with, had you bought 24 Type 45s the total average costs would have looked even better (that's far from a certainty, but let's ommit that). This does not remove the fact that the Type45 is an extreamly expensive ship (Compare with the also expensive Sachsen Class, or the dutch a like) And somehow I think that it's a completly irrelevant argument to make that had we spend a huge amount of more money our ATC would have gone down: It's empty, fanatsy world, argumentation.

Grim

I consider it offensive that you quote me ether something I havn't said or you quote me out of context and scope.

You said, this is how much these 3 Danish frigates cost, look how brilliant we are,

Not at all. And I - perhaps unlike you - don't think "we" about people that I share citizenship with, particulary I do not use "we" about legal entities that happens to be registrated in a country where I happen to have a citizenship (apparently unlike the majority here I have the basic view point that capital owns no nationality). I have used danish fgures because I know them and they together with german MEKO designs, are relevant for the point I am trying to make vis a vis navy procurement standardisation as well as industrial standardisation. (Sachsen class is 2.2 euros for 3 ships, remember the historical currency rate if you compare). And it has nothing to do with being brilliant, and I have never said anything to that effect.

The national Audit office don't care about how good the system is in comparison to others. They don't think about it on a military/strategic level. They simply say what the figures are and sometimes cheapest possible way to go is, irrelevant of any other considerations. You find me one person who thinks the Type 45 is the opposite of wonderful i.e useless and i'll show you someone who knows nothing about naval warfare.

This could be a dead interesting discussion. What's the value for money verdict on the type 45?

3) Like you've said before, the cost of a type 45 isn't £6.5bn divided by 6, that's the cost of the Type 45 and PAAMS and everything else, which you keep ignoring entirely with your figures on the Danish ships thanks to the Stanflex system.

I have consistently underlined that difference, I have even attempted to look up the cost of Paams so that we could break it down. Though it's also a point that the cost of the Hvitfeld class and all ships build under the StanFlex concept is exclusive many of the exterior StanFlex modules/containers since this is exactly one of the charracteristics of the system. Anyhow I don't think that the individual missiles or guns are summing to huge amounts of money. The main tap (system integration, Sensor suites etc) has been paid in the budget of the procurement of the ships.

5) You still haven't addressed the fact that this R&D expenditure, which was quite high, would have been needed at some point by someone anyway and it'll be incredibly useful when it comes to the FSC programme, which is set to build about 18 frigates and several OPVs.

No, I don't think that was necessary at all. I would say that since it looks to me, that GB didn't engage (with the type45) in the sort of standardisation that is, in a modern world, necessary to get good value for money I would say that the type 45 is a step lost in that aspect. But I might be wrong,

 

[Grim901]

If the Type 45 is the first step on the road to standardisation then it won't look like it until the next class comes out will it? In all indications the C1's are going to be pretty similar, despite the fact they'll have an entirely different roles, so it could still be happening. And a lot of other standardisation already is, it's just not as pronounced as Stanflex/MEKO.

Again, value for money is important, but not the only consideration. And it ties in to what I was saying about FSC. It may be that while this project looks like poor value for money, the R&D done here could make the C1's look like excellent value for money since the R&D won't need to be repeated to such an extent.

While i admit the type 45 is expensive and there could have been savings, it IS a very capable ship. Just to compare to the Sachsen class as you suggested; the T45 has a smaller crew (more automation?), is almost 3000 tons heavier with almost double the range and higher speed, has a more powerful radar and AAW system, a new type of propulsion and power system and prepared for up to 60 Marines. So there are some reasons for higher costs.

Last point, I specifically said I DIDN'T think we were off topic, just tired of the same argument.

 

[TimmyC]

How feasible would it be to take the T45 hull and use it for C1?

Are the designs any different between a destroyer and a frigate? Such as fitting a towed array.
Indeed how have designs changed in the last 25 years? Importance of a lengthened more stabilized and strengthened hull for ocean travel.
I found it surprising to read some quite recent US destroyers had been encountering structural problems.
Do people think the RN is waiting for sea trails of LCS Independence before making decisions on C2, or has previous studies with RV Triton already been conclusive?

 

[harryriedl]

How feasible would it be to take the T45 hull and use it for C1?

Are the designs any different between a destroyer and a frigate? Such as fitting a towed array.
Indeed how have designs changed in the last 25 years? Importance of a lengthened more stabilized and strengthened hull for ocean travel.
I found it surprising to read some quite recent US destroyers had been encountering structural problems.
Do people think the RN is waiting for sea trails of LCS Independence before making decisions on C2, or has previous studies with RV Triton already been conclusive?

one word perfectly. and to lengthen/shorten it yes with various different fits of ASW/Hanger/AAW/Anti-Surface. that's were the new power plant is very useful as it means that the though the hull would be much larger than a T-22/23 its as fuel efficient if not more so. The down side is that it is not as good ASW platform as a T-22/23 (don't ask why but the perpous design ASW platform is far better) think Burk and Sprucan as a comparison

 

[ASFC]

Last point, I specifically said I DIDN'T think we were off topic, just tired of the same argument.

Yes well said that man-please palnatoke, we may disagree on T45-but can we please ove on, it IS going around in circles-the RN consists of more than T45 and past procurement decisions!

 

[Palnatoke]

If the Type 45 is the first step on the road to standardisation then it won't look like it until the next class comes out will it? In all indications the C1's are going to be pretty similar, despite the fact they'll have an entirely different roles, so it could still be happening. And a lot of other standardisation already is, it's just not as pronounced as Stanflex/MEKO.

Again, value for money is important, but not the only consideration. And it ties in to what I was saying about FSC. It may be that while this project looks like poor value for money, the R&D done here could make the C1's look like excellent value for money since the R&D won't need to be repeated to such an extent.

While i admit the type 45 is expensive and there could have been savings, it IS a very capable ship. Just to compare to the Sachsen class as you suggested; the T45 has a smaller crew (more automation?), is almost 3000 tons heavier with almost double the range and higher speed, has a more powerful radar and AAW system, a new type of propulsion and power system and prepared for up to 60 Marines. So there are some reasons for higher costs.

Last point, I specifically said I DIDN'T think we were off topic, just tired of the same argument.

If you take into account that there were a +30% cost overrun, the missing 6, and that the pound probably were, at the time, overrated against the euro, the type 45 doesn't look so bad in comparison with the Sachsen class (which likely have benefitted a lot from commounality with the dutsch ships).
I think we should be carefull about making to definate statements on the electronics and weapons, I think that the PAAMs is the one to beat for the moment, but viewed over a few years a lot happens. Though the thales APAR+Smart-L config is most likely on par with the Sampson (and the thales solution have won sales over the Sampson).

 

[kev 99]

Palantoke - If Richard Beedle said stated those figures for the 6 T45s then I'm quite happy to accept they are in the right ball park.

Re: 'fantasy' argument of buying 12 and spreading R & D costs, it's only really fantasy if you ignore that the programme was from the start for 12 ships and its only a profound downsizing of the RN escort fleet (and cuts to the army and RAF) in 2004 that cut the programme in half.

Re: Value for money and cost overruns, that rather goes back to my original comment where I replied to you:

A defence contract that goes over cost? Surely not?

The MOD and UK Government are masters at buggering up defence procurement.

Agree with everyone else time to move on...................

 

[Palnatoke]

Re: 'fantasy' argument of buying 12 and spreading R & D costs, it's only really fantasy if you ignore that the programme was from the start for 12 ships and its only a profound downsizing of the RN escort fleet (and cuts to the army and RAF) in 2004 that cut the programme in half.

And that initial programme obviously had a lot of riscs. Like subprime loans also had a great deal of risc, if certain presumptions failed.

The MOD and UK Government are masters at buggering up defence procurement.

I think it's quite general throughout the world; Of some reason a showel for millitary use cost $500 and the one (and functionally identical) down in Walmart cost you $10.

 

[WillS]

Of some reason a showel for millitary use cost $500 and the one (and functionally identical) down in Walmart cost you $10.

The one in Walmart was made in the lowest cost manufacturing centre. The one the military uses was made in the highest-vote-potential manufacturing centre.

This conflict between "defence budget for defence purposes" and "defence budget as industrial policy" is one that screws up many of the major weapons programs worldwide.

WillS
Boiling The Frog

 

[Palnatoke]

This conflict between "defence budget for defence purposes" and "defence budget as industrial policy" is one that screws up many of the major weapons programs worldwide.

My thinking exactly. Liked your link btw. Exspecially The reaper story, Another underlining of the obscure madness.

 

[TimmyC]

Who does what?

Can anyone help answer a question-
If the 'Defence Procurement Agency' is responsible for issuing the contracts and paying the cheques, then who/ which team of people are actually out there designing projects such as the 'Future Surface Combatant'?
Thanks.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Does anyone know roughly how much work will have been carried out on the new aircraft carriers by the time of the next general election? Will enough have done to make cancellation pointless or could the Conservatives still wriggle out of the contracts?

 

[harryriedl]

Does anyone know roughly how much work will have been carried out on the new aircraft carriers by the time of the next general election? Will enough have done to make cancellation pointless or could the Conservatives still wriggle out of the contracts?

construction has started the steel has been cut an over 80% of the contracts have been issued. The first stage of the Rosyth alteration has been completed Ministry of Defence | MicroSite | DES | Our Publications | desider
latest issue says how far compleated the program is.

Plus the cancillation isn't desried due to the amount of jobs created and how much has been paid for and the contractual stuff its cancelled

 

[Sampanviking]

construction has started the steel has been cut an over 80% of the contracts have been issued. The first stage of the Rosyth alteration has been completed Ministry of Defence | MicroSite | DES | Our Publications | desider
latest issue says how far compleated the program is.

Plus the cancillation isn't desried due to the amount of jobs created and how much has been paid for and the contractual stuff its cancelled

I understand that the shipyards are in Mr Browns own constituency and assuming he wishes not to lose his seat next year will not cancel.

After the election though I think everybody has to get realistic. I suspect work will reduce to a crawl and that a new Carrier unlikely to emerge until the end of the next decade. Simply put hospital and school closures in England will ensure attention and resources get redirected and military expenditure put on the back burner for a very, very long time!

 

[harryriedl]

I understand that the shipyards are in Mr Browns own constituency and assuming he wishes not to lose his seat next year will not cancel.

After the election though I think everybody has to get realistic. I suspect work will reduce to a crawl and that a new Carrier unlikely to emerge until the end of the next decade. Simply put hospital and school closures in England will ensure attention and resources get redirected and military expenditure put on the back burner for a very, very long time!

it been paid for with an expected entry date from 2014-2019(for both ships). It will just be building in the background.

Though economically difficult its not like everything's stop functioning. It should be built quicker than CdG

 

[kev 99]

I understand that the shipyards are in Mr Browns own constituency and assuming he wishes not to lose his seat next year will not cancel.

After the election though I think everybody has to get realistic. I suspect work will reduce to a crawl and that a new Carrier unlikely to emerge until the end of the next decade. Simply put hospital and school closures in England will ensure attention and resources get redirected and military expenditure put on the back burner for a very, very long time!

Difficult to do, the contracts ensure that substantial penalty clauses would need to be paid to BVT, savings from cutting the carriers would probably be quite small.

 

[TimmyC]

Difficult to do, the contracts ensure that substantial penalty clauses would need to be paid to BVT, savings from cutting the carriers would probably be quite small.

No commitment has been made to fund the greastest cost of all- the air wing.
Rent-a-carrier coming to a foreign air wing soon.
As for penalty clauses, tranche 3 of typhoon seemed to be a very close run thing.
I wonder how many cuts/ reviews can take place between now and 2020...

 

[kev 99]

No commitment has been made to fund the greastest cost of all- the air wing.
Rent-a-carrier coming to a foreign air wing soon.
As for penalty clauses, tranche 3 of typhoon seemed to be a very close run thing.
I wonder how many cuts/ reviews can take place between now and 2020...

Sorry but neither you nor I really know how close the Typhoon t3a deal was, we only know what the papers and other news sources say, and let's be honest they are pretty poor when reporting on defence matters. The end result was the only sensible outcome, there wasn't really any way out paying the money out so the order got placed. In my opinion what will be more interesting is what happens when the contract for tranche 3b gets negotiated.

No commitment has been made on aircraft? We're spent billions on development is that not a commitment? No orders have been made because we don't know how much F35bs are going to cost and we don't necessarily have to order now, besides the current Government are trying to save money wherever they can so that they can spend it elsewhere at the moment.

If you believe rumours on internet forums 66 MOD serial numbers have been set aside for F35s (disappointing number I know), but then that could just a load of tosh.

 

[harryriedl]

Sorry but neither you nor I really know how close the Typhoon t3a deal was, we only know what the papers and other news sources say, and let's be honest they are pretty poor when reporting on defence matters. The end result was the only sensible outcome, there wasn't really any way out paying the money out so the order got placed. In my opinion what will be more interesting is what happens when the contract for tranche 3b gets negotiated.

No commitment has been made on aircraft? We're spent billions on development is that not a commitment? No orders have been made because we don't know how much F35bs are going to cost and we don't necessarily have to order now, besides the current Government are trying to save money wherever they can so that they can spend it elsewhere at the moment.

If you believe rumours on internet forums 66 MOD serial numbers have been set aside for F35s (disappointing number I know), but then that could just a load of tosh.

Haven't we forgotten he F35 we order we order 3 already for test aircraft that's evidence enough for a commitment