A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[weasel1962]

Re:

I was actually referring to the role of the ANAO as independent auditors here. They have provided JCPAA reports on major defence procurement before.

With reference to the 2003 Kinnaird review, agree its comprehensive but it is no perfect model yet. If not, projects like the cancelled JP129 or retender for phase 3 of the land 121 would not have occurred. DMO themselves conduct specific and regular reviews to ensure kinnaird processes are updated eg Mortimer review.

Currently DOFD has a dedicated branch providing "independent" evaluation and verification of proposals. Each project has a project governance board. However there are still lapses. One can have the best processes but with little compliance, it will be a white elephant.

I tot this doc projects a good chronology of the processes.
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2008-09_Audit_Report_48.pdf

Read point 2.3.7

However, the ANAO found that the governance arrangements under which CIR Division operates are not conducive to the provision of independent analysis and review of costings, or to the provision of independent advice to the committees considering whether, and in what form, to progress capability proposals. Rather than providing an independent viewpoint, CIR Division staff are accountable to CCDG—as are the desk officers who prepare the proposals and costings, and the directors who manage them. Similarly, CCDG is Chair of the DCC and a member of the DCIC, yet the advice provided by CIR Division to these committees is considered by Defence to be independent.

The problem is that auditors only execute audits after the fact and often on a sample basis. Same for the GAO in the US. For many countries, independent auditors do not even exists. Scary. Don't you think for $ billion projects, they deserve their own independent compulsory audits? If only to ensure that processes are followed ie tight. But auditors will argue they provide more value add than that.

Cheers!

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was actually referring to the role of the ANAO as independent auditors here. They have provided JCPAA reports on major defence procurement before.

and they have stuffed up badly because they don't understand Defence projects. Their assumptions and boundaries are sometimes horribly wrong

With reference to the 2003 Kinnaird review, agree its comprehensive but it is no perfect model yet. If not, projects like the cancelled JP129 or retender for phase 3 of the land 121 would not have occurred. DMO themselves conduct specific and regular reviews to ensure kinnaird processes are updated eg Mortimer review.

kinnaird does not work for ewarfare, it does not work for ITC, it does not work for evolutionary or spiral development.

the bottomline is that defence is bound by govt process and direction

Currently DOFD has a dedicated branch providing "independent" evaluation and verification of proposals. Each project has a project governance board. However there are still lapses. One can have the best processes but with little compliance, it will be a white elephant.

its not about compliance, its about compliance and relevant capability

I tot this doc projects a good chronology of the processes.
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2008-09_Audit_Report_48.pdf

Read point 2.3.7

and this is a fundamentally useless document because its aspirational - it does not reflect how most programs work.

The problem is that auditors only execute audits after the fact and often on a sample basis. Same for the GAO in the US. For many countries, independent auditors do not even exists. Scary. Don't you think for $ billion projects, they deserve their own independent compulsory audits? If only to ensure that processes are followed ie tight. But auditors will argue they provide more value add than that.

no, auditors work to a defined process, they don't allow for the nature of how diff projects need different processes. I have been a commonwealth audiror - admittedly it was 25 years ago, but the basic tenets still apply.

you seem to be missing the point that the Govt/cabinet can change the direction and peoploe have to take it on the chin.

make Ministers/cabinet accountable for their decisions and they'll start to pause a bit before making spending decisions.

whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Aussie Digger]

make Ministers/cabinet accountable for their decisions and they'll start to pause a bit before making spending decisions.

whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

You're joking aren't you? Make that lot responsible for decisions that go wrong and there won't BE any decisons made.

Period...

Lots more Committees though...

 

[gf0012-aust]

You're joking aren't you? Make that lot responsible for decisions that go wrong and there won't BE any decisons made.

Period...

Lots more Committees though...

Thats true.

but the premise being that if shareholders and the judiciary can pursue company directors for breaches of corporate negligence and their executive responsibilities, then the same should hold true for all.

it cranks me off when I see theorists discussing the problems with procurement and they have basically no idea of the processes in place and how direction is a fleeting beast. the press in all their wisdom will wax lyrical about whats busted but fundamentally are clueless to the reality of why things are busted and who needs bringing to heel.

lots of "experts" but almost zero who have worked across multiple fronts and understand the actual issues.

/rant off

FMD, I was an auditor many moons ago and I wouldn't want to go to court defending some of the decisions that we made but which were "bound" by legal weasel words...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

AD's comments misses the point. No one is asking independent auditors to make defence procurement decisions. That's not what auditors do. The extent that an independent audit can slow the procurement process down is not clear nor empirically substantiated. Some might argue that for billion $ procurement decisions, more independent oversight might be a good thing.

What I think is important is that processes and numbers have to be independently verified. If one doesn't accept independence as a critical element then the comments that followed are indeed valid. The assumption that once processes are there, people will just follow doesn't bear reality.

Stating the ANAO is incapable of auditing defence contracts is the equivalent of assuming the DoD can perform audits as capably and independently as the ANAO. I beg to differ.

Its easy to sweep the whole issue aside as done once one can't explain the inconsistencies. Clearly, the ANAO themselves have already identified cases where independence is in question.

I can understand no one likes to be audited. But just generalising that independent audits have no role in defence procurement is imho way off the mark. I'm not here to change perceptions of what the ANAO can do or to champion their cause so I think we can agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[gf0012-aust]

AD's comments misses the point. No one is asking independent auditors to make defence procurement decisions. That's not what auditors do. The extent that an independent audit can slow the procurement process down is not clear nor empirically substantiated. Some might argue that for billion $ procurement decisions, more independent oversight might be a good thing.

What I think is important is that processes and numbers have to be independently verified. If one doesn't accept independence as a critical element then the comments that followed are indeed valid. The assumption that once processes are there, people will just follow doesn't bear reality.

Stating the ANAO is incapable of auditing defence contracts is the equivalent of assuming the DoD can perform audits as capably and independently as the ANAO. I beg to differ.

Its easy to sweep the whole issue aside as done once one can't explain the inconsistencies. Clearly, the ANAO themselves have already identified cases where independence is in question.

I can understand no one likes to be audited. But just generalising that independent audits have no role in defence procurement is imho way off the mark. I'm not here to change perceptions of what the ANAO can do or to champion their cause so I think we can agree to disagree on this issue.

Did you read the bit where I stated that I'd been a commonwealth auditor? auditing is not the issue.

quite frankly, you;re making comments about the process without appreciating the issue,. your comment about the capability of auditors might hold relevant where you are, but it clearly does not hold here.

if they can't get costing models right (and thats after discussions with DOFD) then that shows that they haven't come to grips with the process.

I'm done with this topic. I'm not going to persist in debate at an academic level when the issues I'm discussing are ones based on my actual experiences over the last 30+ years and where I've worked all sides of the square.

this hasn't been a hobby for me.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD's comments misses the point. No one is asking independent auditors to make defence procurement decisions. That's not what auditors do. The extent that an independent audit can slow the procurement process down is not clear nor empirically substantiated.

Actually I didn't miss any point that I am aware of. I wasn't commenting on auditors of any type themselves, but rather GF's point that Australia's past and present Defence Ministers and occasional Prime Ministers should be held to the same standard of auditing as the DoD bureaucrats they make responsible for delivering their political decisions as THEY are equally as culpable for so many procurement ferg-ups as Defence itself is...

Of course the ridiculousness of thinking a politician will ever be truly held to account for a stuff up is what my earlier comment refers to.

And now we are in danger of talking politics so I'll leave my comments here.

 

[Jaimito]

We have done this before with the old HMAS Melbourne in 1974 cyclone Tracy relief mission, taking up essential rebuilding supplies, but with the arrival of the Canberra class LHD that is one of the roles intended for her and one will be more suited to.

It is a shock to the system to see the RN will be savagely cut in size and capability, but one which could potently benefit Australia. Others have mentioned the getting cut priced Bay class; she should be the priority for the RAN as it should be.

If it can be done with a favourable outcome for Australia to acquire a Queen Elizabeth class with no loss of other capability and if the government can look forward (look at a gift horse in the mouth) it will be an asset for Australia for the long term. The RAAF should be looking at the challenge it will bring and the benefits’ that the Super hornet will still be an asset out to 2035 USN will still have them a small purchase of 24 F35C JSF that put us with 48 carrier capable aircraft ideally the 70 F35A model buy still stands RAAF will have no loss of aircraft and capability but an increase in size of 18 aircraft.

Peace time manning could be 12 Super Hornet 12 F35C JSF on a rotational basis’ with the ability to fill out with the others in time of need , but we will only have the one operational cruise which would work with the other RN asset, Australia commits one then the UK pending on the needs of commitment.

I believe their will be many benefits’ as a whole to the ADF with a purchase of a cheap as chips light carrier in service in the 2018/20 time frame,

1, additional posting and career enhancement potential RAAF members
2, additional posting and career enhancement for RAN members
3, better working relationships with both the RN and USN
4, more and better options in dealing national security problems closer to home or world wide
5. Forward presence, deterrence, sea control, power projection, maritime security.

Wanting that capability, trying to not be just the prey, ie permanent carrier capability i would be looking at an effort not towards QE but for a 3rd Canberra, having commonality with the others Canberras, with the carrier config the Spaniards would use, plus the tanker needed for more fuel, anyway this tanker is in RAN´s perspective, as it is a 3rd sealift ship, a second hand Bay class, or for a little more a 3rd Canberra instead of the Bay, for a little more you will not need the QE (3 Canberras). The problem with jets will be the price, ie the problem is not to spent 415 (Navantia´s part) millions euro, with that money probably just 4 F35b´s with the increasing prices...

 

[old faithful]

man, a CV or 3rd Canberra class would mean a definate 4th AWD, more support vessels, more land crew. I cant see the defence force getting to many new toys untill a change of govt settles in and the dust settles in canberra, lets hope we see a stable govt in the next 4 years.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Given the stuff up with the AWD currently being built I see a 4th awd getting further and further away.

For 3 LHD you would definately want a 4th AWD. 3 LHD would be possible if projects all went well, economy was strong and the politics were stable. At the momement I don't think any of those conditions are being met.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Given the stuff up with the AWD currently being built I see a 4th awd getting further and further away.

it couldn't get much further away than it currently is.

if radar could paint alpha centauri it still wouldn't appear on screen....

 

[Jaimito]

There are already 2 big ships to escort, plus in the case the future tanker, the pot of ships to escort its already there, adding another big ship just makes the pot a bit bigger, but with or without it they will need the escorts anyway. It´s different if the aim is to have various pots in different locations, then it would have to divide the escorts.
You can see to have a light carrier as another assest to protect, or you can see as an escort itself as well.
The good thing from being able to build your own escorts, as AWD or Anzacs, it´s that out of the whole ship price, probably the radar it´s just a part but not the most expensive part, in terms of hull, engines, aux. gear, vertical launcher, sonar, general fit out, etc... i mean what should be the difference between using the big SPY with BMD capability etc, or use the small SPY without autonomous BMD just for local area defence under high intensity threats and CEC with AWD ...maybe it is much cheaper.. and i am not saying not to go for AUSPAR or CEAFAR, just in the case they delay the development, or does not suits high intensity, then go for a couple of basic SPY´s and the rest with AUSPAR or CEAFAR. Anzac 2 with AUSPAR or CEAFAR or Anzac 2 with basic SPY and Aegis maybe it will not be a big difference cause the most expensive is the rest of the ship, which is the same in both mountings.
What seems possible as carrier use, out of 3 Canberras, is to have one flight deck for jets. Ideally RAN would be using as maximum 2 Canberras and the 3rd sealift ship simultaneously, if RAN goes for simply a sealift ship no, but if RAN goes for a sealift ship with a flight deck, ie Canberra, this flight deck could be given for the F35b´s and still have both vehicles decks for that sealift function.

 

[icelord]

There are already 2 big ships to escort, plus in the case the future tanker, the pot of ships to escort its already there, adding another big ship just makes the pot a bit bigger, but with or without it they will need the escorts anyway. It´s different if the aim is to have various pots in different locations, then it would have to divide the escorts.
You can see to have a light carrier as another assest to protect, or you can see as an escort itself as well.
The good thing from being able to build your own escorts, as AWD or Anzacs, it´s that out of the whole ship price, probably the radar it´s just a part but not the most expensive part, in terms of hull, engines, aux. gear, vertical launcher, sonar, general fit out, etc... i mean what should be the difference between using the big SPY with BMD capability etc, or use the small SPY without autonomous BMD just for local area defence under high intensity threats and CEC with AWD ...maybe it is much cheaper.. and i am not saying not to go for AUSPAR or CEAFAR, just in the case they delay the development, or does not suits high intensity, then go for a couple of basic SPY´s and the rest with AUSPAR or CEAFAR. Anzac 2 with AUSPAR or CEAFAR or Anzac 2 with basic SPY and Aegis maybe it will not be a big difference cause the most expensive is the rest of the ship, which is the same in both mountings.
What seems possible as carrier use, out of 3 Canberras, is to have one flight deck for jets. Ideally RAN would be using as maximum 2 Canberras and the 3rd sealift ship simultaneously, if RAN goes for simply a sealift ship no, but if RAN goes for a sealift ship with a flight deck, ie Canberra, this flight deck could be given for the F35b´s and still have both vehicles decks for that sealift function.

Its better to have a mixed set up, the current situation with the LPAs is a prime example.
If the Indo earthquake was bigger then current, then we couldnt sail the LPAs but Tobruk could somehow float up there. As much as im not a fan of Tobroken still kicking around, its all we got because of the LPAs unseaworthiness.
Same goes for surface combatants, while the FFG downgrade was happening, the FFH could take up the slack. Having 2 different types of ships with the RANs history, works more in our favour. Also why i can be skeptical of 'common' airframes. Im all for a NH90 OR Romeo, but if it gets grounded as had happened...then what do you do? The helo is only minor compared to stopping a whole ship from sailing of course, but its a risk the ADF has too take. by sharing the risk, we allow better performance(For all Non-ADF, todays ADF safety day, so OHS briefs etc...sharing the risk is a key point, its what happens when i pay attention here and there)

 

[Volkodav]

A couple of thoughts on this topic.

Carriers are inherantly flexible and adaptable, they are (so long as they are large enough) among the easiest types of warships to update and keep in service, not just for a couple of decades, but for generations through updating and replacing their airgroups.

That said carriers are big and visible so need to be protected i.e. they can not operate alone and as such dedicated escorts must be acquired or existing assets must be reassigned from their primary taskings.

Also, everyone pretty much knows where a carrier group is and therefore where it is not, so while they are very good at showing the flag, they are not a very effective deterant where they are not.

Submarines on the other hand operate alone and because you don't where it is you have to assume it is near by watching and waiting, thereby tying down a disproportionally larger force. The closest analogy I can think of is a sniper.

That said I would love to see carrier groups in the RAN, just not at the expense of other capabilities that are more critical to our defence.

 

[Volkodav]

Looking outside the square I can see a way to potentially obtain some of the capabilities desired of a carrier without breaking the bank or distorting the structure of the ADF.

This solution is to split the ANZAC replacement build into a class of large multi role frigates (as currently planned) and a class of through deck combatants designed to operate multi mission maritime helicopters, UCAVs and ROVs. They would share combat systems and sensor packages with the through deck design trading the large VLS and medium calibre gun for a hanger, flight deck and the necessary support spaces magazines etc for the air group.

The key element justifying the through deck combatant would be a stealthy fixed wing long endurance UCAV (evolved Avenger or similar) incorporating a 360° AESA, ECM, ESM, IRST etc and possibly an array of internally carried air launched ordinance, but its primary role would be a multi function networked, surveillance platform. This aircraft would be launched using JATO and recovered using a flexible crash barrier on the rear section of the flight deck. Its persistence would be obtained, not through high sortie rates, but from very long time on station allowing 24/7 coverage to be achieved by a small number of airframes.

I don’t believe the technology is there yet but suspect something like this could be achieved in a decade or so.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Looking outside the square I can see a way to potentially obtain some of the capabilities desired of a carrier without breaking the bank or distorting the structure of the ADF.

This solution is to split the ANZAC replacement build into a class of large multi role frigates (as currently planned) and a class of through deck combatants designed to operate multi mission maritime helicopters, UCAVs and ROVs. They would share combat systems and sensor packages with the through deck design trading the large VLS and medium calibre gun for a hanger, flight deck and the necessary support spaces magazines etc for the air group.

The key element justifying the through deck combatant would be a stealthy fixed wing long endurance UCAV (evolved Avenger or similar) incorporating a 360° AESA, ECM, ESM, IRST etc and possibly an array of internally carried air launched ordinance, but its primary role would be a multi function networked, surveillance platform. This aircraft would be launched using JATO and recovered using a flexible crash barrier on the rear section of the flight deck. Its persistence would be obtained, not through high sortie rates, but from very long time on station allowing 24/7 coverage to be achieved by a small number of airframes.

I don’t believe the technology is there yet but suspect something like this could be achieved in a decade or so.

Absolutely the right idea. Wrong platform.

 

[Jaimito]

It is interesting, in the case there is some cash avalaible, in what to spend it, more subs or carrier and F35bs? If the enemies have Asw helos superiority due their jets or helos numbers, subs might not be safe, ok subs are fundamental, but the potential threat given by some jets will scare the enemy´s Asw helos.
I do not think Uavs or Ucavs, etc, can replace jets, if you want to fly sea level, over the horizon, you would trust on avalaible satcom which might be slow? And in case of facing proper jets with stronger electronic suite and weapons they will be lost. They can be useful, of course, but not if there are potential threats, even vs helos...

 

[Aussie Digger]

It is interesting, in the case there is some cash avalaible, in what to spend it, more subs or carrier and F35bs? If the enemies have Asw helos superiority due their jets or helos numbers, subs might not be safe, ok subs are fundamental, but the potential threat given by some jets will scare the enemy´s Asw helos.
I do not think Uavs or Ucavs, etc, can replace jets, if you want to fly sea level, over the horizon, you would trust on avalaible satcom which might be slow? And in case of facing proper jets with stronger electronic suite and weapons they will be lost. They can be useful, of course, but not if there are potential threats, even vs helos...

Our Defence force has no spare cash at present. Except for perhaps to meet an unforseen urgent operational requirement, we won't be getting ANYTHING that isn't already in our Defence Capability plan and there are significant doubts over whether we will get everything that IS in our current plan.

Dreaming about additional capability is simply that. Dreaming...

For reasons best known to itself, our Government is slashing Defence funding enormously. Thinking about additional capability in the present climate is simply wishful thinking...

 

[Volkodav]

The biggest issue is while we probably could afford individual platforms i.e. Queen Elisabeth at SDAR run out prices, it would only be at the cost of other, essential, projects and the full capability of the new platform would (could) never be realised as it would require structural changes to the ADF that would take decades and a massive increase to the defence budget to roll out.

On the other hand, had we replaced Melbourne with another carrier during the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s our force structure would need a new carrier and failing to procure one would result a massive loss in capability that could only be remedied by time and massive investment. We would have had the basic infrastructure and support elements in place rather than be trying to bring them online concurrently with the acquisition of the platform.

Bringing the LHDs into service is going to be difficult enough as we will need to get back into the task force game again. We will need every AWD and upgraded ANZAC we can crew and even then maintaining a suitable group will be a challenge. A supporting a carrier on top of this would be impossible.

Something that would be interesting though, depending on the performance of the upgraded ANZACs, is how capable the OCVs can become. A few tweaks could significantly enhance the RANs capability post 2030

Assuming HMAS PERTH proves to deliver near AEGIS capabilities and the system can be affordably designed and fitted into a 2000 tonne combatant we could find ourselves (potentially) with:
• 20 mini AWDs (OCV with CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT and VLS) supporting
• 8 cruisers (the ANZAC replacement frigates, larger than the F-100s, with better sensors, greater war load and flag facilities), or
• mix of 4 of these cruisers and 4 through deck helicopter carriers / command cruisers, and
• 3 AWD’s providing theatre AD and ABM missile shield.

Replace Success, Sirius and the proposed Strategic Sea Lift Ship with something along the lines of Canada’s proposed Joint Support Ship, increasing both underway support and sealift capability.

Replace the LCHs with something along the lines of Singapore’s Endurance Class LST.

Add the 12 Collins class replacements and the 2 LHDs and this is a pretty impressive fleet by any standards, the sort of fleet in which a conventional carrier or two would not be out of place.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Assuming HMAS PERTH proves to deliver near AEGIS capabilities and the system can be affordably designed and fitted into a 2000 tonne combatant we could find ourselves (potentially) with:

Very wrong assumption. AEGIS has about 10 times the volume search capability of CEAPAR/9LV Mk 4 without even counting the increase in scan rate it can handle or cooperative engagement. CEAPAR is however very cheap and could easily be fitted to a 2,000 tonne corvette. Of course even being cheap it would radically increase the cost of the SEA 1180 ship if fitted.

Rather than try and stretch capability of each hull within the current DCP – which would drive up cost anyway – if you want a more powerful fleet you need to build it. 3 AWDs and 8 frigates is going to provide you with two flotillas of a single AWD and three frigates supported by a Wedgetail AEW&C available for sea duties on any given day. Each one of these flotillas will be able to provide AAW/ASW/ASuW coverage against a quite high threat level over more than enough area of sea for as big a convoy or task group Australia could ever put together. One of these task groups could be the two LHDs and extras and the other a high value merchant convoy or whatever. This is a lot of capability. Do we need more? Not unless we have more of a mission.

The deficient areas are in MIO [Maritime Interdiction Operations], shaping strike/land attack/NGS [Naval Gunfire Support] and in sustainment. If anything the patrol element of SEA 1180 needs to be boosted for MIO/NGS. Certainly being able to operate a naval helicopter like MH-60R will take care of MIO. But some kind of deep missile magazine for strike would be a very nice modular element.