Thanks for the information... Combat data weapons systems are expensive, as much if not more than the price of the ship's steel...
A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
- Status
A lot more. All the steel for the AWDs only cost around $50 million, the combat systems around $3 billion.
I don't know where you get this "region" from. Japan and Korea are about 7,000-8,000 km away from Australia which is the same distance that Great Britain is from India. They also have very different operational requirements and mission areas. A joint fleet unit is pretty ridiculous. Especially without the USN's involvement.
i think toby might be talking about not just the plate costs, butactually making the hull (prob fitted with engines etc).
There is a lot more man hours in writing a million lines of code than shaping a million grams of steel. AEGIS I would imagine is one huge sucker of a project in terms of software development and associated hardware.
I would be interested to know what you guys think could be the catalyst for Australia to get back into the carrier game ? What type of situation, incident/s or global occurance would or could realistically trigger this to happen ? and what you think are the pro's and con's of a STOVL v CATOBAR carrier for Australia
He said:
He referred to the ship’s steel not the ship. Anyway just one of many harmless highly inaccurate statements thrown around on a daily basis in this thread.
The value of steel in a modern warship project is a tiny, tiny element of overall cost. One amusing anecdote from the Collins program came well before any contracts were awarded when Defence was trying to work out if the special high tensile steel needed for a submarine’s pressure hull could be made in Australia.
They approached a Whyalla steel mill and asked if they could make this steel and in the quantities needed for six submarines (>10,000 tonnes). The mill asked for a couple of days to work out an answer. When they meet again the mill said their metallurgists looked into it and had acquired a formula, produced a test batch and it met the spec. It would take a few days to realign one of their mills but they could deliver the required steel for the entire program by the end of the month. Did Defence want to go ahead with the order?
The steel industry works to a different scale of volume than warship building.
Well steel is cheap and air is free, it could actually be argued that a larger hull could be cheaper than a smaller one when you consider the increased flexibility size grants to ease of outfit, maintenance and upgrading.
"WASHINGTON, August 3, 2007 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Spain of MK 7 AEGIS Weapons Systems as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $780 million.
The Government of Spain has requested a possible sale of two MK 7 AEGIS Weapons Systems; two MK 41 Baseline VII Vertical Launch Systems; and two MK 45 MOD 2 5 Gun Mounts. Non-MDE includes: AN/SLQ-25A Torpedo Countermeasure System; UHF SATCOM Terminal; AN/WSN-7, Ring Laser Gyro; AN/ARR-75, Radio Receiving Set; Aviation Support System; MK III Shipboard System Light Airborne; Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS); AN/BQN-7A, Bathythermograph Set; AN/WSN-8A, Digital Electromagnetic Log; Common Data Link Management System (CDLMS)/Command and Control Processor (C2P); Multifunctional Information Distribution System on Ships; MK 162 MOD 1 Shipboard Gridlock System; Navigation Sensor System Interface (NAVSSI)/Global Positioning System; AN/SLA- 10B, Video Blanking Equipment. Also included are system integration and testing, communications and support equipment, computer programs and maintenance support, ship integration, spare and repair parts, supply support, publications and technical data, training, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $780 million. "
So 390 $ mill. per Aegis set and many other equipment in 2007.
"MOORESTOWN, NJ, March 28th, 2007 -- The U.S. Navy awarded Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] $260 million for Aegis Weapon Systems to equip three Australian Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) and one Spanish F-100-class frigate
The Aegis Weapon System is the world’s premier naval surface defense system and is the foundation for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, the primary component of the sea-based element of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System. The Aegis Weapon System includes the SPY-1 radar, the Navy's most advanced computer-controlled radar system. When paired with the MK-41 VLS, it is capable of delivering missiles for every mission and threat environment in naval warfare."
This last pasted text points to 65 mill. per Aegis Weapon system, at least including the Spy radar, but maybe not the Aegis Combat system itself (hardware and software for the Spy) which Sea Toby pasted before a link with a figure of 150 mill. $, shoould this figure be independt and added to the 65 mill. ?
The Government of Spain has requested a possible sale of two MK 7 AEGIS Weapons Systems; two MK 41 Baseline VII Vertical Launch Systems; and two MK 45 MOD 2 5 Gun Mounts. Non-MDE includes: AN/SLQ-25A Torpedo Countermeasure System; UHF SATCOM Terminal; AN/WSN-7, Ring Laser Gyro; AN/ARR-75, Radio Receiving Set; Aviation Support System; MK III Shipboard System Light Airborne; Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS); AN/BQN-7A, Bathythermograph Set; AN/WSN-8A, Digital Electromagnetic Log; Common Data Link Management System (CDLMS)/Command and Control Processor (C2P); Multifunctional Information Distribution System on Ships; MK 162 MOD 1 Shipboard Gridlock System; Navigation Sensor System Interface (NAVSSI)/Global Positioning System; AN/SLA- 10B, Video Blanking Equipment. Also included are system integration and testing, communications and support equipment, computer programs and maintenance support, ship integration, spare and repair parts, supply support, publications and technical data, training, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $780 million. "
So 390 $ mill. per Aegis set and many other equipment in 2007.
"MOORESTOWN, NJ, March 28th, 2007 -- The U.S. Navy awarded Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] $260 million for Aegis Weapon Systems to equip three Australian Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) and one Spanish F-100-class frigate
The Aegis Weapon System is the world’s premier naval surface defense system and is the foundation for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, the primary component of the sea-based element of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System. The Aegis Weapon System includes the SPY-1 radar, the Navy's most advanced computer-controlled radar system. When paired with the MK-41 VLS, it is capable of delivering missiles for every mission and threat environment in naval warfare."
This last pasted text points to 65 mill. per Aegis Weapon system, at least including the Spy radar, but maybe not the Aegis Combat system itself (hardware and software for the Spy) which Sea Toby pasted before a link with a figure of 150 mill. $, shoould this figure be independt and added to the 65 mill. ?
STOVL carrier would be more suitable for the RAN because it could fly the F35B off using the ski ramp technique like the HMS Invincible. Also the F35B is STVOL so landing is not an issue Secondly STVOL does not require the extra weight in the airframe, especially in the undercarriage and hook area, due to strengthening which is required for the CATOBAR system.
Eurofighter have a navalised version of the Typhoon which uses the thrust vectoring in the approach to reduce the final approach and landing velocity therefore reducing impact and deceleration forces on hook and undercarriage. Also don't have the weight, complexity and expense of installing the catapult. If they can get similar thrust to weight ratio out of F35B that Eurofighter have with navalised Typhoon then would be excellent system. F35B means commonality with F35's RAAF getting so same spares / tech support set up.
Last edited:
Yeah kinda understand all of that, btw same goes for the C as well
Was more interested in peoples thoughts on the pro's and con's between the two types from an operational and tactical point of view for the RAN and the ADF and how we may employ them ? and what reasonably realistic situation/s regionally and globally could trigger the need and public debate for Australia to get back in the game ? As such a decision would not be tackled by the Government of the day, but IMO would require a bipartisan agreement that we need that capability
I believe the British have read the tea leaves on Capitol Hill in America very well concerning the F-35Bs... The As provide the USAF the aircraft they want, and the Cs provide the USN the aircraft they want... Both will be bought in large numbers, whereas the Bs will most likely be cancelled... The budget cutters are in control of Congress, and the social spenders are in control of the White House currently... Neither wishes to buy the Bs with its development history... If anything, both military and political parties wish to kill the Bs so that its problems won't kill the As and Cs...
While I can see how someone with little or no knowledge of the F-35 program and the 2010 British Forces cutbacks could make this conclusion unfortunately it is completely inaccurate and what you wouldn’t expect from anyone informed about defence.
Firstly the decision to move the British order from the F-35B to F-35C has NOTHING to do with the program and capabilities of these aircraft and everything to do with saving money. An F-35C carrier capability is both MORE expensive to acquire and sustain than an F-35B capability. But by doing so the British have been able to structure a force in which they need half of the number of carriers and aircraft and can slash their entire current STOVL fleet and not have to operate any aircraft for 5-10 years. This is a huge immediate savings and in the long term thanks to the huge force reduction further savings.
If they had kept the F-35B as their planned aircraft it would be much harder for them to have completely abolished the Joint Force Harrier in the interim and make the argument they can share their carrier capability with another navy or navies (USN and le Royale). Therefore they couldn’t make these savings.
As to the F-35B being in trouble this is hyperbole. The problem with the aircraft are a few widgets in the engine which are being replaced. This has resulted in test slippage and is a long way from aircraft failure. If the US Government was in the mood to cut the F-35B they would have done so to date. They haven’t and to suggest they will in the future without further technical problems is just fantasy.
All of this has been spelt out before but I guess facts always have trouble competing with myth in some minds.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Why are you being such an over bearing prick in your posts?...your knowledge as a defence reporter is obviously welcomed and sought after here and because of that i see you taking advantage in being a bit too free in what you think you can say.
Moderators please show us no double standards in your moderating here and make clear to all whats acceptable behaviour on this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think you understand the present realities in American politics... The tea party republicans have won the new Congress... There will be more defense cuts coming this year, the tea cups are not finished with their knife by any means... The following link reveals how much long standing defense hawks are worried...
Presently, the largest defense program which will draw the most interest is the JSF... The tea party republicans promised $100 billion in cuts this year in the overall budget, and they haven't reached that number yet... Any program facing significant delays and budget increases have a sharp hill to climb to survive...
When the present Speaker of the House can't deliver bacon to his own home district with a major defense program, the GE F-136 jet engine, don't expect other defense programs to survive uncut...
A very recent link from a reliable blog:
RealClearPolitics - Veteran Republicans Fear Tea Party, Liberals Will Cut Defense
Just because it’s your opinion and you think its true doesn't give you a right to be beholden as equal to reality. In any open forum of communication where there is no validation of what may be said it is a casual demand of participants who care about facts to ensure they are respected. Otherwise the forum can just descend into meaningless jibber jabber.
Now you may have a casual attachment to reality in the defence sphere but I don’t. If you think that it’s overbearing or whatever to demand a higher standard of commentary than just whatever pops into your mind then expect to get told off. I have little concern for wether you are offended because to be so is frankly immature and unrealistic. If you would prefer fantasy and a fairyland existence then there are plenty of other places that will be happy to celebration your indulgent perspective. But not where I stand.
As to your ridiculous opinion that I must provide my insight and knowledge to you without any choice as to how I wish to provide that that’s an interesting perspective. Would you like to apply that to other areas of my life? Perhaps you’d like to come around to my house and take the benefit of my possessions without my having a say in the matter? Or since you are the one proposing this method of social interaction maybe I can come around to your house and take whatever you have?
Now that I have answered your question perhaps you’d be so kind as to return the favour?
Why are you so ignorant and unable to understand simple interrelated systems like Defence even after they have been explained to you in painful detail? Also what gives you the moral right to make demands of other people to modify their behaviour while they provide you with free insight and information that obviously satisfies some desire you have?
I think such an opinion is clearly overblown and inaccurate. The Tea Party is only a minority in the House and a long way from both cutting defence and declaring they will cut it. The second engine is far from an indication of the future of the F-35B. The USMC have taken their funding cut medicine via the EFV and won’t accept abolishment of their fighter as long as it can meet the program goals.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Better...see thats whats im talking about,non overbearing civility,well done.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your welcome to. I will watch with interest when the two police dogs that live next door in both directions tear you to pieces... They know me, they don't know you...
I'm a retired Coastie. I have never claimed to have a Pentagon bureaucratic position, nor do I live anywhere near Arlington. Virginia... But I do read and watch American politics and defense issues from a number of sources, including on the ground with the troops...
The people, the armed forces, and Congress of the USA are wondering why the Marine Corps require a stealth aircraft to provide mostly CAS when a Hornet or Super Hornet will do from super carriers involved in an amphibious landing... Isn't it the job of the USAF/Navy to provide air superiority? I promise you, this will be asked by the new tea party republicans as well...
Some fear the tea party republicans may finally come to the conclusion of eliminating the Marine air force, nothing is off the table... Cuts in every department are the order of the day presently in US politics... Whether you believe this fact I really don't care....
He wasn't talking to you Toby, he was talking to OpinionNoted, who apparently doesn't see the "double standard" he's keen of accusing other people of having in his own actions of calling out out someone for rudeness by calling them "an overbearing prick"... how about everyone takes a minute and calms down, right now? Talk of police dogs tearing other members to shreds, honestly? How the hell did that even happen? I thought the discussion was about some fantasy RAN carrier?
If people keep this up the thread's getting locked again. It's been open too bloody long as it is if you ask me.
If people keep this up the thread's getting locked again. It's been open too bloody long as it is if you ask me.
Well since I was responding directly to forum fool “OpinionNoted” what makes you think I was proposing visiting your house? While we have our differences of opinion I’ve never noted you making such ridiculous demands of other people as “OpinionNoted” has and continues to do. Which judging by the ridiculous things he has proposed from time to time on this forum clearly indicates someone whose opinion is not worth noting.
I’m quite aware of the US’s efforts to balance the books. But this phenomena is nothing new. Tea Party, Contract With America, Great Society, New Deal, etc yet the USMC and its air element remains. Since the Tea Party is not the “Abolish the F-35B Party” it will take a lot more activity on this front before I start writing off this program.
- Status