Steel was the logical sense for the new PPB replacements, Aluminium is a whole new set of skill's to maintain which would be hard enough for most nations, Let alone some of the smallest most remote nations on earth. like one over the other Steel is simply the cheaper easier option for these nations to handle.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes I do understand that, from memory when the PPB replacement was announced a number of the reasons stated above were used.
Not directly having a go at you, but because this is a frequent error on this thread which really grates. We have few enough widely known defence companies without getting the name of one of them wrong.
The company name is "Austal" rather than "Austral"
oldsig
Mate, if my memory serve me correctly, Austal has been supplying all PB in RAN for the last 17 years. Those PBs are all aluminum hulled and they are all build in Austal facility in WA.
And all "news" since our PM pork-barreled SA with frigates, now WA (or to be precise, Austal) is more and more likely to have the OPV/OCV contract as a "compensation".
So may be not a LCS, but an Austal trimaran as our new OPV seems likely.
On the newspaper quite a while ago, the navy said the "ideal number should be 15 to 18 submarines"
For the same budget, either we get more submarine but build offshore and embrace the political perfect storm, or accept a smaller submarine fleet and go for a local build.
Sure we can ask for a bigger budget, but how can we pay-off that budget hole will be another political nightmare.
Yeah, cause the navy has gotten great economical service out of the Austal built Aluminum Armidales.....
The only reason we would end up with a trimaran as our OPV would be if every piece of defences' advice to the government was ignored.
On that note i give up on this thread as well until the DCP comes out.
What you need to take into account, And Im not saying this would be 100% the case but the more of a particular item you produce the cheaper it becomes per a unit. ie: Producing 18 submarines could cost the same as producing 12 submarines.
Economies of scale does come into it for sure, improvements in production, training, sustainment etc and the list goes on, but depends on the contract in the first place, if it is a fixed price per sub for 12 subs, that's cash in the pocket for the contractor.
But batch/evolution building in lots of 3 could have it benefits, Volk could comment more on this side of things.
But even if we could build 18 for the price of 12, how do we man them, maintain, sustain etc ? and do we have the strategic and operational need for that many ?
Cheers
Only to you
Pray tell me where you got that piece of wisdom from. Whilst I do strongly believe in discussion and the debating of ideas, surely you should of figured out by now that the actual professionals on here have long debated the worthiness of aluminium warships and their usefulness. If not then I suggest you go and have a reread of this thread because those who do know have clearly stated their opinions. So unless they are all a bunch of blithering idiots who have had too much squirt, inhaled to much gunpowder and associated fumes and spent too long either at sea, or in aircraft or being engineers etc., then unless you have some new age magical system that ignores did physics, chemistry and gwad knows how many combined years of knowledge that these guys have accumulated, please enlighten us with a summary and a goodly list of references and sources. We would be very much appreciative of this so as to help us understand he errors of our ways.
Long answer short in case you have trouble understanding - take a reality check. Whilst I have no faith and trust in pollies, even your current crop wouldn't be that stupid, and I've seen stupid pollies in my day. So wise up a bit and be somewhat more thoughtful in your posts before the Mods, especially the Aussie ones, get back to being their usual grumpy selves.
I watched as well. The question posed was would Austal be involved and as Austal has shown a close interest in buying ASC (on the record) it still may be involved.
There was no question relating to Aluminium or any type of ship.
As such, the DefMin answered as you have said.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Currently searching for the video, as I am sure there was a follow up question, after that, from a journo asking if they were going to be steel - to which he said "no decision had been made,all options are open, but they will be following advice from the professionals" ( or something similar)
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree economy of scale comes into play on such thing as rolling the steel out of the mill and quite possably the labour could be reduced to a degree depending on how fast you want to spit them out, you may even get a discount of buying bulk package for the hardware, but saving the equivalent to 6 completed subs don't think so
Navy are not going down to the nearest cash and carry for subs
alright, i know i said i was done with this thread but my 2c :-
building 12 or 18 subs would certainly be more expensive in the short term but we would save as much, if not more by not having to rebuild the entire submarine industry *Again*. we could potentially go down from 3b per sub to 1b or less if we maintain the industry at an efficient level.
building 12 or 18 subs would certainly be more expensive in the short term but we would save as much, if not more by not having to rebuild the entire submarine industry *Again*. we could potentially go down from 3b per sub to 1b or less if we maintain the industry at an efficient level.
Austal was involved with GD Bath Iron Works on the Independence class LCS, while GD was also working with ASC of submarines (Electric Boat) and AWD (BIW). It was rumoured at this time (2007 while ASC was looking likely to be re-privatised) that GD would use Austal as a partner to acquire ASC while remaining within the governments stated Australian ownership requirements.
Mate, we will never get 18 submarines (at least for this round), that number was the ideal number for navy's requirement, not the SEA1000
From what I have read about the AWD, the learning curve will start paying off from the 4th vessel. So if we are building not 3 but 6 or 9 AWD, we may not ended up so over-budget.
Some cost like the detail design, the license and technical support are fixed cost no matter we are doing 1 vessel or a 100, the economic of scale will no doubt help drive down the individual cost.
Some cost are for items such as US supplied equipments or ammo, they will be purchased overseas, so the economic of scale may also help.
This 2 kind of cost will takes a fair portion of the budget and will be roughly the same regardless if the vessel is being built in Australia or offshore.
Two factors may affect the cost between local and offshore. One is the cost of labor (plus up-keeps such as electricity). Unfortunately, Australia's cost of manufacturing is among the highest in the world (Germany and Japan are cheaper). So even with the economic of scale, German and Japanese will out bid us (from the RAND, with continuous build, we Aussie can build ships cost about 10% more than US, but ship building in US also cost more than in Europe and Japan).
Another factor, which is also related to economic of scale, is the phase of production. With a slower phase of production (1 vessel every 2 years rather than 12 months), our suppliers will also have to produce parts in a slower phase so the cost of parts will goes up: they still have to pay for the staff and facility regardless of the phase of production. German is rolling out new submarines like sausages so they won't have such issue, Japanese is rolling out 1 or 2 submarines so probably don't have such problem. If the suppliers for submarines are the same one for the surface vessels (AWD, firgates, OPV and PPB) or servicing civilian/overseas markets, then we Aussie may ease the issue a bit. But if not, then we will. One reason why F-15J cost so much more than a F-15E is because the production rate is so slow, it is like a handicraft workshop rather than a production line.
So all things considered, as others pointed out, producing 18 submarines is unlikely cost the same as producing 12 submarines. For a 30% premium for local production, it is like 12 offshore submarine vs 9~10 local submarine.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Okay... Where to start, where to start, keeping in mind the Mods are watching this thread and not especially pleased with the degree of, or lack thereof, thought that people are putting into some of their posts.
The first is that without an up to date DWP and DCP, much of this is speculation and guesswork, with occasional input from the Wag Institute.
First, it seems there are some misunderstandings and misconceptions which need to be addressed and cleared up.
First has to do with costings. Australia, unlike a number of other nations, do an estimated "whole-life" cost for a piece of kit/programme, whether it is a ship, aircraft, or tank. This is where it can be quite different from the cost of a US defence programme, which the cost of an AB DDG is the actual purchase price of it just to enter service. It has been mentioned a number of times here and elsewhere, that the US is/has been looking at the Australian costing model, because of what it helps keep account of and track. The actual, straight cost to buy (flyaway cost for aircraft typically) is usually around one-half to one-third the total programme cost for Australian defence programmes. The SLEP or MLU which is typically done for major pieces of kit (aircraft, warships, etc) at the midpoint of the respective service lives, along with various other upgrades and modifications done is usually also about a third of the total programme cost, or nearly the cost to actually purchase the kit in the first place. The final (typically another third) is the anticipated operating cost. In some cases, the divisions are a bit different, depending on the initial cost, and/or how long kit is kept in service, etc.
Next up is the bit about paying a 'premium' for having kit built in Australia. It depends on the type of kit. For some things, like tanks and aircraft, the cost just is not worthwhile. Australia has assembled modern(ish) fighters from knockdown kits, but that is not the same as actually having an actual production line, and from an economic standpoint, Australia does not the volume to sustain combat aircraft assembly. France as an example, has placed only enough orders for Dassault to keep the Rafale production line going at the rate of about one per lunar cycle, or 13/year. This was done to make sure the line stayed open, but IIRC the production costs were approximately those of a LRIP Rafale. For tanks, I forget the exact numbers but the costs to setup a modern production line, design, manufacture tanks, etc. would require something on the order of 1,000+ units ordered to reach the breakeven point. Realistically, only Germany and the US (from the Western nations) have had order volumes which approached or exceeded those numbers, and of the friendly/allied Eastern nations, only South Korea has reached that number with production of their MBT. With Australia having had 100 tanks or less in service and stockpile following the end of WWII, setting up to produce tanks also seems a bit senseless.
Ships are a bit different, since there is some domestic shipbuilding an maintenance, as well as a need for an organic capability to repair/modify RAN vessels. Now for the actual premium bit. Before, during part of the natural resources/rawmat mining boom, a 30%+ premium would still have been economically viable for warships produced in Australia.
What that meant at the time, is that the net economic cost to Australia for a AUD$1.3 bil. DDG built in Australia, was approximately the same as an AUD$1 bil. DDG built overseas and 'imported'. The reason an Australian-built warship could cost AUD$300 mil. more and have the same economic cost, is that all the extra costs associated with buying 'in Australia' would get recouped via taxes paid on the economic activity generated by the Australian build. Taxes paid directly by the shipyard workers is obvious, but also by the various parts suppliers supporting the shipyards, and of course taxes paid by employees of those parts suppliers. Then of course there is the economic activity all those employees and their companies generate, and so on.
Last (for now) I will cover maritime aluminum construction. Austal does have a reputation as being amongst the world's best at working with maritime grade aluminum. Now, if a large OPV-sized vessel was desired, it could be constructed out of aluminum. However, to get the sort of size/strength desired for most OPV's using aluminum, extra work needs to be done, which ends up negating many of the weight/displacement advantages aluminum has in small vessels. Making matters worse, it is hard to work with and more expensive than steel. Therefore, what might be appropriate for a vessel just would not work for larger vessels in most cases.
More later.
The first is that without an up to date DWP and DCP, much of this is speculation and guesswork, with occasional input from the Wag Institute.
First, it seems there are some misunderstandings and misconceptions which need to be addressed and cleared up.
First has to do with costings. Australia, unlike a number of other nations, do an estimated "whole-life" cost for a piece of kit/programme, whether it is a ship, aircraft, or tank. This is where it can be quite different from the cost of a US defence programme, which the cost of an AB DDG is the actual purchase price of it just to enter service. It has been mentioned a number of times here and elsewhere, that the US is/has been looking at the Australian costing model, because of what it helps keep account of and track. The actual, straight cost to buy (flyaway cost for aircraft typically) is usually around one-half to one-third the total programme cost for Australian defence programmes. The SLEP or MLU which is typically done for major pieces of kit (aircraft, warships, etc) at the midpoint of the respective service lives, along with various other upgrades and modifications done is usually also about a third of the total programme cost, or nearly the cost to actually purchase the kit in the first place. The final (typically another third) is the anticipated operating cost. In some cases, the divisions are a bit different, depending on the initial cost, and/or how long kit is kept in service, etc.
Next up is the bit about paying a 'premium' for having kit built in Australia. It depends on the type of kit. For some things, like tanks and aircraft, the cost just is not worthwhile. Australia has assembled modern(ish) fighters from knockdown kits, but that is not the same as actually having an actual production line, and from an economic standpoint, Australia does not the volume to sustain combat aircraft assembly. France as an example, has placed only enough orders for Dassault to keep the Rafale production line going at the rate of about one per lunar cycle, or 13/year. This was done to make sure the line stayed open, but IIRC the production costs were approximately those of a LRIP Rafale. For tanks, I forget the exact numbers but the costs to setup a modern production line, design, manufacture tanks, etc. would require something on the order of 1,000+ units ordered to reach the breakeven point. Realistically, only Germany and the US (from the Western nations) have had order volumes which approached or exceeded those numbers, and of the friendly/allied Eastern nations, only South Korea has reached that number with production of their MBT. With Australia having had 100 tanks or less in service and stockpile following the end of WWII, setting up to produce tanks also seems a bit senseless.
Ships are a bit different, since there is some domestic shipbuilding an maintenance, as well as a need for an organic capability to repair/modify RAN vessels. Now for the actual premium bit. Before, during part of the natural resources/rawmat mining boom, a 30%+ premium would still have been economically viable for warships produced in Australia.
What that meant at the time, is that the net economic cost to Australia for a AUD$1.3 bil. DDG built in Australia, was approximately the same as an AUD$1 bil. DDG built overseas and 'imported'. The reason an Australian-built warship could cost AUD$300 mil. more and have the same economic cost, is that all the extra costs associated with buying 'in Australia' would get recouped via taxes paid on the economic activity generated by the Australian build. Taxes paid directly by the shipyard workers is obvious, but also by the various parts suppliers supporting the shipyards, and of course taxes paid by employees of those parts suppliers. Then of course there is the economic activity all those employees and their companies generate, and so on.
Last (for now) I will cover maritime aluminum construction. Austal does have a reputation as being amongst the world's best at working with maritime grade aluminum. Now, if a large OPV-sized vessel was desired, it could be constructed out of aluminum. However, to get the sort of size/strength desired for most OPV's using aluminum, extra work needs to be done, which ends up negating many of the weight/displacement advantages aluminum has in small vessels. Making matters worse, it is hard to work with and more expensive than steel. Therefore, what might be appropriate for a vessel just would not work for larger vessels in most cases.
More later.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree. I read an paper a while ago suggestion that as a worst case RAN would like 18 Submarines in that while Australia is most likely not to be invaded, but most likely blockaded.
A Submarine produce an effect far greater than numbers suggest and the operational tempo was for 2x submarine patrolling to together for 6 out at one time. The consensus was that even if 1 submarine was destroyed that there still will be a fear in red force as to the whereabouts of the second submarine in force for the patrolling box.
I have been searching for the paper for which I read but I'll be dammed if I can find it now.
Back from the dead.... and I see that the RAN thread is still having this tendency to derail with minimal help..... 
I'd suggest that a lot of the nostradamus stuff be suspended until the DWP comes out as that will be the catalyst for rounding up a lot of the current random particles that are flying around the room
quite frankly there would even be some in the snr head sheds that would struggle to provide predictions with any confidence
as for submarines how is it that we're now chatting about 18 subs when that figure has NEVER been put forward in any of the properly informed discussions.
12 was the baseline from Rudd and was always offered up as a through life number, not a block acquisition. If anything the feeling was that the likely number would be 8 bearing in mind economic pressures that face the entire force development structure. 12 is and was aspirational under best case circumstances with all the political planets, economic planets and real-politik regional planets and national strategic planets aligning at once.
The other thing worth remembering is that ASPI doesn't and is not representative of Govt and/or Defence policy - so any articles published by them are really just more informed "thinking out loud" papers where more rigour and a lot more background knowledge might be present - but is still not a waypoint as to to where Defence (and more critically) the Govt of the day will be heading - let alone thinking
I'd suggest that a lot of the nostradamus stuff be suspended until the DWP comes out as that will be the catalyst for rounding up a lot of the current random particles that are flying around the room
quite frankly there would even be some in the snr head sheds that would struggle to provide predictions with any confidence
as for submarines how is it that we're now chatting about 18 subs when that figure has NEVER been put forward in any of the properly informed discussions.
12 was the baseline from Rudd and was always offered up as a through life number, not a block acquisition. If anything the feeling was that the likely number would be 8 bearing in mind economic pressures that face the entire force development structure. 12 is and was aspirational under best case circumstances with all the political planets, economic planets and real-politik regional planets and national strategic planets aligning at once.
The other thing worth remembering is that ASPI doesn't and is not representative of Govt and/or Defence policy - so any articles published by them are really just more informed "thinking out loud" papers where more rigour and a lot more background knowledge might be present - but is still not a waypoint as to to where Defence (and more critically) the Govt of the day will be heading - let alone thinking
Last edited:
- Status