Actually I'm not questioning the Capital Asset Acquisition Program (CAAP) as part of the Fleet Marine Services Contract as a whole entity, there are a range of services which Navy need and would be better utilized under Fleet Marine Services Contract for bunkering and harbour support, no doubt about it.
What I am questioning should the multi-role aviation training ship been a part of the service contract, which in my opinion is no. I believe it it should have been a commissioned ship as part of the RAN.
The ship it's self could have been acquired under CAAP, expence's to run the ship should be no different from Gov-Private, I just don't think we should be paying extra over the long term than we have to, going private is not always better
That's one way you can look at it, the other is to politely put an end to the discussion as we have differing views, it's done and dusted can't change it now can we.
While you may think you are being polite your supercious tone and failure to understand the economics of this issue is what causes ire.
Case in point ...... there are significant additional costs in training a naval rating or officer compared to a merchant marine rating or officer. This in no way denigrates the merchant marine as they are very capable but tend to specialise in a single type of vessel and can often remain on a single vessel (vessel type) for a prolonged period. They are not required to operate on different vessels during their career and do not require the combat related skills needed to serve on a warship.
Naval personal will run through a shore / sea cycle and will undertaking specialist training as they progress ..... or (as critically) shipboard systems progress. Add to that, given the current state of the commercial maritime industry the wage cost is narrowing as well.
The prime advantage of this process is -
- Known costs under contract
- Rapid response to needs for as long as they are required
- Small commerical crew keeps costs down (the manning on this vessel is variable depending on what function they are undertaking)
- No responsiblity for maintenance or unforeseen issues
- Operating costs can be offset by other commerical work for either government or industry
This service is fundamentally no different to the other commerically provided services (including submarine rescue vessels) that you appear to have no issue with. It is notable that some of these are also available for military training.
I have a feeling you have never served in the merchant navy. I suggest that you have never been involved in procurement of either commercial vessels or military vessesl and finally I don't think you understand the operating model fo commercial vessels yet you persist in decrying this as a poor choice.
This is simply a platform that allows the RAN to conduct a range of training operations without tying up a warship or tying up a crew to man the training asset.
Opinion in ignorance adds nothing.