Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Tod could answer this better but my understanding is that most of the change up is software with some hardware upgrades.
The space hungry monster is SPY 1.
Kinda sorta.

Really depends on which variant of 9 you're talking about, and how you define "9." On one level it's just the software program, and getting it to run.
As implemented to date, it's been a MASSIVE hardware upgrade...it's basically a complete replacement of the entire weapon system computing architecture onboard, in order to support a much more complex software program.

That said, it's been used up to now only to replace very OLD baselines built on antiquated MILSPEC computing hardware.

B/L 7 (AWD) is built up on COTS, but it's significantly older COTS. So...depending on how much of it you really want out of it, could be more or less work required.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Lord help me

one of the ABC reporters just referred to HMAS Choules as "HMAS Schultz"

obviously a fan of Hogans Hero's
 

Samoa

Member
I wonder if the cost difference between an F 100 variant and BAEs hideously expensive T26 would make the above a possibility?
How do you know that a modified F100 and a T26 are so far apart in costs, or that the T26 is "hideously expensive" ? Are you saying the design license for the modified F100 is significantly less than that of the Australian T26, or that the production costs of changing to an new design is where the costs are borne ? I have seen the design licence cost for the "build to print" F104, and it wasn't cheap !
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
How do you know that a modified F100 and a T26 are so far apart in costs, or that the T26 is "hideously expensive" ? Are you saying the design license for the modified F100 is significantly less than that of the Australian T26, or that the production costs of changing to an new design is where the costs are borne ? I have seen the design licence cost for the "build to print" F104, and it wasn't cheap !
The veins in my temples start pulsing every time I come across"build to print" and F104 in the same sentence. It defies belief that the powers that be love Navantia so much after that debacle.
 

rockitten

Member
I would suppose everyone knows that 90% local build in the original french bid was a BS. But how's that 60% compares with offers from Japanese and German?

Nocookies | The Australian

South Australia’s Defence Industries Minister Martin Hamilton-Smith says it is the Weatherill government’s “official” position that the state will get as little as 10 per cent of work from the $89 billion submarine and shipbuilding spend.

This is despite reports today that the claim — rubbished by the federal government as completely false — is contained in a submission by Defence SA to a Senate inquiry into naval shipbuilding.

“First of all this is not Defence SA’s submission, it’s the South Australian government’s position. I took it to cabinet some weeks ago and it’s our official view, so let’s just take Defence SA out of it,” Mr Hamilton-Smith told ABC radio today.

Last week, Mr Hamilton-Smith issued a news release that said: “Naval shipbuilding jobs and investment are at risk, unless the federal government can deliver the promised 90 per cent level of local industry content.”

But federal Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne today said the claims by Mr Hamilton-Smith, via his agency Defence SA, were “completely nonsensical”.

“Defence SA quite frankly wouldn’t know because Defence SA is not involved in building the submarines. The submarines project is an Australian government project,” Mr Pyne told ABC radio.

“I’ve always said from the very beginning ... that a local build meant around 60 per cent of the project.

“(French naval shipbuilding company) DCNS said that they thought it would be around 90 per cent of the submarines, which is fantastic, but that was never the government’s figure.”

South Australia will get “the lion’s share” of work on the nation’s next submarines, frigate ships and offshore patrol vessels, he said.

The decision has already been made to centre construction in Adelaide, Mr Pyne said, dismissing reports the WA Labor government was set to swoop.

Mr Pyne said “Defence SA simply wouldn’t know what the percentages were because they actually don’t have anything to do with the program”.

And Mr Pyne said that for the record, by “local”, he meant South Australia.

“There are some businesses around Australia of course that will make things for the subs as they will for the frigates and the offshore patrol vessels. This is the largest national infrastructure project in our history ... so of course there’ll be work shared all around the country,” he said.

“But it doesn’t make any sense for the majority of the work not to be done in South Australia because that’s where the infrastructure is for it.”

Mr Pyne said he had not broken the work down on a state-by-state basis as “DCNS right now are in the process of identifying those Australian businesses that will be part of the Australian industry content”.

He said the “scare-mongering by Defence SA and others in South Australia is really quite irresponsible”.

“What they’re obviously trying to do, I think, is play politics with it because Martin Hamilton-Smith’s been trying to get this argument going for some time,” Mr Pyne said.

Mr Hamilton-Smith the $90bn to build the submarines and frigates is “only one-third of the spend” over the 30 year life of the frigate and submarine projects.

He conceded that “it’s hard for anyone to quibble about where in Australia” the 90 per cent of the work is done.

“We’ll obviously put South Australia’s best foot forward but as long as Australian workers and Australian industry get 90 per cent, I think Australians would be pretty happy with that,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

He said his cabinet submission was largely based on the advice of Defence SA.
 

Hazdog

Member
AIR 9000 Phase 8

G'day, I'd like to ask about the cost/budget of the procurement of MH-60R's. What was the budget of these Helicopters and could these savings be used to increase the number air frames for the RAN.
(This is hypothetical, and I do not think that the RAN should purchase more airframes until the budget cost is met but it could be a possibility). :dance
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
How do you know that a modified F100 and a T26 are so far apart in costs, or that the T26 is "hideously expensive" ? Are you saying the design license for the modified F100 is significantly less than that of the Australian T26, or that the production costs of changing to an new design is where the costs are borne ? I have seen the design licence cost for the "build to print" F104, and it wasn't cheap !
I don't. My only info comes from news bites that complain bitterly that BAE are milking the RN as only a monopoly build/designer can and I don't see us building it cheaper in Adelaide.

If there is 60 % plus commonality with the Navantia F 104 already built here I see a much easier transition with less risk and cost than changing design philosophies mid stream, we haven't built a Brit design in Australia since the last of the DEs eons ago.
You'd note my question from my post, could savings accrued by continuing with Navantia and not introducing a never been built design, be enough to allow us to acquire 3 more Aegis Baseline 9 CMS? I have no feeling for the differences if any.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
G'day, I'd like to ask about the cost/budget of the procurement of MH-60R's. What was the budget of these Helicopters and could these savings be used to increase the number air frames for the RAN.
(This is hypothetical, and I do not think that the RAN should purchase more airframes until the budget cost is met but it could be a possibility). :dance
You'd have to go look up the peoject in the integrated investment programme, but what savings are you referring to? Are you saying the budget for AIR-9000 Phase 8 has more room in it, than is required for the 24x MH-60R plus ancillaries and that more airframes could be acquired from within this 'gap' ala the additional Chinooks?

Curious how you know this if you don't know what the budget is to start with?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I don't. My only info comes from news bites that complain bitterly that BAE are milking the RN as only a monopoly build/designer can and I don't see us building it cheaper in Adelaide.

If there is 60 % plus commonality with the Navantia F 104 already built here I see a much easier transition with less risk and cost than changing design philosophies mid stream, we haven't built a Brit design in Australia since the last of the DEs eons ago.
You'd note my question from my post, could savings accrued by continuing with Navantia and not introducing a never been built design, be enough to allow us to acquire 3 more Aegis Baseline 9 CMS? I have no feeling for the differences if any.
The link re simulated training in the RAN, soon to be common in the LHDs, AWDs and AORs is exactly the type of savings which can be acquired through common systems that will be achievable if we stay with the Navantia option.

No average classroom for marine technicians | Navy Daily
 

Hazdog

Member
You'd have to go look up the peoject in the integrated investment programme, but what savings are you referring to? Are you saying the budget for AIR-9000 Phase 8 has more room in it, than is required for the 24x MH-60R plus ancillaries and that more airframes could be acquired from within this 'gap' ala the additional Chinooks?

Curious how you know this if you don't know what the budget is to start with?
I did look up the project but the sites that I found had no use for this topic, Did you say that the savings were already used for additional Chinooks?
I am sorry for the confusion, but I am asking how much money is/was left over and has it already been spent. If not could it be used to purchase more MH-60R's, or purchase MH-60S to add to the LHD's Aircraft package.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
G'day, I'd like to ask about the cost/budget of the procurement of MH-60R's. What was the budget of these Helicopters and could these savings be used to increase the number air frames for the RAN.
(This is hypothetical, and I do not think that the RAN should purchase more airframes until the budget cost is met but it could be a possibility). :dance
The information you are looking for is easily found (Google, it is your friend).

See an example below:

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...-first-mh-60r-seahawk-romeos-accepted-defence

As noted in this particular press release (from the Def Min of the time), AIR 9000 Phase 8 was approved in June 2011 with a budget of $3.2 billion.

You talk about 'savings', what saving are you talking about??

Have a look at the link below:

Lockheed Martin hands over RAN’s final Romeo | Australian Aviation

In the Australian Aviation article, it says, "Delivered on budget and ahead of schedule".

Budget savings? On budget is the answer.

Now 'if' there were savings on the original budget allocated, it doesn't automatically mean that you just go out and purchase 'more' because there is money left over, you don't just turn 24 airframes into 26 for example.

The project was for 24 airframes, no more no less, regardless of if it was under, on, or over budget (if more airframes are required in the future, that is probably going to be another completely new project, or phase of a project).

Defence budgets are like any other budget (household or business), you allocate a certain amount of total dollars, you break it down into individual projects and each project is allocated its appropriate amount.

If you've done your planning properly (and made the right allowances), each project should come within or on budget, and sometimes things go over budget too. If it's over budget, then Governments have the option of making a supplement the budget, might be from funds outside of the original overall budget, or it might be from savings or deferral of other projects.

Anyway, it appears that AIR 9000 Phase 8 was 'on budget'.
 

Hazdog

Member
The information you are looking for is easily found (Google, it is your friend).

See an example below:

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...-first-mh-60r-seahawk-romeos-accepted-defence

As noted in this particular press release (from the Def Min of the time), AIR 9000 Phase 8 was approved in June 2011 with a budget of $3.2 billion.

You talk about 'savings', what saving are you talking about??

Have a look at the link below:

Lockheed Martin hands over RAN’s final Romeo | Australian Aviation

In the Australian Aviation article, it says, "Delivered on budget and ahead of schedule".

Budget savings? On budget is the answer.

Now 'if' there were savings on the original budget allocated, it doesn't automatically mean that you just go out and purchase 'more' because there is money left over, you don't just turn 24 airframes into 26 for example.

The project was for 24 airframes, no more no less, regardless of if it was under, on, or over budget (if more airframes are required in the future, that is probably going to be another completely new project, or phase of a project).

Defence budgets are like any other budget (household or business), you allocate a certain amount of total dollars, you break it down into individual projects and each project is allocated its appropriate amount.

If you've done your planning properly (and made the right allowances), each project should come within or on budget, and sometimes things go over budget too. If it's over budget, then Governments have the option of making a supplement the budget, might be from funds outside of the original overall budget, or it might be from savings or deferral of other projects.

Anyway, it appears that AIR 9000 Phase 8 was 'on budget'.
Thanks for the reply, very informing.
I hope future acquisitions are as well executed as this was.

Cheers
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I did look up the project but the sites that I found had no use for this topic, Did you say that the savings were already used for additional Chinooks?
I am sorry for the confusion, but I am asking how much money is/was left over and has it already been spent. If not could it be used to purchase more MH-60R's, or purchase MH-60S to add to the LHD's Aircraft package.
Nope. Within the project to acquire the CH-47F it was found there was an opportunity to a acquire 10 airframes instead of the initially planned 7 aircraft. That is what I assumed you meant by the savings in your initial post on the topic. But I think that was an exceptional case, not the norm.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Nope. Within the project to acquire the CH-47F it was found there was an opportunity to a acquire 10 airframes instead of the initially planned 7 aircraft. That is what I assumed you meant by the savings in your initial post on the topic. But I think that was an exceptional case, not the norm.
From memory the extra three were supplemental funding but the airframes were the same price as the original seven, just a bargin at the right time and place and we needed the extra airframes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top