Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
An observation on the OPV.
This is a continuous build project with an established world class designer. The relationship built with this project could conceivably grant us access to other designs within their portfolio, i.e. the k130 corvettes.
Of which would likely be quite interesting particularly if the OPV build somewhat non-continuous (which it already is). So after 3 or 4 ships we decide due to circumstances to build something a bit more capable, there are options, then you can go back to building OPV's (or something in between) on the tail of the build process.

Having corvettes based out of Manus island (or/and elsewhere) would be a considerable force magnifier, the range of these ships is less likely to be an issue if already located around the SCS. If we go back to the OCV concept, replacing all classes, then there is a potential pool of 20 ships/crew of which could be adjusted to provide what is required.

There would likely need to be some sort of tender process for any new ship class. The KC130 is likely to get updated as the next two German batches come through, and Israel building quite a capable corvette off the same (altered) design with the Sa'ar 6 ships, which would be a very capable ship in the size class (they are probably up gunners wet dream). I don't imagine there would be huge amounts of commonality, but you would have the yard(s), the workforce, much of the systems etc. Plus additional systems what ever we have pulling off the Anzacs as they get replaced that we won't need on the Hunters. I could imagine we could put a pretty good radar etc on them. There would be some smaller launchers that might be able to be cycled onto them etc. The hard stuff is already in place.

Suddenly all that CEC capability and command space on the Hunters might make a bit more sense if we can interface it through to the rest of the fleet.

But will it arrive in time? Australia has quite a bit of latent capability, but we seem to be in no rush to convert it. Tooling up time will be reduced but it isn't zero. Any new class would have a significant period before IOC.
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Noticed a new article by The Australian ( Navy chief's submarine cost bombshell - The Australian) with a snippet in regards to Rear Admiral Sammut talking about them and some how the cost being $225 billion. Is hidden behind a pay wall so can't see the full article but I imagine they got the claim some how from a senate inquiry. Any suggestions on how I could find the transcripts of any recent inquiries that Sammut was a part of to figure out how such a figure was made. Not sure if such a figure is the official costing or some 'expert' (say that term loosely) multiplying the cost of the program many times over.
 

Oberon

Member
Noticed a new article by The Australian ( Navy chief's submarine cost bombshell - The Australian) with a snippet in regards to Rear Admiral Sammut talking about them and some how the cost being $225 billion. Is hidden behind a pay wall so can't see the full article but I imagine they got the claim some how from a senate inquiry. Any suggestions on how I could find the transcripts of any recent inquiries that Sammut was a part of to figure out how such a figure was made. Not sure if such a figure is the official costing or some 'expert' (say that term loosely) multiplying the cost of the program many times over.
The article in this morning's edition of the Australian is by Robert Gottliebsen (a APA fan). Basically he is saying that the original $50 billion dollars is at Year zero dollars and excludes the combat system - another $40 billion. Then with sustainment costs and price escalation the total cost comes to $225 billion in total.

I can email the article to you, if you like.

He also reiterates that the F-35 is "a lemon" as the Americans have already said that it is not regionally superior.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
The article in this morning's edition of the Australian is by Robert Gottliebsen (a APA fan). Basically he is saying that the original $50 billion dollars is at Year zero dollars and excludes the combat system - another $40 billion. Then with sustainment costs and price escalation the total cost comes to $225 billion in total.

I can email the article to you, if you like.

He also reiterates that the F-35 is "a lemon" as the Americans have already said that it is not regionally superior.
The article, IMO, is a poorly researched and sensationalist hatchet job.

The author says it is his understanding that the contract excludes the combat system but the former Defence Minister specifically stated in parliament that the combat system is included (see attached video of Senator Payne's answer to Senator Patrick earlier this year).

SEA 1000 build costs again in the spotlight - Defence Connect

The author then includes the cost of operating 12 submarines for a fifty year period which adds $50 bn (the 6 Collins currently cost $600m per year to operate (or $30 bn if it was spread over 50 years) so $50 bn would actually be very reasonable for a fleet of 12.

The author then builds in inflation over the life of the new submarines and gets to his $225 bn.

The cost of the project has always been given in constant dollars and to talk about what the annual cost will be in 2080 dollars is ridiculous, If I go back to when I started full time work 50 years ago my salary was around $2000 pa which demonstrates how ridiculous it is to discuss anything other than constant dollars when costing over such a long period!

The throw away comments about the F-35 give an idea about the author's credibility as a defence journalist.

Tas
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Noticed a new article by The Australian ( Navy chief's submarine cost bombshell - The Australian) with a snippet in regards to Rear Admiral Sammut talking about them and some how the cost being $225 billion. Is hidden behind a pay wall so can't see the full article but I imagine they got the claim some how from a senate inquiry. Any suggestions on how I could find the transcripts of any recent inquiries that Sammut was a part of to figure out how such a figure was made. Not sure if such a figure is the official costing or some 'expert' (say that term loosely) multiplying the cost of the program many times over.
Let me give you the gist of it ... I will just mention the key bits.
Five dramatic words from Rear Admiral Gregory Sammut have put in jeopardy Australia’s long term ability to fund the spending in the 2019 election splurge on education, aged care and other areas.

Rear Admiral Sammut is the head of the future submarine program and his five words --- “on a constant price basis”--- sound innocuous.

But when the Australian government announced in 2016 that it was accepting a $50 billion contract from the French to build 12 submarines instead of the $20 billion firm price offered by the Germans, some of our best defence commentators said they believed the difference was narrowed because the $50 billion covered maintenance and had been adjusted for inflation. They were wrong.

The Rear Admiral was recently asked by a parliamentary committee to clarify the $50 million calculation. With crystal clarity he dropped a bombshell which shocked the defence community.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Marcus Hellyer says the five words translate the original $50 million into an outlay of $79 billion. But, as I understand it, the base $50 billion actually excluded the combat system (always a handy addition to a sub) so the inflated cost will be about $90 billion.

But in the parliamentary committee it got much worse----the $90 billion is just the construction cost. Then there is the maintenance figure – another $50 million. And again, according to the Rear Admiral, it is “in constant dollars” which, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) translates into another $124 billion.

Rear Admiral Sammut emphasises that these estimates are preliminary because the submarines have not yet been designed.

I think we can say that the nation of Australia faces a $225 billion plus bill for 12 submarines.

And the first submarines will not be available for at least 14 years, but the Rear Admiral believes they will still be useful up until around 2080. Of course, the way technology is moving in the defence space, conceivably they could be outmoded before construction is finished in the late 2030s.

According to ASPI we were looking to spend about 30 per cent of our estimated defence capital on these 12 submarines.

But there is more. We have contracted to spend $35 billion on nine frigates which I guess will be in constant dollars, so call it $70 billion. And then there is goodness knows what for the Joint Strike Fighter.

According to the Americans the JSF does not deliver air superiority in the region, which is what we wanted. On that basis it’s a lemon.

The frigates should be worth having but everyone else buys their frigates for a fraction of what we are paying. We claim our frigates will be better than our rivals so they are worth the outlay. They had better be.
A nonsense story really.

The author assumes that nobody but him understands what the effect of inflation will be over the next 60 years. I don't know why this would even require an explanation. Gottliebsen doesn't like the F-35 and had a shot at the new frigates as well.

He seems astounded that other nations are playing less for their frigates than we are. He is right of course. Something like the Type 31 will cost a fraction of one of the new Hunter class. I doubt he understands why that is the case. In his mind a frigate is just a frigate.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I worry time frames will get us. We have quite a few wizz bang programs.. but they are in embryonic stages. Sea1000 contract still seems a way off, 1180 has barely begun and sea5000 is in its post announcement afterglow. How much actual capability we get from these by 2020 is likely to minimal. 2025 is still a long way into these programs which tend to have fairly slow drum beats to keep them sustainable so by that stage you are still looking at small adjustments, even if the build goes flawlessly..

The OPV fitout is reasonable for an OPV. We currently have a frigate going from perth to grab a sailor, that is definitely a job an OPV would be good at. The question is how and where will they be based and will they be suitable as far flung deployments of Australia in a world increasingly difficult.
The navy maybe a decade or more away from getting a substantial boost in capability but the RAAF is doing pretty well. With its mix of F-35s, Superhornets, Growlers, Posidons, Wedgetails and Tritons it will be one of the most technologically advanced and capable airforces on the planet.
 

Oberon

Member
;)
The article, IMO, is a poorly researched and sensationalist hatchet job.

The author says it is his understanding that the contract excludes the combat system but the former Defence Minister specifically stated in parliament that the combat system is included (see attached video of Senator Payne's answer to Senator Patrick earlier this year).

SEA 1000 build costs again in the spotlight - Defence Connect

The author then includes the cost of operating 12 submarines for a fifty year period which adds $50 bn (the 6 Collins currently cost $600m per year to operate (or $30 bn if it was spread over 50 years) so $50 bn would actually be very reasonable for a fleet of 12.

The author then builds in inflation over the life of the new submarines and gets to his $225 bn.

The cost of the project has always been given in constant dollars and to talk about what the annual cost will be in 2080 dollars is ridiculous, If I go back to when I started full time work 50 years ago my salary was around $2000 pa which demonstrates how ridiculous it is to discuss anything other than constant dollars when costing over such a long period!

The throw away comments about the F-35 give an idea about the author's credibility as a defence journalist.

Tas
Government always uses constant year dollars in estimating project costs. ie excludes inflation and exchange rate fluctuations. Basically, as costs escalate over the years of a project's life, so too does revenue receipts from taxation.

BTW, congratulations on having a future frigate named after you! ;)
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The article, IMO, is a poorly researched and sensationalist hatchet job.

The author says it is his understanding that the contract excludes the combat system but the former Defence Minister specifically stated in parliament that the combat system is included (see attached video of Senator Payne's answer to Senator Patrick earlier this year).

SEA 1000 build costs again in the spotlight - Defence Connect

The author then includes the cost of operating 12 submarines for a fifty year period which adds $50 bn (the 6 Collins currently cost $600m per year to operate (or $30 bn if it was spread over 50 years) so $50 bn would actually be very reasonable for a fleet of 12.

The author then builds in inflation over the life of the new submarines and gets to his $225 bn.

The cost of the project has always been given in constant dollars and to talk about what the annual cost will be in 2080 dollars is ridiculous, If I go back to when I started full time work 50 years ago my salary was around $2000 pa which demonstrates how ridiculous it is to discuss anything other than constant dollars when costing over such a long period!

The throw away comments about the F-35 give an idea about the author's credibility as a defence journalist.

Tas
I dismiss Patrick as being a self appointed “expert” on submarines, he spent hardly a year at sea on one, as a very junior rating.
I dismiss every speech he makes which include the letters TKMS as he worked/consulted for them.

He classifies as yet another member of the Goon/Gottliebson club, one which should be denied access to the ADF.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
The relationship built with this project could conceivably grant us access to other designs within their portfolio, i.e. the k130 corvettes.
More commenting that optionality could have been incorporated into the design.

Really only needs to be fitted with a stabilised 30mm cannon (or even 12.7mm) initially but the options for the following would seem to make sense:

+ Hangar
+ 76mm gun
+ SeaRam
+ Nulka
+ ASM (Perhaps)
+ Ability to launch minesweeping boats

Maintaining optionality is key in my mind.

Regards,

Massive
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The navy maybe a decade or more away from getting a substantial boost in capability but the RAAF is doing pretty well. With its mix of F-35s, Superhornets, Growlers, Posidons, Wedgetails and Tritons it will be one of the most technologically advanced and capable airforces on the planet.
RAAF roll out will be massively quick. We will be one of the very first to convert to F-35 fleet and we also already have all our other enablers pretty much FOC. The RAAF timing seems to be ahead of peak RAN capability.

I do wonder if the Manus airport could be pushed out to 8,000 feet? Although I would imagine the Superhornets could operate (ie land/take off) there almost as is, if needed to provide aircover for ships in that region. Would probably want to spend a bit of coin improving the Navy base and the airport capability, maybe some other dual use areas like the hospital capability, network, fuel, power generation etc. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turns into a place they might want to be able to forward deploy troops or fly troops into and move/rotate in out of theater.

Might also be a good spot for joint ops with other regional partners and pacific nations.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Momote, which is on Los Negros not actually Manus, is currently about 6000 feet long; at one end it runs down to a narrow beach and at the other to mangroves which border the sea. It would not be possible to extend it at either end without building out into the sea. It's many years since I've been there (although it gave me one of the scariest landings of my life when the aircraft aquaplaned on the wet (then) coral strip and we very nearly ended up on the beach) but it would already be just about capable of handling most fast jets, possibly with TOW limits. There is however very little infrastructure; that would all need to be imported. As an airhead it's immediate area is limited although of course there is plenty of space to expand around Seeadler Harbour if you can get the landowners to agree.

(Half an hour or so later) Just found a piccy of the place; the mangroves have gone but the geography's the same and the infrastructure seems to have decayed a bit, although apparently there's a plan to rebuild it.
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Momote, which is on Los Negros not actually Manus, is currently about 6000 feet long; at one end it runs down to a narrow beach and at the other to mangroves which border the sea. It would not be possible to extend it at either end without building out into the sea.
Mate, that's easily fixed, all we need to do is to employ the same Chinese contractors that are doing all that reclamation work in the SCS!

china reclaimed islands in south china sea - Google Search

Longer runways, port facilities, new highways! Employ the Chinese, problem solved!! (He says with tongue firmly planted in cheek!).

Cheers,
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wouldn't have to be a whole support facility just forward operations. As it's capable of operating 737's it would be ideal for Wedgetail and P8 operations. Obviously if someone was unhappy about that, pressure could be applied at that point if they were capable of projecting that far.
Also as a air bridge to Guam, certain long range assets might be useful in this area. It would also stop hard power being pushed very hard against PNG or West P, which are touchy areas and that giant open space around.

Also, it might be the type of place that then centers PNG as a leading Pacific nation across the region. Given its a nexus, unique in its type. Franchising them tightly.

In saying that, I am sure the idea isn't to turn the whole place into a military base. But use that funding for dual use things that would also support things like tourism, hotels, cruise ships, hospitals, education, dive tours, trade etc. Become a stronger hub for that region and support those in the island chain and also keep a positive outlook for Bouganville and the wider region as well. But more permanent high paying jobs, more money flowing into the economy in that part of the world.

From the sounds of it, PNG and the locals are likely to generally be supportive. But I guess the devil is in the details. But I can see options.

Negras isn't an island anymore, so I guess there is always potential to expand a bit over water. Depending on the need.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Knowing how elections bugger things here in Canada, I was wondering if Australia's pending election in 2019 could cause a problem for the sub acquisition program which this link suggests is a possibility. I assume ABC can shovel stuff just like our CBC.:D

Future submarine project deadlocked as French shipbuilder digs in on $50 billion contract

I’m wondering what the options are should we walk away from the French, could we build Collins MKII whilst doing a clean sheet design to give us breathing space.

I’d rather we walk away from thecFrench than bend over because they think we don’t have options.
 
I’m wondering what the options are should we walk away from the French, could we build Collins MKII whilst doing a clean sheet design to give us breathing space.

I’d rather we walk away from thecFrench than bend over because they think we don’t have options.
I agree. The French are beginning get a reputation for pulling this. They go into tender promising the world, once they win they play hardball. I honestly think walking away or at least being perceived to may solve a lot of the sticking points.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Knowing how elections bugger things here in Canada, I was wondering if Australia's pending election in 2019 could cause a problem for the sub acquisition program which this link suggests is a possibility. I assume ABC can shovel stuff just like our CBC.:D

Future submarine project deadlocked as French shipbuilder digs in on $50 billion contract
Unless the current Government turns things around quickly we are looking at a Landslide victory to the Opposition next year and they will definetly look long and hard at the Subs if there is ongoing problem with the Contract, anything could happen.
I think the Frigates and OPVs are safe,
Yes the ABC Australia can Shovel it as well as anyone.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I’m wondering what the options are should we walk away from the French, could we build Collins MKII whilst doing a clean sheet design to give us breathing space.

I’d rather we walk away from thecFrench than bend over because they think we don’t have options.
I can't see the government walking away from the French irrespective of which party is in power, however if something did go pear shaped the only workable option would be to engage Kockums so the Collins Class ip can be used.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Unless the current Government turns things around quickly we are looking at a Landslide victory to the Opposition next year and they will definetly look long and hard at the Subs if there is ongoing problem with the Contract, anything could happen.
I think the Frigates and OPVs are safe,
Yes the ABC Australia can Shovel it as well as anyone.

Not 100% sure about that as it was Labour policy that got us to 12 submarines in the first place,but I believe it was more of a sound bite for PM Rudd.

I just hope if they do get in they just don’t sell off the Family jewels go get it over the line for a supposed coup for labour, we all know it was the fiscal planning of the Liberal government that gave us the confidence to believe the announcements, one only has to look at the supply ship fiasco under labour when they were so urgent that they were going to be built in SA.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I can't see the government walking away from the French irrespective of which party is in power, however if something did go pear shaped the only workable option would be to engage Kockums so the Collins Class ip can be used.
I agree that this would appear to be about the only alternative available.

The Japanese Soryu class and the German Type 216 offering for SEA 1000 were both rejected as not meeting RAN and/or government requirements. As far as I can see, no one else is developing a large, long range submarine that would meet Australia's needs. If, as is currently being discussed as a future possibility, the USN eventually develops a diesel submarine to supplement its nuclear fleet then that may present an option down the track, but at this stage a USN SSK is no more than a possibility!

I wonder though just who it would be that we would need to negotiate with? Kockums has gone through several ownership changes since the IP for Collins was negotiated and is currently owned by SAAB. Would IP ownership be held by SAAB or the Swedish Government?

Tas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top