Really .... look at the UK figures for the first three if you want numbers to compare as well. The Canadian figures include other costs the reflect the Canadian project and shares costs across the production run of their vessels. The UK project in ordering the first batch of three is similar appears to include project costs but the cost per unit is much lower. It comes down to what you include in your calculation.Thanks Black Jack Shelac. Using those figures the average of CAN$3.55 billion turns into NZ$4.15 Billion at todays premium of NZ$1.17 per CAN$1.
Incomprehensibly huge numbers that citizen tax payers cannot appreciate.
Stobiewan I in no way would want to see any sailor, soldier or airman die as a result of low balling on the cost of platforms but where do you draw the line with this thinking. Phalanx is a CIWS but Goalkeeper is better. 30 mm single mount is good but Millenium is better. NFH is good but Merlin and Cyclone are better. I could go on. Unfortunately when you sign on the doted line you know that your Government may send you in harms way. Those in positions to make the call to send our young men and women off to battle know that some will make the ultimate sacrifice.
There will always be sacrifices when purchasing equipment regarding this or that capability and its risk vs reward.
Purchasing an Absalon type vessel, as Denmark has, built to commercial standards wasnt done with no regard to those who sail on her. A very well designed vessel that is overly well armed yet it is built to less of a standard than UK or US vessels. The Danes have accepted the risks associated and feel that its managable.
If the NZ GOTD decide to go with a vessel built to a lessor level than the gold standard but still meets the requirements of the specification then we all live with it. But if the GOTD decides to strap a 40 mm Boffin to the deck of an inter island ferry and send it off to transit the Strait of Hormuz then that would be criminal.
At this point of the process the primary decision that needs to be made is what is the desire of the government with regard to capability of its surface fleet. As noted previous reports about the surface fleets size has recommended a four frigate navy for very obvious reasons. So now lets look at how to get there since this is a doubling of the current medium to lower end ANZACs.
Four hulls means two deployed, one home and one in longterm refit under normal conditions. In a small fleet like Denmarks the ability to move weapons amongst hulls makes great sense.
Can the Stanflex system be incorporated into this small NZ fleet? What benefits would be had. Is ASW the primary desire? A report on the Save the Royal Navy site recently extolled the virtue of dumping the 5" gun in favour of a second CIWS. The primary rational was to free up space below deck for whatever purpose desired. Has value to me.
Twenty years ago who would have thought about putting up to a dozen ISO containers on a Frigate such as the T26. Flexibility most needed from my point of view. So many options to commanders.
So going back to my original point of cost being an issue lets compare $12 billlion vs $4 billion. Which figure has more of a chance. I know where I think it will be.
The Hunter project is set at 35 billion AUD for nine vessels but this includes the build, the buidling infrastructure, support infrastructure as well as support and maintenance for the life of the vessel (4.3billion). NZ would not be expected to cover sunk cost assocaited with building infrastructure. Cherry picking a figure without consideration of the costing process is nonsense.
On the Absalom and Stanflex .... this is an Danish concept built in Denmark by a yard that nolonged exists. Stanflex was designed to cut costs in fit out but there are only a limited number of modules and I doubt Denamrk will release them. If you were to adopt this process then new Moduels will have to be constructed.
If this is the sort of ship desired by NZ then the T31 is a better options as it 'should be' in construction by the time it is needed and there would be no set up costs. If the is an ernest desire of NZ to use south Korea then using one of their designs would be better as .... again ... you avoid set up costs.
But the issue here is your myopic reliance on some figures to try and prove a point, without considering context, all to promote yor faviourite platform. At the end of the day NZ will have to decide what it is willing to pay for. The T31 (or Absalom clone) will not be as good as the T26, or the CSC or the Hunter ... but if that is what they choose then that will be it.
But as you said you are done with this .... well I certainly am done with this conversation because you are adding noting except a churlish and childish attitude. Don't bother responding.