Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

LMV-6.jpg

LMV-4.jpg

LMV-3.jpg

LMV-2.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by justsomeaussie Something that isn't being raised is that the procurement cost is in fact a lower amount ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old November 25th, 2012   #9961
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,190
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeaussie View Post
Something that isn't being raised is that the procurement cost is in fact a lower amount than the in service cost (the through life costs).
And the differential in net cost has to be very high before overseas buy actually becomes cheaper than a domestic buy. Because itís not an individual or a company buying these ships but the state and the state recoups a considerable amount of its outlay through taxation and defrayment of social security spending. If you buy overseas all of the money goes off shore and the taxation on goods, labour, etc all goes to the other state treasuries.

Combined with the significant additional costs to maintain an overseas built ship its an all things being equal simple equation. However the one thing that messes it up is management failure. Which adds to risk because of poor management in many local companies and in the stateís oversight. So why donít they just clean up the managers? Especially since much of the stateís problems are processes and not human resources.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2012   #9962
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,483
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
Frankly, Australia isn't China. Australia doesn't have their population or skilled workforce to stay busy with competitive prices. The United Kingdom and France face the same Catch 22 problem as well. Even the United States faces this problem too. While the larger United States may be able to keep their shipbuilders busy, they do so being uncompetitive with prices. The last time the United States sold new US built warships for export was back during the late 1970s to Australia. And that included four frigates out of a total US built class of 55 warships.
Yes we do. Without wanting to get too political, what we don't have is a Government (of any persuasion) with enough foresight to invest in that Industry and make acquisition decisions based on the national interest as opposed to their own interests...

As someone pointed out recently, we have a requirement for up to 48 new-build ships over the next 20 years or so beyond the AWD and LHD programs (and minors like LCM-1E, RHIB's etc) with our Army potentially having a water-craft requirement beyond this and our Customs Patrol Boat fleets requiring replacement in that timeframe as well, you can easily see 60 or more patrol boat size + vessels available for Australian industry.

This need provides the opportunity to develop a sustainable shipbuilding industry but it requires sustained investment rather than the traditional adhoc investment approach that Government has undertaken for reasons best known to it.

As also pointed out, by the time that body of work is completed other work will be required so there's no real reason why this opportunity can't be exploited. It will just take our political masters to look beyond their own selfish interests.

A sustainable and effective industry also stands an excellent chance of exports, as seen with the joint ANZAC program with NZ and Pacific Patrol Boat fleets...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2012   #9963
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,012
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Australia is actually a major marine producer or fishing vessels, pleasure boats and high speed ferries. Each of these vessel classes face strong competition from China and other places yet the domestic industry is strong.

And most of this commercial effort has taken place after the previous, very generous, C'wealth subsidies provided to our shipyards was abolished.

Why is it the the USN can submit a 30 year and a 5 year shipbuilding and procurement plan to congress, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdfregardless of which party governs but Australia and the RAN have no such equivalent, only the endless turntable of defence WP's?

Last edited by OPSSG; November 30th, 2012 at 09:08 PM. Reason: Fixed quote format
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2012   #9964
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 761
Threads:
Is this Simon Cowan guy from CIS Australia being taken seriously?
Its a 2 week old Q and A session on Australia's future sub

He talks about Collins being a failure
He talks about 40 billion for new subs.
He talks about buying nuke boats of USA
He then talks about buying Soryu class off Japan.

He rides off Australian Industry in producing a Sub then says Collins have an edge over most subs in our region.He is very confusing in his thoughts.I understand he is trying to cause debate.I thumbed him down :0

The Future Submarine -- Australia's $40 billion mistake - YouTube
Q&A: The Future Submarine -- Australia's $40 billion mistake - YouTube

Sorry to butt in on your debate guys i thought this may be of interest to you.
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2012   #9965
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,190
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
Is this Simon Cowan guy from CIS Australia being taken seriously?
Reads like his analysis is based on media reports. Which isnít credible in any domain across all of human activity Ė even in media studies.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2012   #9966
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 629
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
AG said it some time ago. That a single ship building yard would have continuous work for the RAN alone, it may not be as competitive as multiple yards (price wise) but at least the workforce would be stable.

Look at BAE in the UK they are threating to closed down another yard in the UK once the carriers are built, the government has to decide if a single yard with continuous work at a higher rate would in the nationís best interest or the problematic way we do things now with stops and starts and rebuilding workforce capability.
The idea of having one large ship building yard certainly does have merit, a core centralised workforce, one location where infrastructure is not duplicated and wasted when a project is completed, etc.

The problem that I see with that, if you look at the current DCP and Guide, there are requirements for 48 Ships and Submarines of "six" different classes that have overlapping in service dates, and that's excluding the 2 LHD's and 3 AWD's currently under construction too.

It would be easy if all the 48 vessels were going to be built in groups one after the other, then you could see that yard being busy for the next 50 years, but they are not.

The yard would have to be of a rather significant size to handle multiple projects at the same time, being able to deliver vessels to the Navy of different classes, some of them at the same time too.

Some projects will certainly go much longer than others, so there would still be peaks and troughs in the workforce size too, yes certainly not as much "boom and bust" as would be if spread across many yards.

If the single "mega" yard, for a better name, was ASC's for example, could sufficient skilled trades be attracted to live and work in that one location? Could we face a production bottleneck?

Maybe it would be better if, for example, Austal was the Navy's "small ship" builder, in between Navy projects it continues on with its commercial products.

ASC concentrates on the Submarine project which is going to see it busy for 25-30 years and maybe beyond if they also have opportunity to start on the "next" class of 12 when they finish the 12 Collins replacements.

Is there sufficient other work for a "third" yard (around the East Coast) to build all the other classes of "larger" navy ships planned? The 8 Future Frigates, Success replacement (maybe 2?), Strategic Sealift Ship, 6 LCH's.

Whatever the answer, I just hope that the Government does actually commit to build all 48 here and puts the proper industry policies in place too.

Better to work on the issues of how and where they get built here than to have the bulk of them built overseas!
John Newman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9967
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 204
Threads:
I think Cowan is drawing a very long bow by presupposing that the US would even lease nuclear subs to Australia in the first place.

To lease these subs to Australia the US would have to either take them out of the USN inventory, or pay to have the extra submarines built. I don't see either scenario being that likely. The third option will be Australia buying the subs outright. Unless the USN is willing to give up a few production slots that will push delivery times well into the 2030s.
hauritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9968
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,712
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
I think Cowan is drawing a very long bow by presupposing that the US would even lease nuclear subs to Australia in the first place.

To lease these subs to Australia the US would have to either take them out of the USN inventory, or pay to have the extra submarines built. I don't see either scenario being that likely. The third option will be Australia buying the subs outright. Unless the USN is willing to give up a few production slots that will push delivery times well into the 2030s.
quite frankly, that lectern speech was rubbish. some of these blokes need a reality check before they open up in public with their strategic wisdom
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9969
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 822
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Newman View Post

But the company building it here is going to pay tax on its profits, the employees are all going to pay income tax (and possibly not be on unemployment benefits too), the employees wages flow further down into the economy the government gets another tax hit back, and on it goes.

Not suggesting for one minute that it would eventually work out cost neutral, (I'm sure some Government department has a calculation somewhere), but I'm sure that the $500m premium initially paid is no where near that after the money spent here cycles its way through the ecomomy.
It's known as the multiplier. The theory is that the boilermaker paid here in Australia will spend 9x% of his salary here (and pay taxes). When Joe boilermaker spends say $50 at Bakers Delight, the money spent there goes into tax and wages for the staff there who than take their $40 and spend that at the servo, who then pay tax again of the profits and the staff of the servo then spend their $15 etc etc. The number of times the same dollar is 're-spent' represents "the multiplier" - and it tends to work better when people and businesses are spending - not saving.

Apologies to Lin Crace at LaTrobe Uni if that is too vague - It's been a good 10+ years since I last did Micro or Marco Economic theory.
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9970
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 761
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
quite frankly, that lectern speech was rubbish. some of these blokes need a reality check before they open up in public with their strategic wisdom
Seems as these guys are a naval version of APA.We shall call them ''Naval Power Australia.'' I am lucky enough to have you guys to inform me/us on what is really needed in defence and shoot holes through these guys articles.

My only concern is that mum and dad Australian's see articles like this along with news articles, giving wrong information ,and building a thought patters that reflects bad on Navy and Subs in general.

I just hope our future subs have a better reputation than the public opinion that is projected at the moment.
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9971
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,190
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
My only concern is that mum and dad Australian's see articles like this along with news articles, giving wrong information ,and building a thought patters that reflects bad on Navy and Subs in general.
Well thatís how it has worked for all other Government policy areas other than defence for years and they all donít seem so badÖ Ohh hang onÖ Weíre boned.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9972
Just Hatched
Private
AUS-man's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 8
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
I think Cowan is drawing a very long bow by presupposing that the US would even lease nuclear subs to Australia in the first place.

To lease these subs to Australia the US would have to either take them out of the USN inventory, or pay to have the extra submarines built. I don't see either scenario being that likely. The third option will be Australia buying the subs outright. Unless the USN is willing to give up a few production slots that will push delivery times well into the 2030s.
How could we even run nuclear powered subs when we don't even have a nuclear power industry and the US would have to assist us in terms of training, running and maintenance for along time until we gain the knowledge as no one in the RAN or Australia would know anything on running and maintaining nuclear submarines
AUS-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9973
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,108
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
Seems as these guys are a naval version of APA.We shall call them ''Naval Power Australia.'' I am lucky enough to have you guys to inform me/us on what is really needed in defence and shoot holes through these guys articles.

My only concern is that mum and dad Australian's see articles like this along with news articles, giving wrong information ,and building a thought patters that reflects bad on Navy and Subs in general.

I just hope our future subs have a better reputation than the public opinion that is projected at the moment.
The sad thing is there are even some people who work in defence who believe some of this shite. They work side by side with people who lived the history and know more than any hack but who do you think they believe? A lot of it, I note, is tainted by politics.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9974
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,700
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Itís very interesting showing just what can be done with all the deadweight available in a mission deck style ship and also all the deck surface area available via a multi hull. Such a ship with the full list of options (ASW, ESM, etc) would actually be in some ways more capable than an Anzac class. It has everything the Anzac has except the VSR (SPS-49) and 127mm gun. In return the MRV80 warship version as high speed (35 knots vs 27 knots), a rapid fire 76mm gun and a VSRAD (RAM) capability. Which would make it more useful in littoral waters. But with the valid criticisms levelled at these aluminium multi hulls. Not enough sea-keeping for ocean operations, not enough life of hull for heavy use over 10-15 years and one would expect not the same class of damage control.



And compared to the original more patrol orientated MRV80 configurations it sacrifices a lot of border protection capability. Like all the extra accommodation in the superstructure which is likely taken up by the combat system, VLS and 76mm gun magazine. Plus much of the mission deck would be filled with the towed array and helo stores. Also one could assume the HMS goes in the accommodation space (aka prision) in the lower hull. But it certainly fits into the Ďsea controlí, Ďmulti-missioní mix of corvettes as a SEA 1180 + 5000 concept.



I donít think itís really the Southern Ocean that is the problem and the draft OCD for SEA 1180 ruled out such south of the 40th parallel. But the concern is for multi-hull sea keeping in high sea states that can be found in tropical waters on a bad day.
Frankly I suspect the abilty to fit all that gear (inclduing ESSM and the 76mm and Torpedo tubes) within the 400 tonne deadweigh may be optimisitic. The vessel will require considerably more structure than the base version in adiditonot he mass of these systems.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012   #9975
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,472
Threads:
While the two Canberra class LHDs hulls were built in Spain, around a third of the price of the LHDs is being spent in Australia. There are considerable expenditures in Australia being paid out for the island modules, all of the electronics and sensors, and fit out. Some of the electronics and sensors are probably being imported. Even if Australia built the LHDs in Australia, much of the engine plant, electronics and sensors would be imported or licensed built.

We live in a global economy today unlike the forgone past. Does Australia desire shipyard jobs which fade away as soon as a ships are built? And while some have pointed out the dynamics of interior economics, would Australia do better economically subsidizing another industry in which Australia could lead the world?

Notice that Canada is involved with the same questions. Canada recently decided to give up the ghost in naval ship design, choosing to build ships in country from foreign off the shelf designs with foreign ship building expertise.
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 AM.