Far better to work to realistic figures available at the time than overly optimistic ones that mean you haven't budgeted to maintain the capability once delivered. Far too often defence has been screwed by underestimation of costs and then being forced to stick to the original estimates, no matter how far off they were.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Exactly!
The point I keep pushing is, even if there was not one single thought or concern about climate change, its just common sense to move away from energy sources that spew cancer causing bi products into the atmosphere. If the average person wouldn't want to live anywhere near something for health and environmental reasons, why would we keep doing it when there are safer, better alternatives.
Last edited:
I see two problems with that suggestion: Firstly, I would not foresee a scenario where the RCN would be willing to get the first batch of an advanced new design sub (which Attack most definitely is), even from an experienced sub builder, which ASC is not. Secondly, at a cost of somewhere between 4.1 and 6.7 Billion per boat (based on a construction cost of $50-80 Billion) these are way too expensive. (The RCN has reputedly estimated a cost of $20 Billion for 6-8 subs, or 2.5-3.3 billion per.). That cost would even give pause to the USN. At this point I don't believe there is a realistic chance of the RCN becoming a user, which is truly unfortunate.
Hopefully these subs get built, but I see significant technical and financial headwinds ahead for this program.
Last edited:
Good day, I stand to be corrected on this but the construction cost includes the infrastucture to build the boats, their equipment and support arrangements. Basically sunk costs. If Australia were to build additional craft these would not necessarilly include the sunk costs and I suspect the cost of a delivered hull should be a lot less that 4.1 to 6.7 billion. Canada would still need to provide their own support infrastructure.
The cost has been quoted as $225b for construction and sustainment over the 50 year life of the submarines.
As Takao mentioned, this includes the costs for construction of the building yard, the costs for another base including all the support and training paraphernalia, the costs of regular deep maintenance and possibly (others may help me here) the crewing costs.
SEA1000 has been called a “sub enterprise” for these very reasons.
All things considered, $4.5b annual cost over the life of the project seems like a great investment in capability, a strategic capability that is unmatched by alternatives.
Sorry for the short reply, but yes, it covers everything, right down to the last square of toilet paper used by the crew ! Food, wages, health costs, you name it they forecast it ! This is the reason why it is not possible to compare programs with other countries, they do not include all of this, they do in the background, but not in the same way we do. Even the US has looked at how we cost our programs as an example of best practice, GF did a pretty big post of the subject a number of years ago
Cheers
What white elephant ? the cost has always been there, and is with every other Defence project, this is nothing new, just selective reporting to try and make a story out of something that most people do not understand and are ignorant about, not saying they are stupid, just ignorant about it and take mass media reporting at face value.
Look into every Defence project to look at the proper costings, it is all there, surprised it was not used more for the JSF program to be honest, guess maybe Goon and Kopp were not that smart after all
Cheers
Takao
The Bunker Group
And to reinforce all the comments above, it's an additional $145 b above the $80 b acquisition, but it's not unbudgeted for. Every project has two funding lines provided before it starts - an acquisition and a sustainment line. The latter one gets added on to any pre-existing sustainment funding lines. Obviously it's an estimate, and our costy's are getting better each time we build the IIP, but it at least gives a reasonably good idea. It may be that our kids are on this forum in 2040 bitching about Attack asking for more sustainment funding - but at least it will already have some to keep the boats working!What white elephant ? the cost has always been there, and is with every other Defence project, this is nothing new, just selective reporting to try and make a story out of something that most people do not understand and are ignorant about, not saying they are stupid, just ignorant about it and take mass media reporting at face value.
Look into every Defence project to look at the proper costings, it is all there, surprised it was not used more for the JSF program to be honest, guess maybe Goon and Kopp were not that smart after all
Cheers
Yep!
The ADF has been burned too often in the past when the powers that be have failed to factor through life costs.
A big one that always hurt was aging platforms were assumed to have flatlined operating and sustainment costs when in truth they usually cost significantly more than newer platforms of similar capability.
I imagine you'd be all across the Sea King fiasco where it was basically assumed, at a financial level, that they could be run on indefinitely for pretty much the same sustainment costs.
Hmm, that's the pot calling the kettle black especially when you look at the cost of Canadian defence programs.
Yes, out to beyond 2080 inc disposal and decommissioning of the entire fleet. So around $2 billion a year. I'm not that old but I well and truly will be dead in the ground by 2080 and my kids will be getting ready for retirement.
So not quite as outrageous as it initially sounds out, and that is in turned out future dollar price.
The UK's submarine program operation eats 25% of of the entire UK MOD budget. And they have never fully disposed of a SSN/SSBN. Ever. There is approximately another 10 billion pounds in disposal costs alone. (Subscribe to read | Financial Times). The additional refueling of the subs like Vanguard, and the additional unexpected costs are really driving upwards. (Critical Royal Navy submarine refit running late | Save the Royal Navy) With Vanguard which is in its 50th month of refit and isn't expected before 2021.
Australia will still have the most capable and largest conventional submarine and one of the largest (by displacement) conventional submarine fleets in the world. If you want to run with the big dogs, you gotta pay the price. While the media goes on about sticker price and operational costs, it gets surprisingly little traction in the wider sphere of public debate.
With that, I think Australia will get pretty good value from its submarines. We will never have an air force or army that will make the Chinese nervous, but our subs will. And while the US seems to have unlimited military power, even they can see the strategic value of 12 globally capable submarines. In terms of submarine capability, Australia goes from middle power to permanent 5.
They are absolutely essential in shifting the projecting power of China away from Australia.
Last edited:
The US in particular are very aware of what we are getting, more to the point where and how we operate, especially in the S.E Asia region and the littoral waters in our AO and what we bring to the table, something they don't have
Cheers
Thing to remember about Australian defence projects is how they are costed is very pessimistic. Until everyone else uses the same absolutely inclusive of everything metric, they aren't comparable. The Attack subs are going to cost approximately what ever best case benchmark (ie US or Japan which have large established multi production line submarine programs) will be +~30%. Most of that 30% is in local costs, which then plugged back into the economy and basically don't add significantly to the costs over all compared to OTS overseas builds.
Australia really isn't in the business of exporting submarines, I think trying to do so would further complicate an already massive and complex program. I don't think we would want to lock into a defence contract with the Canadians (politically flighty on defence? *cough F-35 cough*). Particularly on submarines (the brits had been trying to offload the Upholders for years).
Canada also never committed large to subs, even when they were MOTS stuff like the Oberon. Australia dreams of fleet nuclear subs, but can afford and buys conventional and commits to this capability. Canada dreams of a fleet of conventional, but exists with barely there capability, and goes bargain bin dumpster diving to get it. IMO Chile has been more focused on its sub capability than Canada. I think that is just where national priorities lie.
Its not even really a cost issue, Singapore, Norway, Chile can afford new subs. IMO an ambitious goal for Canada would be 4 SSK's from an OTS supplier (France, Korea, Germany). IMO I doubtful of such a program, it would have to be started right now for Canada to retain its learned sub capability. IMO it is far more likely Canada would buy 4 old (but updated) Collins class submarines (with 2 for spares) than buy any Attack class. Certainly last I heard there is very little movement on Victoria replacements.
COMMENTARY: Canada will screw up the submarine replacement. It’s just a matter of how and when
I find it interesting to compare with the commentary in Australia on a recent submarine article.
NoCookies | The Australian
You can see the interest around subs is very different Canada/Australia.
12 subs sounds like a lot, but again, Australian context, thats just six east coast, six west coast. An ongoing issue between where our priorities are. Oberons were mostly East coast based, while Collins are nearly exclusively west coast. We have significant concerns in both Pacific and Indian oceans. Which is probably helps where we got the 12 number from. We always wanted 8 collins, but it became such a political hot potato. We wanted 8 Oberons. We operated the 2 e classes back in WW1.
For Australia submarines are an essential part of its Navy and its Defence force. There is a fear without them there would be a tremendous loss of independence and capability. The primary concern in Australia isn't cost, its slipping delivery and capability.
The Indian ocean has always been a tremendous stretch for the US. McCains father captain subs out of Perth in WW2. So our submarines and operational focus on the Indian ocean (and moving the sub base) is about our relationship with the US in particular. The Indian ocean is afar even for a SSN. Having an medium power rock up with half a dozen capable blue water subs is a game changer for them.The US in particular are very aware of what we are getting, more to the point where and how we operate, especially in the S.E Asia region and the littoral waters in our AO and what we bring to the table, something they don't have
Cheers
But we have also seen the limitations of having nothing here on the East Coast. So the development of two sub bases is really a long time coming.
Japan also knows the value of Australian submarine power. Which is why they were keen to jump when the opportunity rose. Of all the ADF, its the subs that play globally strategic power games in with the bigger entities.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
@StingrayOZ ...the Matt Gurney article correctly describes our pathetic procurement efforts. WRT submarine renewal, if the Liberals get yet another term in government the RCN will be out of the submarine business. The chances with the Conservatives aren't much better. Financially, our federal and most provincial governments here are marching us down the road to third worth status making future defence investment next to impossible.
To get the most out of a Cat you probably need to look at a T-ESD, you start looking at those then why not just get a logistics ship and not bother with the cat? Get both and the cost goes up.
Yes, thanks, that's how defence projects are costed here in Canada as well.
Last edited:
What is your point exactly? The cost of Canadian defence programs has no relevance to this discussion. Am I to get this thrown in my face every time I initiate a discussion about another country's defence programs?
Last edited:
Try to bear with the usual bunch here; esp. on their responses on matters related to Australian submarines. Think of it as an ironic sense of humour about cost over runs and being caught in developmental hell until the risk matures. We also have the same issues in Singapore, on through-life costs for our old second hand submarines. It is just not so openly reported or discussed.
Last edited:
When you cast judgement perhaps? To be fair to the antipodian and Moderator friend, it was in response to, which has a point I would like to respond to.
Every advanced submarine program has significant technical and financial issues (UK, France, Canada, Australia, Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina etc). You take on as much as you can carry. Sometimes, you even fail completely. Lots of countries have had to wind back very ambitious programs (Soviets, US, etc) reduce capability (UK getting rid of conventional) some have given up on submarine capability (Denmark for example).
The Attack class reflects the needs and ambitions and priorities of Australia. Which is why it won out over more conservative designs (such as the German and the Japanese). I can't fathom any "middle power" being willing to take on such an ambitious program. Particularly with its priority focus on range, transit and projection. Japan has a large submarine program, but its totally conservative, very evolutionary, and based around immediate defense not globally projecting power.
Admiral Sammit openly gives out these numbers relating to the cost of the program, and will stare at you eye ball to eye ball when securing these funds. These figures aren't coming from documents that are hidden under FOI or such things, they are openly discussed in public sessions where the media is invited along. Australia is also curious in how open our defence programs are, particularly our submarines.
The costs are reflective of the ambitions of the program. I agree it will be difficult. But they can and will be paid for. This is not a flight of fancy. The 12 subs were proposed by a labor government, selected and paid for under a liberal one. The previous submarine program was again a joint affair (although mostly executed under a Labor gov). Its big heavy stuff, and probably contributed to leadership spills, but regardless of the political idiots in the circus at Canberra, the project moves forward and fires are lit under designers and constructors.
It looks more certain now that we aren't just building 12 new submarines, but we are likely fully modernizing our existing 6 Collins class.
Looking from a Canadian perspective it probably looks impossible. There would have to be an urgency, funding, commitment, a bipartisan agreement, and a public will never seen in any Canadian program (defence or otherwise).
That is a key and central difference between Australia and most other western nations, particularly when it comes to defence. Due to our isolation, there is a much more determined effort and a need to make things work.
- Status