Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well...it is clear that it is well over budget...but I will wait and see what the final numbers are.

I have seen people throw around total numbers for the price of the first two and call that a price for each.

The original contract called for a cost of a total of $6.13 billion (US) for all three ships. My understanding was that this month (MAy 2015), the projected cost increase was $920 million US, making the total $7.2 billion.

Now, that's still expensive by any stretch...but at the same time, the industry in Australia does not have the economy of scale that a US or other nation that builds a lot of ships. When you build three ships in class...and that is all...it is going to cost a lot more per ship no matter how you cut it.

Australia would do well to move forward with the plan that would build the new frigates that they are contemplating on the same hull form as these AWD DDGs, so as to get more economy of scale and to support their shipbuilding for a much longer.

If you build three ships...then layoff everyone for ten years and try and come back and build four or five more ten years later...you are constantly plagued by this problem.

As it is, the first AWD was just launched, and the second is well along in construction.

The vessels are going to prove good solutions for Australia...and I will be very surprised if the total is anything lose to $3 billion US per DDG.

Time will tell.
 

Brumby

Major
Well...it is clear that it is well over budget...but I will wait and see what the final numbers are.

I have seen people throw around total numbers for the price of the first two and call that a price for each.

The original contract called for a cost of a total of $6.13 billion (US) for all three ships. My understanding was that this month (MAy 2015), the projected cost increase was $920 million US, making the total $7.2 billion.

Now, that's still expensive by any stretch...but at the same time, the industry in Australia does not have the economy of scale that a US or other nation that builds a lot of ships. When you build three ships in class...and that is all...it is going to cost a lot more per ship no matter how you cut it.

Australia would do well to move forward with the plan that would build the new frigates that they are contemplating on the same hull form as these AWD DDGs, so as to get more economy of scale and to support their shipbuilding for a much longer.

If you build three ships...then layoff everyone for ten years and try and come back and build four or five more ten years later...you are constantly plagued by this problem.

As it is, the first AWD was just launched, and the second is well along in construction.

The vessels are going to prove good solutions for Australia...and I will be very surprised if the total is anything lose to $3 billion US per DDG.

Time will tell.

The problem is that the hole is getting deeper and no one knows how deep it will get. Given that systems integration is yet to happen, the story on cost is unfinished and that is the scary part.

The issue of protecting a viable industrial base is a very difficult proposition given local politics and the uncertainty of project timetable and how to keep the skills and base viable. These are very similar issues as in the US and even considering the volume that the US can sustain.

On top of this, the union work practices in Australia is world class and I am not saying it in a positive sense.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
My understanding from the May reports were that the increases I was speaking of were projected increases including the integration.

Time will tell of they are correct.

Union work is a well known issue in the western world. They are getting cyclic in the US where Unions have done significant over-reach and basically worked themselves out of jobs because of the horrendous cost and entitlement attitude of the Unions.

Many states and corporations are adopting "right to work" laws and attitudes that scale back the unaffordable "benefits,": which end up putting people out of work. They are doing this so that the jobs can be maintained at a workable cost.

I expect Australia is going to go through the same evolution if they are not already.
 

Lethe

Captain
Australia would do well to move forward with the plan that would build the new frigates that they are contemplating on the same hull form as these AWD DDGs, so as to get more economy of scale and to support their shipbuilding for a much longer.

If you build three ships...then layoff everyone for ten years and try and come back and build four or five more ten years later...you are constantly plagued by this problem.

Yep; Australia is probably right on the border line of being able to afford to maintain a naval construction base. Now, if we were a sensible Asian country that regards such capabilities as a strategic asset, a point of national pride, and as a kind of multiplier having all kinds of ripple on effects in other high-technology manufacturing sectors, there would be no problem organising a sustainable shipbuilding roadmap in concert with the Navy.

But we are not such a sensible nation. Instead, we have been captured by penny pinching western liberalism (conservatism for American readers) that shudders at state investment and state-directed programs, and unlike the United States we don't have the underlying raw militarism to compensate. As such, there is no vision and no commitment, and the Liberal Party in particular would like to destroy the industry's ability to undertake even the limited projects it can today. Order submarines from Japan, and then we won't have to worry about the future viability of the industry because we won't have any. For reference, observe the virtual collapse of the automobile industry in this country recently, where instead of noting how much more heavily subsidised vehicle production is in e.g. the United States or Germany, or the role of the resources boom in appreciating the Australian dollar, the (Liberal) government could only whine about wages before allowing the whole enterprise to collapse. It all makes sense when you realise these people actually aren't the least bit interested in the interests of the nation or its people, only in decorating their own increasingly obscene villas, like that thin smear of elites one can find in even the most dilapidated of countries.
 
Last edited:

navyreco

Senior Member
My attempt at comparing the 3 contenders for SEA 1000 program (Collins replacement), taking into account open source performance of each submarine as well as political factors.

Strengths & Weaknesses of the Contenders for Australia's Submarine Replacement Programme
fzwV5Is.jpg

Plans to replace the existing Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) Collins-class submarines began in 2007 with the launch of "SEA 1000" also known as the Future Submarine Programme. In February this year, the Australian Government announced the acquisition strategy for the Future Submarine Program and invited three countries: France, Germany and Japan to participate in a competitive evaluation process. Here is our analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each contender:
» The Japanese Soryu class
» The German Type 216
» The French evolution of SSN Barracuda
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
My attempt at comparing the 3 contenders for SEA 1000 program (Collins replacement), taking into account open source performance of each submarine as well as political factors.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

JMSDF never disclosed the range of the Soryu class and is considered clasified so you can't find it in Japanese. I wonder why people from abroad state it as if it is fact carved in stone that the range is 6,000nm?

Another point is the sub home ports in Japan are located in Yokosuka and Kure on the Pacific side of island so it requires to transit through either Tsushima channel or the Tsugaru channel to reach the Sea of Japan.
There are no home port in Okinawa so the subs need to transit from Kure of a distance of about 1,500Km one way.
 

Brumby

Major
JMSDF never disclosed the range of the Soryu class and is considered clasified so you can't find it in Japanese. I wonder why people from abroad state it as if it is fact carved in stone that the range is 6,000nm?
Regardless, given the extended range and transit requirements of the RAN, it will not be a standard Soryu design but a re-sized model. The issues as mentioned in the article will still prevail such as unproven (in modified form) and lack of industrial cooperation experience. The plus side is the US seems to favour such a deal and CMS integration is likely a non issue.
 

Bernard

Junior Member
Australia needs to just go Nuclear. They have huge coasts to protect that nuclear would solve those problems.... Jump in and buy some Virginias ;)
 
JMSDF never disclosed the range of the Soryu class and is considered clasified so you can't find it in Japanese. ...

... but still one could get a grant to "to develop a risk analysis and evaluation of emerging technologies, challenges and design solutions for input to the SEA1000 program" :) says
BMT Awarded Research Grant for Australia’s Future Sub
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top