Dectilion

funny, the LHD seems way cheap to me, while the destroyers sound very expensive.

Parihaka

If we (NZ) were acting on our own, it would be against forces for which there was no need for fixed wing aircraft. If we were acting against a larger party it would be as auxilliaries to the Australians and Americans, who have more than enough of that sort of thing to go around. Our priorities are to provide 2 well equipped and trained battalions at a moments notice, and the ability to ramp up to division size as quickly as possible. Our Airforce is tasked with marine patrol and support for ground troops via the NH90's and Hercs. Our Navy is currently upgrading along with the Aussies, and in concert with them.
In reality, there is no need for us to maintain fighter capabilities, because we just don't need them and can spend the money elsewhere with greater effect for our defence ties obligations.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Dectilion

im stupid, i thought you were responding to both my NZ fixed wing and Aussie jsf questions. You were only responding to the NZ fixed wing one though weren't you. On that topic, personally i think its a shame to remove all fixed wing aircraft. I think at least a token force should be maintained, so the country has some trained fixed wing pilots.

rickusn

OK Galrahn

Lets see if I ve got your reasoning straight.

Its 6b AUS for both LHDs and the remaining 5b Aus for three F-100s

If so how does that jive with this?:

"At a cost of nearly $8 billion, and subject to successful contract negotiations, Navantia will work with the AWD Alliance (Defence Materiel Organization, ASC and Raytheon Australia ) to deliver three AWDs to the Royal Australian Navy. "

and this:

""Mr Howard said the navy would be equipped with three Navantia F100 air warfare destroyers worth a total of A$8 billion ($9.02 billion)."

Im confused at this point.

Dectilion

thats what was throwing me at the beginning, i think some reporters must have got their facts wrong

Galrahn

I think you are right and my numbers are off. I messed up, but after looking around I think I figured it out.

From here

It looks like the remaining money was for infrastructure upgrades and integration in Australia. At 6.7 billion (US) for 3, they are basically paying 2.23 billion (US) for each ship, which doesn't jive with a Navantia announcement today the AWD hulls will cost about ~1 Billion (US) each.

So if this is right, basically the ship hull costs ~1 billion (US), and the infrastructure and integration costs ~1.23 billion (US) per hull. At first that seemed like a lot to me, but it includes the weapons and systems so that makes more sense. Remember, the US Navy doesn't include weapons in the ship cost, they use a different budget for systems and weapons. This ~1.23 is for Standards, Tomahawks, etc.. for the MK41s plus AEGIS and other systems and integration. It makes more sense when you factor in weapons costs into the contract.

It looks like the 2 LHDs will cost around A3 billion together, with A500 million of that money being done in Australia to build the islands of both, and systems integrations for both.

Parihaka

So do I. A big success during WWII was the commonwealth pilots programme. NZ had the largest number of fighter pilots during the BoB after and Britain and Poland, and quickly overtook Poland in the next few months. The logic of getting rid of the Skyhawks and not replacing them is sound, but we could easily have kept the Aermacchi's and fed the trained pilots into the RAF and RAAF.

Dectilion

Galrahn, at that cost for a stovl carrier, im amazed everyone isnt buying them.

and Parihaka, a salute to the commonwealth nations. New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa. The only nations to stand by us through the whole war

Dectilion

according to wikipedia, 1 F100 costs about 385 million euros, even with modifications, i dont understand how the Australian ships can be a couple of billion dollars each

Galrahn

Another link.

Key quote:

When you factor in training and weapons, the numbers add up about right. Navies aren't cheap. According to Navantia, the F-105 hull cost around 550 million US in FY07 dollars, and didn't include the weapons and systems in the price. When you add it up, the costs make sense. Weapons, Systems, Services, and Crews don't come cheap.

JBG

The figures that I have heard of are approx. $A11bilion for the five ships on an almost drive away basis - ship, weapons, training spares etc.

All the same, the destroyers do seem expensive.

Jonathan

rickusn

" Remember, the US Navy doesn't include weapons in the ship cost, they use a different budget for systems and weapons."

I see your point, and was thinking along similar lines, but only too an extent though.

As when contracts are announed for say BIW or Ingalls for a Burke it is usually about 1/2 the total cost quoted to build and oufit the ship ie say 1.2b for a Burke but BIW only gets 5-600m.

I think your right on weapons but not on AEGIS/SPY1., SQQ-89, MK 41 VLS, SLQ 32 etc, etc.

Thats the problem with costs though you often dont know exactly what is included or not included.

Still in all I have to say the price tag seems a bit hefty or it may actually refelect ALL the "true" costs whereas other nations including the US may not be including similar/comparable costs.

Thanks for trying to clarify. Hope we come across something more definitive and comparable.

If you, I or anyone else comes up with what is actually included please post in a new thread so it doesnt get lost in all our background noise.

rickusn

This hints at some associated costs not normally included.:

"Australian Industry will deliver products and services for around 55 per cent of the $6.6 billion AWD Programme over the next 15 years which will be followed by high value through life support contracts into the middle of the century. "

Here you will find a comparison of the two competitors in PDF format.ie you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader which is a free download.:

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Excerpt:

"We can look at a couple of overseas programs to get a feel for the going cost of an AWD. South Korea has just launched the first of three 7,600 ton Aegis equipped destroyers.

Costs are cited as being around $1.25 billion per unit. Looking at the larger US-built Arleigh Burke class (9200 tons fullload
for late build ships), the costs are a little under $1.5 billion per unit. The per-ton comparison of the US and Korean ships shows that their production costs are remarkably similar, at around $160,000 per ton. (All costs are in 2007 Australian dollars.)

Let us be charitable. If we assume that the Australian AWDs can be brought in at the upper DCP figure of $6 billion, then that means a unit cost of $2 billion, or superficially a premium of 33% for Australian construction. The per-ton costs are even further elevated, at over $250,000 per ton. A little care is required here. Steel and air are cheap, while spaces packed with sophisticated equipment are expensive, so it is not strictly an apples versus
apples comparison.

However, the cost still appears to be significantly higher than overseas examples.

If, as is widely-rumoured, the price comes in somewhat higher, the
premiums estimated above will rise accordingly. Ultimately it is a matter for judgement as to what premium is acceptable.

However, it is always best to at least understand what we are actually paying for the industry and self sufficiency benefits so that the opportunity costs can be appreciated."

rickusn

Got this from Richard Beedall in an Email for comparison.:

Heres his site for those interested in his Bonafides.:

Navy Matters | Home Page

"...the RNs six Type 54 destroyers will cost on average just over £1 billion each (about US$2 billion)."

Dectilion

might be a bit cheap if the gov't would make a decent sized order