Aussie Kidds: thanks but no thanks? in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Aussie Kidds: thanks but no thanks?

Author	Comment
Bledlow		#21	[-]
Posts: 2485 Apr 18 12 1:14 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bob Henneman wrote: The A$500 million figure was the published estimate from the time for the command ships the RAN wanted. The government was not going to give them that, so the choice really was the Newports or nothing. And there was zero chance that they would order brand new ships form a US yard instead of building them locally, and if they did they would not have gotten the same unit price from the shipyard as the US Navy did, so cost comparisons to new built US Navy ships are irrelevant. The RAN got two serviceable ships, and two that they picked out themselves, no strings attached, in hot transfers, for only slightly over their scrap value- it is hard to argue that this was a bad deal when the alternative was to get nothing. What happened after that is entirely on the RAN. So, your price of A$500 million was for a hypothetical ship that wasn't on offer. We know that the RAN was offered a larger new-built ship with no rebuild needed, & it would have cost about A$218 million (a real price, based on building a second of class soon after the first, not a hypothetical estimate). Two of those ships would have been better than what was bought, cost a little less, & lasted much longer. In the circumstances, arguing that K & M were a good buy is ridiculous. They only look cheap in comparison to something which was neither offered nor for which money would have ever have been allocated. That isn't a measure of a bargain. A bargain is something which gives you more for your money (cheaper, or better at the same price) than the available alternatives which could have done the job. That ain't so in this case.
	Remove this ad
Jeremy M H		#22	[-]
Posts: 911 Apr 18 12 3:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bledlow wrote: Bob Henneman wrote: The A$500 million figure was the published estimate from the time for the command ships the RAN wanted. The government was not going to give them that, so the choice really was the Newports or nothing. And there was zero chance that they would order brand new ships form a US yard instead of building them locally, and if they did they would not have gotten the same unit price from the shipyard as the US Navy did, so cost comparisons to new built US Navy ships are irrelevant. The RAN got two serviceable ships, and two that they picked out themselves, no strings attached, in hot transfers, for only slightly over their scrap value- it is hard to argue that this was a bad deal when the alternative was to get nothing. What happened after that is entirely on the RAN. So, your price of A$500 million was for a hypothetical ship that wasn't on offer. We know that the RAN was offered a larger new-built ship with no rebuild needed, & it would have cost about A$218 million (a real price, based on building a second of class soon after the first, not a hypothetical estimate). Two of those ships would have been better than what was bought, cost a little less, & lasted much longer. In the circumstances, arguing that K & M were a good buy is ridiculous. They only look cheap in comparison to something which was neither offered nor for which money would have ever have been allocated. That isn't a measure of a bargain. A bargain is something which gives you more for your money (cheaper, or better at the same price) than the available alternatives which could have done the job. That ain't so in this case. He is not saying they were a bargain at all. He is saying that if they turned into overpriced crap than Australia has nowhere to look but itself because a) They were not forced to buy them and b) they were not forced to modify them. He is objecting to the notion that the US is somehow to blame for the problems Australia had with the ships. They were sold for dirt cheap. Almost all the money spent was on the rebuilding of the things. That is what you should be complaining about, not the sale itself.
HMS Pinafore	Royal Baratarian Navy	#23	[-]
Posts: 3552 Apr 18 12 4:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Although fictional, the RBN would probably have expressed an interest in the Kidd class when they first became ‘available’ in 1979. But then they would have all been brand new and navies of that era had more personnel available to man such ships. Unlike the RAN of the late 1990s the RBN would also have expensive carriers worth protecting by such high cost destroyers. In short: RBN 1979 has a need for such a ship, has the crews, is being offered 2 year old warships. RAN 1997 does not have a need, does not have the crews, is being offered 20 year old warships.
StevoJH		#24	[-]
Posts: 3368 Apr 19 12 5:57 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It has the crews, and it has the need for an AAW destroyer, it doesnt need a 20 year old ship with 10-15 years of life at a high op-tempo remaining. The three Perth class destroyers that were still in service in 1997 had crews of ~300. And they didn't have helicopter detachments, so you cannot say the crew was not there for at least three ships.
Fred the Great		#25	[-]
Posts: 3603 Apr 19 12 6:25 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The three Perth class destroyers that were still in service in 1997 had crews of ~300. And they didn't have helicopter detachments, so you cannot say the crew was not there for at least three ships. Except that you had eight Anzac frigates and two LPDs coming into service, plus some minor vessels (six Huon Class). Ideally, the additional two Adelaide Class FFGs (Melbourne and Newcastle) should never have been ordered, the Perths would have soldiered on for a few years before being replaced with a class of three AAW frigates / destroyers (modified Sachsen Class?) following the turn of the century, six fully fitted rather than eight "fitted for but not with" Anzacs would have been ordered and delivered, and around about now we'd be welcoming into service the first of three new frigates / destroyers to replace the four Adelaides (similar to a Takanami?).
StevoJH		#26	[-]
Posts: 3368 Apr 20 12 6:47 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sure, but the Early ANZACs (commissioned in that period) were replacing the last of the River class. HMAS Parramatta (Decommissioned 1991) / HMAS Melbourne (Commissioned 1992) [FFG-05] - 1 year HMAS Stuart (Decommissioned 1991) / HMAS Newcastle (Commissioned 1993) [FFG-06] - 2 years HMAS Derwent (Decommissioned 1994) / HMAS ANZAC (commissioned 1996) [FFH-150] - 2 years HMAS Swan(Decommissioned 1996) / HMAS Arunta (Commissioned 1998) [FFH-151] - 2 years HMAS Torrens (Decommissioned 1998) / HMAS Warramunga (Commissioned 2001) [FFH-152] - 3 years HMAS Perth (Decommissioned 1999) / HMAS Stuart (Commissioned 2002) [FFH-153] - 3 years HMAS Hobart (Decommisioned 2000) / HMAS Parramatta (Commissioned 2003) [FFH-154] - 3 years HMAS Brisbane (Decomissioned 2001) / HMAS Ballarat (Commissioned 2004) [FFH-155] - 3 years ----------------------------------------------- / HMAS Toowoomba (Commissioned 2005 [FFH-156] - Nil Years HMAS Canberra (Decommissioned 2005) / HMAS Perth (Commissioned 2006) [FFH-157] - 1 year HMAS Adelaide (Decomissioned 2008 / No replacement Perth Class has a crew of ~300. River Class 200-250 (depending on ship) Adelaide class ~200 ANZAC class ~160-170 The eight ANZAC's and two Adelaides should require no more crew than the four rivers and three perth class, and potentially 100-200 less crew. Subtract another 400 or so from the decomissioning of the first two adelaides? The RAN should be able to easily crew the Kidds, even if it meant that Canberra and Adelaide were retired a bit earlier. Even if all the Adelaides were sold off early, you'd still have a fleet of 12 (as now), and you wouldn't need to spend a billion or more on SEA 1390, which if pushed directly into the AWD program would just about have paid for a fourth Hobart class giving a continued fleet of 4 AAW ships and 8 GP/ASW ships. Yes the RAN would need more crew then they have at the moment, but they would not need more then they had during the 1990's. Of course that is all water under the bridge now, and would have depended on the material condition of the Kidd class (if they didn't need any money spent on expensive upgrades they would more then tide us over).
Fred the Great		#27	[-]
Posts: 3603 Apr 20 12 7:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Good list Stevo, but aren't you ignoring the LPDs (220-strong crews), which commissioned about 2000, and the six Huons (about 40-strong crews), which also commissioned from 2000? Even if this extra 600-700 sounds small in overall numbers, every ship is going to require specialists, some of whom may be in relatively short supply, right? The political problems with getting the Kidd Class were significant. I mean, for one thing, as your post and my comment above demonstrates, the RAN was certainly being looked after through this period, as it is now. To authorise more spending for the Navy then - just as a new government has come into power - was always a tough ask, even if they were a good buy. Then you add the Newport controversy and the entire idea is sunk. The timing was attrocious.
StevoJH		#28	[-]
Posts: 3368 Apr 20 12 9:48 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The LPA's and and Huons require specialists in different fields from the Kidd (and Perth) class. I would have thought transitioning from a Perth or Adelaide to a Kidd would be fairly straight forward for the more specialist roles. Even so though, the numbers still work out fairly similar to what the RAN already had during the 1990's, plus or minus the crew of the older Adelaides which would be basically replaced by the Kidds just how they were replaced by the four later upgraded Adelaides and will be replaced by the three Hobarts as it is. If the kidds did not require major work it was a lost opportunity.
Bledlow		#29	[-]
Posts: 2485 Apr 20 12 12:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Jeremy M H wrote: In the circumstances, arguing that K & M were a good buy is ridiculous. They only look cheap in comparison to something which was neither offered nor for which money would have ever have been allocated. That isn't a measure of a bargain. A bargain is something which gives you more for your money (cheaper, or better at the same price) than the available alternatives which could have done the job. That ain't so in this case. He is not saying they were a bargain at all. He is saying that if they turned into overpriced crap than Australia has nowhere to look but itself because a) They were not forced to buy them and b) they were not forced to modify them. He is objecting to the notion that the US is somehow to blame for the problems Australia had with the ships. They were sold for dirt cheap. Almost all the money spent was on the rebuilding of the things. That is what you should be complaining about, not the sale itself. You misunderstand. I'm certainly not complaining about the sale (a bit above scrap price was fair, IMO), & I've not suggested at any point that the USA is in any way to blame for the debacle, or that it was anything other than home-grown. I'm disputing that the entire deal, including the rebuilding, was a good deal for the RAN & Australian taxpayers, which Bob insists is the case. E.g. . ... and rebuilding both still cost 20% less than building a single new one, so not a bad bargain. Even then the cost was A$400 million for both, compared to an estimated A$500 million for one new build, so not a bad deal as a stopgap measure. And yes, I do understand that the budget at the time would not have permitted the purchase of two ships if the true price had been known.
	Remove this ad
NewGolconda		#30	[-]
Posts: 7365 Apr 20 12 1:23 PM Multi-Board Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	3 to 1 teeth to tail ratio in the navy. An extra 330 seagoing billets means another 1000 to recruit and retain. Your Text Signature ...
bager1968		#31	[-]
Posts: 7595 Apr 21 12 3:02 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Here is what Taiwan paid for them in 2001: They were sold for a total price of US$732 million with upgraded hardware, overhaul, activation, and training, included a reduced missile loadout of 148 SM-2 Block IIIA and 32 RGM-84L Block II Harpoon anti-ship missiles. OK, so Australia wouldn't have had to buy the Harpoons... all the rest would still have been needed, so most of that cost would remain. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
Larrikin22		#32	[-]
Posts: 4352 Apr 21 12 6:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The other thing to remember is that since the mid 1980s Australia was been working to regain it's ability to build warships. At that point we were in danger of losing the capacity altogether, which is why there has been a distinct imperative to at the very least licence build designs in this country rather than outright purchase from other countries. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
StevoJH		#33	[-]
Posts: 3368 Apr 21 12 7:29 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Larrikin22 wrote: The other thing to remember is that since the mid 1980s Australia was been working to regain it's ability to build warships. At that point we were in danger of losing the capacity altogether, which is why there has been a distinct imperative to at the very least licence build designs in this country rather than outright purchase from other countries. Sure, which is why there have been at least three different yards used for construction since that time, with capability in each yard built up then allowed to go to waste before the next contract is placed or the yard is closed. 1. Cockatoo Island (HMAS Success) 2. HMND/BAe/Tenix Williamstown (Adelaide and ANZAC) 3. ASC Adelaide (Collins and now Hobart class) Thats not even mentioning that Tobruk was build by what are now Forgnacs in Newcastle, and the Armidale class by Austal at Henderson, WA.
Larrikin22		#34	[-]
Posts: 4352 Apr 21 12 7:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I didn't say it was being done well, stuffing it up is a given with Govts, I just said that was the intention. I actually worked on the reports that lead to the Anzacs and the Collins', did the graphics and the printing and binding of them. The politics involved in the selections were interesting to say the least. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
NewGolconda		#35	[-]
Posts: 7365 Apr 21 12 2:25 PM Multi-Board Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Drove past the Tomago shipyard where Tobruk was built (early 1980's) today, cranes still look nice and shiny. Saw FOGACS other site, floating dry dock and dockyard in Newcastle last month, no work on hand apperently. According to their recent press releases, they are thinking of closing the Newcastle site for ship repair work, combination of high dollar, high local wages, and navy work drying up according to them. The last part puzzled me, did they do much work supporting the Newports, and the early retirement of that lass leave them in a hole? I guess bad ships makes for healthy dockyards. Their other problem was that the floating dock is too small for the cruise ship market, where as their Cairncross dockyard in Brisbane has a much larger dry dock. Your Text Signature ...
StevoJH		#36	[-]
Posts: 3368 Apr 21 12 2:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I moved away from Newcastle at the end of last year after spending a couple of years there are university. Most of the times I went past the floating dock was empty, a few times I went past and it had an ANZAC inside. The few other times it was quite small ships, customs current Southern Patrol ship spent about 2 or 3 months tied up alongside the dock before it entered service.
MK45GMG		#37	[-]
Posts: 114 Apr 30 12 8:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I worked on Chandler and Kidd in 2006. One of the guys I worked with did all four and he said when they opened up Mount 51 on the Scott it looked as though you could have just put 17111 in the gun and fire it up. It warmed my heart as that was my second ship and first MK45 that I was responsible for. The Taiwanese got a bargin, it remains to be seen if they can maintain those ships. Scott
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Aussie Kidds: thanks but no thanks?