Problems with One Class of Warship

[Tasman]

The RAN has had to impose operational restrictions on it's new Armdidale class patrol boats because of problems with water contamination of their fuel systems.

A report on the problem can be viewed on the Australian Department of Defence website:


http://www.defence.gov.au/index.htm


The restrictions highlight the problems that can arise as a result of relying on just one class of vessel for a particular role. I understand the economy that is gained by restricting the number of different platforms operated by a navy but I wonder though, if it would have been a more prudent approach by the RAN to have replaced the Fremantles in stages. For example a preliminary batch of say 6 vessels could have been followed by an evolved design allowing for potential teething problems in the first batch to be overcome. The same principal can also be applied to aircraft and helicopter acquisitions where I also think there is a danger in going too far in rationalising the number of platforms. Obviously in categories where only a couple of vessels are required it probably makes sense to build them to the same design but in a situation where the requirement is for 10 or more units I personally think it is safer to build more than one class.

I've noticed a trend in other navies to also restrict the number of classes in each category. Even the USN which has large requirements in each warship category does this.

Hopefully the problems with the Australian Armidales will be overcome quickly but I wonder what people think about the balance between the economy of building large numbers of vessel to the same design and the insurance of having several different types in each category. Does the benefit of building just one class of warship outweigh the disadvantages?

Cheers

 

[Falstaff]

Now here comes the production engineer (in development):

Yes, it definitely makes perfect sense to rely on a single class. That's because every defense budget of any let's say average (and an economically small nation like Australia) nation is under severe pressure. At the same time, system complexity and unit price are rising along with the desired capabilities. So there is no choice but to buy economically, especially when a relatively high number is involved. There is a lot of costs to be saved, in production, logistics, spares, integration, development, training and so on.
Your suggestion to buy an initial batch and then buy an evolved design ("chinese approach") isn't too popular today and represents a somewhat outdated approach. Building many prototypes just isn't popular in our highly developed western countries of engineers with highly sophisticated CAD-systems and simulation tools, because it is too expensive.
Most costs are defined (not caused) during the development phase. Later changes cost a lot more than in an earlier stage. So isn't it best to develop and design properly right from the start and then build a ready developed ship?
Remember how much money the Americans are spending because they want to compare two LCS designs and how much they are willing to spend to have their first Zumwalts build at two dockyards (defense-aerospace.com: about 300 million dollars more than single dockyard). Well, who can afford this these days?
It's a shame with them Armidales, completely unneccessary and I think some heads will fall. But I'm pretty much sure that these problems will be dealt with and the Australian Navy will enjoy the benefits of operating a single class.

 

[Tasman]

Now here comes the production engineer (in development):

We need good production engineers!

So there is no choice but to buy economically, especially when a relatively high number is involved. There is a lot of costs to be saved, in production, logistics, spares, integration, development, training and so on.

Well that makes a pretty strong case for a single class. It must certainly improve the ease with which sailors can transferred from one ship to another or whole crews can be interchanged. With vessels like patrol boats that have a high usage it also makes multiple crewing easier. For example 6 crews could be assigned to 4 boats, enabling them to spend more time at sea. With a spares pool that is common to all vessels in a fleet maintenance must also be a lot easier.

Your suggestion to buy an initial batch and then buy an evolved design ("chinese approach") isn't too popular today and represents a somewhat outdated approach. Building many prototypes just isn't popular in our highly developed western countries of engineers with highly sophisticated CAD-systems and simulation tools, because it is too expensive.
Most costs are defined (not caused) during the development phase. Later changes cost a lot more than in an earlier stage. So isn't it best to develop and design properly right from the start and then build a ready developed ship?

I can see that the use of CAD, etc, must improve the chances of getting a design right and reduce the chances of failure. We shouldn't see many examples these days of vessels that lack stability or fail to reach their design speeds, etc. It still worries me though, that failures can occur in a range of areas that take time to overcome. This makes a case for a gap between the first of the class and follow on units to enable the bugs to be overcome. In other words the lead ship needs to act as a prototype for the rest of the class. The Australian situation where a problem is still being sorted out after 8 boats have been commissioned is a concern and suggests to me that maybe they have been rushed into service without sufficiently thorough trials with the lead unit.

I have no argument that it would be "best to develop and design properly right from the start and then build a ready developed ship," but I still think the lead vessel needs to be thoroughly trialled without the pressure of having follow on units already in advanced stages of construction.

Remember how much money the Americans are spending because they want to compare two LCS designs and how much they are willing to spend to have their first Zumwalts build at two dockyards (defense-aerospace.com: about 300 million dollars more than single dockyard). Well, who can afford this these days?

It would be nice to have the US budget!

It's a shame with them Armidales, completely unneccessary and I think some heads will fall. But I'm pretty much sure that these problems will be dealt with and the Australian Navy will enjoy the benefits of operating a single class

I'm sure the RAN will overcome the problem. It's a very professional organisation. Fortunately it has been able to redeploy other assets (minehunters, customs vessels, etc) as a stop gap measure and it still has a number of Fremantles available.

Perhaps the real problem that I am concerned about is not so much about having just one class of vessel but the trend to put a large number of vessels into service in a short period of time. I would rather see a couple of vessels enter service each year than a reasonably large number (14 in the case of the RAN's Armidales) entering service over a comparatively short period. This would give the shipbuilders steady ongoing work and would enable bugs to be worked out of the lead vessel(s) before too many of the class were operational.

Cheers

Late note

A media release today (19/2007) states:

HMAS BROOME RETURNS TO OPERATIONAL SERVICE

Following initial analysis of the recent sea trials involving the Armidale Class Patrol Boat (ACPB) HMAS Broome, the Commander Australian Fleet has released Broome back to operations.

Broome was the only ACPB without evidence of water contamination in her fuel system. Her trial has provided a baseline for further trials in vessels where water contamination was evident.

HMAS Armidale conducted a more detailed series of trials in Darwin last week.

The other vessels in the class will be released back into service on a case by case basis as modified fuel management procedures and engineering changes are implemented.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6383