Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[protoplasm]

Risk is an interesting beast, I assume they are talking technical risk and not project risk.

The technical complexity of incorporating CEAFAR and SAAB CMS is greater than staying with a combination already integrated a selected design. This is a technical risk, that if not mitigated appropriately, i.e. by the application of suitable resources, could easily manifest as an impact on schedule.

However, not switching to the proven in service systems the RAN and sustainment are already supporting, introduces new technical and schedule risk.

There is an attitude that ILS "just happens". It doesn't, it is in many ways more complex and resource intensive than design and build. Introducing new systems dramatically increases the load in this area.

It's not just parts, spares, manuals etc. it's workforce planning, training and the ongoing, through life impacts of supporting systems through life.

The only people whose lives get easier are the project managers and project directors, because it moves the complexity and technical risk from the front end, to through life.

It basically means, instead of doing it properly upfront, we will have an even more risky, complex and expensive upgrade program later.

This is an incredibly important point and turns up in a range of different industries. As a leader in education we constantly see this where a new system is introduced with no thought as to the risk of implementation and sustainment, followed by years of lowered achievement as the whole educational enterprise adjusts to the new system and finds the efficiencies needed to actually make it work without burning people out.

My earlier comment regarding this was trying to address this issue. We already have an integrated set of systems that perform very well on an in-service platform. Personal opinion, do the hard work now to integrate that suite of systems onto a new platform, rather than a lot more hard work stretching out into the future to standup, troubleshoot and then learn how to be efficient with a whole new suite of systems that we currently do not have any training pipeline for or an ecosystem to provide through life support.

 

[OldTex]

Risk is an interesting beast, I assume they are talking technical risk and not project risk.

The technical complexity of incorporating CEAFAR and SAAB CMS is greater than staying with a combination already integrated a selected design. This is a technical risk, that if not mitigated appropriately, i.e. by the application of suitable resources, could easily manifest as an impact on schedule.

However, not switching to the proven in service systems the RAN and sustainment are already supporting, introduces new technical and schedule risk.

There is an attitude that ILS "just happens". It doesn't, it is in many ways more complex and resource intensive than design and build. Introducing new systems dramatically increases the load in this area.

It's not just parts, spares, manuals etc. it's workforce planning, training and the ongoing, through life impacts of supporting systems through life.

The only people whose lives get easier are the project managers and project directors, because it moves the complexity and technical risk from the front end, to through life.

It basically means, instead of doing it properly upfront, we will have an even more risky, complex and expensive upgrade program later.

The suggestion that the first 3 GPFs be acquired "as-is" off the foreign production line and "Australianise" them when they go into a major refit or MLU is great for the politicians as it makes them seem like they are being active in increasing the number of warship hulls in the RAN.
This suggestion is probably the worst combination of options, compared with doing nothing (i.e. introducing new technology streams into service) or doing the integration before the vessels are built. Doing the "Australianisation" at the major refit or MLU means that the issues associated with the ILS are compressed into a 10-15 years period rather than the 25 years through life. The change at MLU then throws additional load onto the existing support systems for the "Australian" systems, with commensurately less time to resolve before EoL.
But politicians are not renowned for their willingness to listen to advice which threatens their very short term political view or challenges their idealogical stand, however misguided it is in reality.