Any foreign build of Type 26 will be a novel undertaking - so yes, even if the UK shipyards do a fine job with the RN build, the RAN spec ship will be of sufficiently different format that even building them in the UK would still present new challenges. Building them in an RAN yard to an RAN spec isn't quite a fresh start but it would be full of potential issues.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Any foreign build of Type 26 will be a novel undertaking - so yes, even if the UK shipyards do a fine job with the RN build, the RAN spec ship will be of sufficiently different format that even building them in the UK would still present new challenges. Building them in an RAN yard to an RAN spec isn't quite a fresh start but it would be full of potential issues.
Ok but BAE track record of building do influence the decision?
You discovered that in the Hobart class were used cheap chinese pipes and the building blocks weren't built correctly do this influence negatively the Navantia offer?
After all it is BAE/Navantia/Fincantieri that choose the steel quality correct?
India Investigates Purchase of Fincantieri Naval Tankers
Just so you dont think I'm biased. All constructors make errors and try to cut costs as much as possible.
You discovered that in the Hobart class were used cheap chinese pipes and the building blocks weren't built correctly do this influence negatively the Navantia offer?
After all it is BAE/Navantia/Fincantieri that choose the steel quality correct?
India Investigates Purchase of Fincantieri Naval Tankers
Just so you dont think I'm biased. All constructors make errors and try to cut costs as much as possible.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not quite. There had been some commentary coming from either supporters of the Type 26 and/or the companies involved in the Type 26 that BAE would be able to "de-risk" the Type 26 design because construction of the first in class vessel was underway in the UK, and that the lessons learned would reduce the risk and as I understood it, improve the Type 26 entry for the SEA 5000 project in Australia.
The specific areas I had/have issues with regarding that sort of claim, is that the Type 26 design entry for the RAN's SEA 5000 project is not the same configuration as the Type 26 being built for the RN. Due to the two configurations being different, any lessons learned on the RN Type 26 are irrelevant if that same piece of kit is not in use aboard the RAN configuration, (Artisan radar, Sea Ceptor quad-cell VLS, etc.) and due to the fact that a number of things will have to be rearranged, there are other 'lessons learned' which are also likely to be of little or no relevance.
At the same time, the experience the shipyard personnel in the UK acquire with the design will also have to be gained by the Australian shipyard personnel if the Type 26 is selected for the RAN, and the only way to gain that experience is by doing it.
As I understand it, there is always a bit of a learning curve when build a first of class vessel, and there is also always a bit of a learning curve when a shipyard builds a design which is 'new' to that yard. From my POV, if that RAN had opted for licensed production of Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class DDG's, which US shipyards have produced for years, the Australian yard would still end up encountering those same learning curves. From the commentary, it seemed like the Type 26 advocates were trying to gloss over these two facts.
WIth respect to the Hobart-class DDG, I am unaware of any issues with piping, or that cheap/poor quality piping was used though others on DT who were part of that specific build programme might be able to comment further. From my POV though, if that had happened, the responsibility would (should?) have fallen onto whoever or whatever company used the supplier of the faulty piping. To my knowledge, Navantia did not have that sort of involvement in selecting the source of components for the Hobart-class, as the company was not directly involved in the production of the vessels.
IIRC there had been some issues where some drawings were not quite correct, but I do not recall the exact reasoning for it, and that sort of thing can happen and get corrected by a shipyard as part of the first of class production.
Some piping which was below spec, which was sourced from China, was delivered from a local supplier fairly early in construction. It was identified by the QC process; regrettably some from the same source had already been installed and had to be removed. It was all replaced by the appropriate quality piping long ago.
The issue with copper pipe on Hobart was the mill in China that the subcontractor subcontracted to was not capable of producing pipe to the specification required and the parties involved lied about this in the documentation provided. It had nothing to do with the material selected or the design specifications and everything to do with a failure of the ISO certification process that said the company in question was capable.
the road runner
Active Member
Is copper pipe standards for shipbuilding similar to the Australian standards for fitters and turners/plumbers where all pipe work must have the "Watermark" symbol shown on all pipe work?Thus certifying it is fit for that specific purpose? Of course documentation is also supplied
Watermark is different and relates to potable water. Worked with it a bit in a previous career before defence. This was an ISO issue ie the subbie claimed they were procuring product that conformed to the contract they had signed with the shipbuilder and provided OQE backing this up. The OQE was complete and correct, the issue was the supplied product was not what the OQE said it was.
This was an on going issue with the project, the government assumed and paid for a build to print project using an existing design, supply chain and competent and experienced subcontractors. When the design, supply chain and subbie were found not to be up to scratch the number of technical staff employed by the alliance had to be dramatically increased to remediate the situation. This included a build assurance capability that covered marine survey, SQA, Dimensional and weight control, that was never planned or funded in the original project.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My take on the situation is that it was/is less about the difficulty of the build and more about the integrity of some of the participants. You can run into the same sorts of issues with home or building construction, where the contractor and subcontractors know what has been ordered and/or what the building code requires. However, sometimes someone with more thoughts for greed or something else like being lazy, will opt to get something other than what has been ordered or code requires and try to either pay off or slip it past building inspectors.
Boatteacher
Active Member
There's nothing to confirm that I can find on the local news feeds.
It sounds like someone is jumping the gun
There has been no official announcement. I am not even sure that a decision has been made yet.
Maybe we will know next week.
I have absolutely no idea who will win and doubt anyone other than those directly involved with the selection know either.
Out of curiosity.... which forum are you referring to.
Forum Difesa - Una stanza per parlare di politica estera e difesa con attenzione e serietà
But the specific post is written in Italian jargon in marine section.
If you check the forum they/we have a really good section, made by the forum experts, with really good insights and articles (It is called approfondimenti).
If you need help navigating/translation I'm at your disposal.
But the specific post is written in Italian jargon in marine section.
If you check the forum they/we have a really good section, made by the forum experts, with really good insights and articles (It is called approfondimenti).
If you need help navigating/translation I'm at your disposal.
I find it very hard to believe that the result of an Australian warship procurement competition would be revealed prematurely before everyone else in a relatively small and unheard of Italian forum. How about you post the news link that someone in that forum used to back up his claim directly?
Having taken your advice and read that forum, I'm going to put it in the same category of authoritativeness as the average world cup dive. Reading back a couple of weeks, it's fairly clear that much of the "knowledge" is based on poor understanding of already poor Australian press reports and selective quotes from manufacturer's fluff and from posts on this forum - including the idea that the result WOULD be announced yesterday and the inevitable invention of conspiracy theories over undue UK influence when the FREMM unaccountably WASN'T announced as winner as "expected"
oldsig
This is the correct answer IMHO
You could have just said it wasn't confirmed in place of bashing against the source(and the forum) without knowing his background. Since I'm a guest here I'm going back to lurking in place of useless debating.
Enjoy your weekend.
The cynic in me feels that the frigate decision has been held over till next week because they didn't want to overshadow the tax cuts announcement.
Yes. During the week we have had the Sydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times say the winner will be the T26 with an announcement next Friday. Then, a day later, the Financial Review stating the F-5000 with an announcement due yesterday. Now an Italian forum allegedly saying its the FREMM. The fact is we will just have to endure the suspense. I remember now we were all blindsided by the French submarine announcement!
Last edited:
- Status