That and a range of other project options. The Australianised F100 had a handful of people working on it compared to the Evolved AWD option. Effectively they were both doing the same thing: adjusting exsisting designs to meet an Australian build requirement. Just that the Evovled AWD team were given a clean sheet to start with. Its crazy to think how many millions were spent working out how to build Steyr AUGs at Lithgow when a comprable 5.56mm assault rifle was being built down the road at Smithfield for a fraction of the cost (Leader).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
MHC=Lemon
Sorry to interrupt, long time lurker, but I would say that the MHC should not be included the successful projects section, for a multitude of reasons which are still; having a effect today..........
Wonder how the ANZAC replacement will fare... In a much much earlier post (2009) I saw you going on about it being Aegis equiped BMD capable... This still true?
OK, do tell.You cannot leave it at that.
They are certainly better than the 'novel' approach attempted before.
Well not to talk out of school and go into specifics ................ but some of the general issues that continue to go on are EMI (never tested until 2000 with a near collision with a FFG), shaft issues, APU's, TDS, Comms issues. There are plenty of others which are not as well known but just as critical.
The hulls are not to bad however.
But I am sure some people on here than can expand further if they wish.
In a nutshell, too complex, too expensive to maintain.............. two tied up!
Very general comments, two were to be deactivated as part of the force structure reviewin 2006 (that was reversed to provide patrol assets) so this is hardly news. there needs to be a bit more concrete background to consign this to the "fail" bin.
Sorry but not quite correct. Whilst two were indeed deactivated and reactivated as you say (technically only M82, M83 never really got there, and M82 was reactivated 12 days after decommissioning). M84 and M83 are now back under wraps.... too expensive to run and maintain six hulls.
As for more specific info, I won't do that, not can't do that. As I have said, there are plenty on here that would probably know all about it......................
So fail it must be then.
The kind of issues associated with the MHC above are not necessaruly the fault of the Australian build. Like being too expensive to maintain. This is a problem of the specification by Defence. The MHCs came in on schedule, to budget and without need of major rectification work (or near enough), which by Australian standards is almost legendary. This doesn't mean they are a good boat! Just that we didn't stuff them up.
LOL all smoke and mirrors.
You are right the ability to and cost to maintain is not the fault of the build, however if they were built right tin the first place...............
I still remember a particular Captain who was project manager at the time saying how great they were, on budget, on time etc, and the key phrase of “we will not accept another one until the comcen issues are sorted”. At least ADI got their bonus checks for it all.
Whilst not two years after final one is accepted, the whole Comcen is gutted and replaced, a very big job. TDS fault tolerances and capabilities consistently lowered until stability is achieved etc, etc, etc. On time, on budget perhaps………..
The Alliance structure is copping a bit flack lately but the advantage over more traditional arrangements is either all members come out ahead or none do. The problem with it is that in incompetent, or dishonest contractor can still be paid top dollar, fail to deliver and keep the money, or more to the point the infrastructure, training and knowhow the contract provided.
It really is too bad Navantia wasn’t given the work when Aimtec were dropped.
Hey this may be on the money but it sounds third hand. Is it that you would have comprehensvie picture or were on the perimeter of the project, or is discusison with another party.
Always nice with fairly damming statements like this to get it in context.
Nope not third hand or hearsay etc, and I like my job to much to say any more.
What I will say is that if the MHC project is considered a "success" because it was on time on, budget only (and I have heard it a thousand times), then the other projects must have been terrible and, we have a real problem with our procurement process.
That and the need for govt to push hard (for votes) for major aust industry involvement (which no longer has the skills) to build and support what is required, is without a doubt far more important than the final product.
Who is left holding the bag......................
Ozymandias
Banned Member
Earlier this week, the production manager in charge of Williamstown got the sack. Whether he is to blame or not for the AWD block problems, I guess BAE aren't happy with the bad press.
Its hard not to blame them for the work they're responsible for. There are 3 shipyards involved in construction aren't there, with only one having problems and calling the plans into question? There is just no way to get around that, 3 yards all using the same diagrams, one blaming those diagrams for all their woes while the others see no problem with them.
It doesn't matter what quality the diagrams are if Williamstown doesn't have the personnel to use them. If the production manager is responsible for ensuring he has a suitable workforce for the work they have then he has clearly failed.
Ozymandias
Banned Member
Go back through this thread and you'll see that the 3-shipyards argument is a specious one.
t68
Well-Known Member
It does not matter if it is with one yard or ten yards doing the work, they will all be using the same plans supplied from Navantia, I would imagine that they would have access to the master drawings and individual component drawing specific to the task to which yard was given the block to manufacture. There would be numerous drawings but all drawings would be compatible with each other and to the drawn same standard.
The only point that i can think that might have an impact, if the drawing were originally in Spanish they could possible contain translation problems, as people know certain words can have numerous meanings
Last edited:
Cameron Stewart needs to check his facts, the AWD Aliance consists of DMO, Raytheon and ASC. Furthermore the Alliance has DMO employees embedded throughout the project so how on earth could the Alliance not keep DMO informed.
Stewart is a tool.
Boy I really can't wait for the AWD equivalent of "The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin", and permission for the parties concerned to tell the whole truth the full truth and nothing but the truth.
Personal opinion, Williamstown should be shut down and the land sold off for housing, because they sure don't know how to build ships anymore.
Note: I know quite a few ex Tenix and ADI people who now work for other primes and SMEs and considering the damage the loss of these talented individuals must done to the capability of their former employers I am not surprised at the current issues.
- Status