Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Subs - Competitive Evaluation Tender now enters the procurement lexicon

seems to me that all these Ministers now crowing about whats happening don't actually understand that the procurement process is subject to Central Agencies intervention and that any process that isn't cleared by the Defence cell in DoFD won't pass muster

and now we have that idiot backbencher in SA saying that Defence don't do tenders - we do evaluations (that will be a revelation to all of Defences acquisition and procurement teams)

FMD where do they find these people

 

[gf0012-aust]

read that article about 2 hours ago, didnt think much about it....McPhedron article...

there isn't much in that article that is accurate ......

methinks MSU syndrome in play there.......

 

[Volkodav]

Since the 2009 white paper we have had stuff all progress. It took four years to narrow the options down to an evolved Colllins and an indigenous bespoke design only to have the whole lot thrown out when the government changed and the project set back to zero. Seventeen months on we are either about to order subs from Japan without a formal tender or nothing has happened and we are further behind than we were in 2013.

While things were not as urgent as the rhetoric suggested every additional delay reduced the options available to the COA. It really is too bad Labor didn't take up the option for an additional two Collins back in the 90s, it would have made a far more extensive mid life update for the class far easier to achieve, which in turn would have taken the pressure off a replacement.

We have what we have and options are running out the longer a decision is delayed. In the late 90s, early 2000s we could have built an additional one or two Collins to an evolved design to try out new tech and use as a pattern for upgrading the earlier boats, eventually leading to a new design. In the mid to late 2000s a new developmental design could have been built and tested prior to building a new, replacement class to the perfected design, avoiding the issues experienced with the Collins. Now we are at the point that we effectively need to start from scratch again because the time since the last build has been too long, this increases the probably that the same sort of developmental issues encountered on Collins (and most other sub designs) will occur again. Even the Japanese option will need modifications for Australian service that may cause issues, only an FMS option would avoid them, and that means nuclear.

 

[rockitten]

there will be 2 types in transition. it can't be avoided

What I am thinking, is that the old Collin(s) as training vessel can at least be use for new blue jackets to earn their dolphins (still requires transition training afterwards) and as ASW targets off Jervis bay, and so free up those "Soryus" for overseas deployments

Afterall, our Collins aren't that heavy used due to crewing and reliability issues, with 4~5 hulls available for parts, there should be quite a fair bit of life left for 1 or 2 as training vessels.

 

[Volkodav]

What I am thinking, is that the old Collin(s) as training vessel can at least be use for new blue jackets to earn their dolphins (still requires transition training afterwards) and as ASW targets off Jervis bay, and so free up those "Soryus" for overseas deployments

Afterall, our Collins aren't that heavy used due to crewing and reliability issues, with 4~5 hulls available for parts, there should be quite a fair bit of life left for 1 or 2 as training vessels.

The only class of submarines with a higher level of availability than the Collins are the Vanguard class SSBNs. The RN maintains a Vanguard on patrol at any given time out of a class of four. Collins has, even with three subs out of commission (one in FCD, one in Pre-FCD, one laid up) for several years due to crewing issues, managed to maintain at least one (often two) boats at, or ready to go to, sea out of a class of six. Every other class, in every other navy, has relied on more boats to meet service requirements.

 

[hairyman]

If we were to go nuclear with part of the submarine fleet, what would be a sensible number of nuclear subs in say a fleet of ten? Could we make do with three, or would four be the minimum required?

 

[gf0012-aust]

If we were to go nuclear with part of the submarine fleet, what would be a sensible number of nuclear subs in say a fleet of ten? Could we make do with three, or would four be the minimum required?

its not about an absolute platform count

just because a nuke might be 4 times more effective in a given mission set does not equate to a reduction of overall fleet numbers

the typical patrol and mission sets need to be met be they nuclear or conventional

at the end of the day what ultimately defines persistent missions for nukes and long range conventionals is food

nukes might be able to circumnavigate the earth for 20 years and never need to refuel - but after 30-nn number of days they have to come back to stock up on vittles etc.....

the delta between a nuke and a capable long range conventional is not that great for some operational vignettes

 

[Stock]

The 12 is about a LOT build

Is that "life-of-type" build? Not sure I understand what that is exactly.

 

[jeffb]

“They want an open tender. Now they don’t understand the difference between an open tender and an evaluation process, a competitive evaluation process. You know about an open tender? Anyone can compete,” Mr Abbott said.

“What the Leader of the Opposition wants, he wants anyone to be able to compete to provide Australia’s next generation submarines. He might want the Russians to compete. The Putin class subs.

“First of all he attacks the Japanese in some bout of antediluvian xenophobia, he says we can’t possibly have Japanese involvement in the submarine contract, look at what happened in Sydney Harbour. Now he says we’ve got to have an open tender. Well, we could have Kim Jong Il submarines.”

Tony Abbott: open tender means navy risks buying 'Vladimir Putin submarines' | Australia news | The Guardian

How did we come to this?... I wonder if he even knows Kim Jong Il is dead.

This government is so erratic and out of touch I'll be surprised if we end up with the same number of subs at all.

Who cares if Russia bids Tony... they have no chance of winning...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is that "life-of-type" build? Not sure I understand what that is exactly.

yes

it means that at any given point in time we may have 8 subs in service, ie they are built over time and some will decommission as the tail end comes on line

from my understanding the issue of 12 (even when originally postulated for Rudd) was not about an inservice fleet but a build rate

that was also about consideration being given to sustain industry

 

[gf0012-aust]

Tony Abbott: open tender means navy risks buying 'Vladimir Putin submarines' | Australia news | The Guardian

How did we come to this?... I wonder if he even knows Kim Jong Il is dead.

This government is so erratic and out of touch I'll be surprised if we end up with the same number of subs at all.

Who cares if Russia bids Tony... they have no chance of winning...

the whole "evaluation" and "tender" debate is just nonsensical

what it does hilight is that the SA Senator has got NFI about what he thought he secured

I suspect that he has slowly worked this out as well but is now stuck with having to save face

Love the fact that he learnt something "new" to paraphrase. "Defence doesn't do tenders, they do evaluations"

I obviously work in a different procurement and evaluation universe to the one he was told about

 

[buglerbilly]

How do you get to do an Evaluation?

A stork drops something at your desk kiddies!

And what's that thing called?

FMD! It's a Tender package!!!

(Shoot me now and put me out of my agony!)

 

[Stock]

the whole "evaluation" and "tender" debate is just nonsensical

what it does hilight is that the SA Senator has got NFI about what he thought he secured

I suspect that he has slowly worked this out as well but is now stuck with having to save face

Love the fact that he learnt something "new" to paraphrase. "Defence doesn't do tenders, they do evaluations"

I obviously work in a different procurement and evaluation universe to the one he was told about

In yesterday's The Age a story by Max Blenkin cited that a "defence industry conference in Canberra heard competitive evaluation was often used when a full or limited tender process wasn't thought necessary.

"It was recently used to replace Vietnam War-era Caribou transport planes."

Having been directly involved in the C-27J vs C295 comparison process which CDG/RAAF undertook in 2011/12, I can assure you there was no competitive evaluation of any sort.

Alenia and Airbus were each given a 3-4 page list of questions to answer and asked to provide ROM costings. A desktop analysis of sorts by Defence followed but it was clear at the outset which way it would swing. Competitive it was not. Whitewash being a more apt description. Crucially, neither of the respondents bound by the information they supplied, unlike in an RFT.

The RAAF had in fact decided what it wanted some years beforehand and indeed got what it wanted. The C-27J is a fine aircraft and will fulfil the capability well, although the C295 was a clear winner over the C-27J in a number of key capability areas.

However, the excessive cost for 10 aircraft ($1.4 billion) was never explained, and the decision not to go to tender (potentially) cost the taxpayer at least $200-$300 million. The total cost of that project (Air 8000 Ph 2) should never had exceed $1.1 billion.

The key difference between Air 8000 Ph 2 and Sea 1000 is that both aircraft were absolutely MOTS - they were in service everywhere and operationally proven (TRL 9) in the same configuration that would have met RAAF requirements. Contrast this with the candidate submarine solutions under Sea 1000.

I'm staggered that all week not one of these talking heads has mentioned the term "restricted tender". Has the PM's or DEFMIN's advisors not whispered this in their respective ears? Surely!

The terminology being thrown around at the moment over the Future Submarine procurement process raises huge red flags. Not a good sign.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The key difference between Air 8000 Ph 2 and Sea 1000 is that both aircraft were absolutely MOTS - they were in service everywhere and operationally proven (TRL 9) in the same configuration that would have met RAAF requirements. Contrast this with the candidate submarine solutions under Sea 1000.

The German, French, Spanish designs would be TRL1 and TRL2 if you'd drunk 2 dozen bottles of whiskey in one hit.

The Japanese in absolute terms are TRL9 for Japan but all the other stuff we require makes them probably TRL 3-4

Subs aren't C-17's, Shornets or Growlers

 

[ASSAIL]

the whole "evaluation" and "tender" debate is just nonsensical

what it does hilight is that the SA Senator has got NFI about what he thought he secured

I suspect that he has slowly worked this out as well but is now stuck with having to save face

Love the fact that he learnt something "new" to paraphrase. "Defence doesn't do tenders, they do evaluations"

I obviously work in a different procurement and evaluation universe to the one he was told about

The whole episode is demoralising. How can so many players with NFI of what they are saying be involved in a process to spend upwards of $20 - 30 billion of our taxes.
I don't know why professionals in procurement are even required, the journos and parliamentarians have got it covered.
Anyway, who gives a big rat's over the semantics of a process to find the most suitable solution to meet the capability requirement. It appears that the semantics are the one contribution to the debate that the opposition makes, FMD.
rant over

 

[Volkodav]

The whole episode is demoralising. How can so many players with NFI of what they are saying be involved in a process to spend upwards of $20 - 30 billion of our taxes.
I don't know why professionals in procurement are even required, the journos and parliamentarians have got it covered.
Anyway, who gives a big rat's over the semantics of a process to find the most suitable solution to meet the capability requirement. It appears that the semantics are the one contribution to the debate that the opposition makes, FMD.
rant over

The reason we have a problem is no one seems to be listening to the professionals in procurement choosing, depending on the colour of their politics, to put the wants of unions, the need to buy off particular electorates or states, or to build relations with other countries / leaders above what the professionals believe to be the best option to meet the requirements.

 

[Stock]

yes

it means that at any given point in time we may have 8 subs in service, ie they are built over time and some will decommission as the tail end comes on line

from my understanding the issue of 12 (even when originally postulated for Rudd) was not about an inservice fleet but a build rate

that was also about consideration being given to sustain industry

OK cheers.

 

[rjtjrt]

The RAAF had in fact decided what it wanted some years beforehand and indeed got what it wanted.

However, the excessive cost for 10 aircraft ($1.4 billion) was never explained, and the decision not to go to tender (potentially) cost the taxpayer at least $200-$300 million. The total cost of that project (Air 8000 Ph 2) should never had exceed $1.1 billion.

Presumably everyone knew that RAAF had already made their decision and that is why the cost was inflated by the manufacturer.

That appears to be the other side of the coin in the purchase decisions some years ago to buy ARH Tiger and MRH-90. It was presumably an attempt to get the US manufacturers to not be complacent in competition and have better costs of purchase in the future. We probably all wish that we had gone for other than a European "solution".

$200-300 million would be very useful spent in a number of other areas, especially by army.

 

[Stock]

The German, French, Spanish designs would be TRL1 and TRL2 if you'd drunk 2 dozen bottles of whiskey in one hit.

The Japanese in absolute terms are TRL9 for Japan but all the other stuff we require makes them probably TRL 3-4

Subs aren't C-17's, Shornets or Growlers

Absolutely.

 

[Oberon]

The reason we have a problem is no one seems to be listening to the professionals in procurement choosing, depending on the colour of their politics, to put the wants of unions, the need to buy off particular electorates or states, or to build relations with other countries / leaders above what the professionals believe to be the best option to meet the requirements.

In other words, it will be a political decision.