Volk, what are the general consequences of Navantia SA being brought into the management/supervisory structure on the AWD project?
On first hearing it my thoughts were nothing but positive, something which should have occurred from day 1
They have some brilliant people, some were even head hunted early in the project ( apparently, like hires from BAE/Tenix, TKMS, Thales and NG etc. and secondments from BIW, and LM, they instantly became incompetent on joining ASC). I wasn't overly impressed with some from Spain, things they knew that they didn't pass on in the hope we wouldn't notice but apologetic when we did ( I actually read this as their management told them not to tell us to save face).
I am suspicious of the motives of many of these companies as they (Navantia, Raytheon, BAE) were as much, if not more, to blame for the projects delays and issues as ASC. In fact, Raytheon was actually behind a lot of the management problems and infighting on the project, especially after government cost cutting hamstrung government owned ASC and government controlled DMO, they used the reorganizations to seize control of as many functions as possible and make them fit their concept of doing things. Navantia, whichever way you look at it, are responsible for the design and virtually every problem, delay or rework associated with it.
Probably should add that it doesn't surprise me that Raytheon is blowing wind up Cormanns and Johnstons backsides, as they along with BAE were backgrounding Johnston, deliberately undermining ASC. They were both positioning for a bigger slice of a shrinking pie and playing into the rhetoric of "ASC can't build a canoe", as well as diverting as much well deserved blame from themselves. Stupid really as the political agenda wasn't to reassign work in Australia but to move it off shore.
