Oh I agree, I was just speaking as possible solution's to Volk's thoughts. On a business case in my view it makes sense (Good order book, good infrastructure, repeat customer's, under utilized asset's, room for management improvement) but then government's have never been that smart in the business field for government owned asset's alway's trying to have the say in how the companies are run.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Oh I agree, I was just speaking as possible solution's to Volk's thoughts. On a business case in my view it makes sense (Good order book, good infrastructure, repeat customer's, under utilized asset's, room for management improvement) but then government's have never been that smart in the business field for government owned asset's alway's trying to have the say in how the companies are run.
Had ASC not been nationalised in the first place neither the government or media would have been game to slander them and the Collins class as they have. Senior management have effectively been gagged ever since Prescott was dropped into the board. I could be miss remembering but government rhetoric on ASC improved when Beazley stepped down as leader of the opposition and ramped up again when he returned.
Anyway, instead of nationalising ASC when TKMS bought Kockums, we should have found a suitable buyer for Kockuns share and bought the IP out right. I don't have the reference at hand but understand that at a point prior to TKMS full ownership of IP was offered for only a fraction of what we ended up paying for partial use under very strictly controlled conditions with somewhat draconian financial penalties for even inadvertent breaches of conditions. With full ownership of the IP, Kockums shares or even the whole of ASC could have been sold to GD, granting them reach back to EB, BIW and NASSCO.
ASC should be sold, it should never have been nationalised and this should be kept in mind as we allocate work. An expansion of ASC at Henderson makes perfect sense.
You still think it would have been wise to include an option of a 3rd replenishment ship into the contract. Add that onto an existing order of 2, and the fixed price would look far better than ordering at a later date.
Even if it was delivered in 2023, (based on 1st ship 2019, 2nd 2021), it seems the Comms,combat installation & Cranes will be done in Australia.... FOC on the 3rd ship would still be Mid to late 2020's. You could park it for 12 months, and it may end up cheaper.
I think its crazy (considering they are potentially looking at a 3rd) that the option would not at least be included.
Austal have very serious holes in their capability, many of the issues suffered in the early build phase of AWD are due to trying to emulate a lean management structure such as Austals, i.e. no active quality function, relying totally on auditing rather than proactive assurance regime. Sounds good, can work in high volume manufacturing and very long or continuous build projects, never ever has or will work in new or short builds. By all means roll back and remove layers of compliance once you've delivered a number of ships and have successfully run lean and continuous improvement projects demonstrating what can be safely changed.
Punta, it depends on which way you look at it
If it is going to be another replenishment ship it makes sense, and in a 3 ship AOR build it means that all 3 would be built in Spain (which would not go down well politically). However, their is every possibility it may not be another AOR at all.
The other possibility is that is could be a Logistics Support Vessel. At this stage the RAN do not know what they want (if they do it is not in the public domain), the commitment so far is a couple of lines in the latest DWP and it is either for 3 AOR's and 1 LSV, or 2 AOR's & 2 LSV's.
HMAS Choules is due for retirement at the end of the 2020's which is when a commitment for either another AOR or an LSV would be due for delivery.
If Choules is going to be replaced it would make every one very happy if it was built in Australia. It would be even better if it was a two ship build. For this to happen the nominated build site (probably SA) would probably have ot be upgraded to allow for the larger build.
It is not inconcievable that if an LSV is selected it could have a small replenishment capability, but this is pure speculation on my part.
I wonder if the 3rd ship is intended to be a replacement for the Choules. The timing seems about right. It could explain why the DWP referred to the third ship as either a logistics ship or tanker.
Punta, it depends on which way you look at it
If it is going to be another replenishment ship it makes sense, and in a 3 ship AOR build it means that all 3 would be built in Spain (which would not go down well politically). However, their is every possibility it may not be another AOR at all.
The other possibility is that is could be a Logistics Support Vessel. At this stage the RAN do not know what they want (if they do it is not in the public domain), the commitment so far is a couple of lines in the latest DWP and it is either for 3 AOR's and 1 LSV, or 2 AOR's & 2 LSV's.
HMAS Choules is due for retirement at the end of the 2020's which is when a commitment for either another AOR or an LSV would be due for delivery.
If Choules is going to be replaced it would make every one very happy if it was built in Australia. It would be even better if it was a two ship build. For this to happen the nominated build site (probably SA) would probably have ot be upgraded to allow for the larger build.
It is not inconcievable that if an LSV is selected it could have a small replenishment capability, but this is pure speculation on my part.
Agree, though remember an option is just that, if there is any thought's of an AOR on the road map (as per DWP) , you include it.
I can see why politically it has not been looked at though.
I agree regarding a 3rd AOR as it would be much better if the RAN had three AOR's that they are of the same class.
However, a 10 year delay for a third AOR build may mean that not all components are available to build another Cantabria class AOR and it could end up an orphan.
If an additional AOR was ordered and 1 LSV replacement for Choules, then both vessels are going to end up being horrendously expensive if they are built domestically.
t68
Well-Known Member
Would it be suitable to hire out like MV Delos proir to alterations, no idea if it could be done or not.
there are parallels between austals build philosophy and NG's skimmer build philosophy
both have been problematic but NG have at least had a reality check and decided that pigs wearing lipstick and dresses are still pigs at heart. They've gone back to aggressive continuous as you go quality control rather than relying on treating stages like checklists for accountants.
NG have also to stick with what they do and have pulled back from being everymans answer to everything. Austal still think that they're Oceanias BIW. and if you look at some of the assinine comments that came out of their treasurer and the sub lead for Austals bid they surely must now realise that over egging their ability and making the claims about their quality (esp on border patrol skimmers) was a bit cheeky.
If Austal had been given the same exposure on the problems with their skimmers as ASC had with Collins they would have been trotting out the lawyers at the drop of a hat to try and defend their ground.
for gods sake keep them well away from buying ASC. It will be like the 1990's version of BAE Aust all over again.
If the CEP selects Fassmer then TKMS becomes the Prime. I somehow doubt that Austal would be involved at all and it would be likely that while the first few are built at Osborne TKMS would lease/rent/build a facility in Henderson, surely?
Delivery of hull 1 and 2 will come forward according to recent releases. The DWP is quite clear that this will be late 2020's and may be a multi-role vessel. No point in an option for three when you are looking at 10 years before contacting the next one.
I agree but have kept quiet on this. There is nothing in the releases to date that suggest WA means Austal. It could well be another entity, I cannot see Damen. Lassen and TKMS sub contracting to Austal when there is a common user facility and hull section can be built around the country.
Mind the quoting please. It wasn't me suggesting nationalising anything. That - as you point out - is a short cut to management hell.
oldsig
Sorry NO..... Just because it can carry fuel does not make it suitable for trade!
Delos was a commercial tanker and was equipped to discharge to commercial facilities ...... The AOR's are not nor are the really suited to crude and heavy fuels that a tanker owner would want.
These are purpose built AOR's in both structure and systems (including military communications systems). The will not be cheap to operate and nobody in their right mind in the current market would charter one. Then there is the commercial (IMO and ILO convention) compliance issue ...... Trust me there will be issues here.
Delos may go back to trade (as she was built for it) ..... Or they may keep her a bit longer noting she is just a fuel cow.
t68
Well-Known Member
I was quoting you as your post illustrated why Austal and BAE get away with so much while ASC gets crucified. Government owned / controlled / operated entities are political play things that are denied the right to defend themselves, let alone set the record straight, if it suits the governments agenda they will throw those who work for them under a bus, even thinking of singling out a private entity, let alone an entire strategic industry and all hell will brake loose.
Same used to happen with GAF. A question was asked in parliament about whether GAF was developing an improved version of the Nomad, the minister denied that they were and the next day GAF were instructed to destroy the partially completed prototype and never mention anything to anyone about it. This new version included a T tail, fixing the main issue with the original and could well have kept it viable through to today.
I need some massive emoticons then, as my post was entirely satirising the entire idea that we might take Austal down the same well worn path as cruelled ASC.
Difficult as it might seem to you, I couldn't agree more. This is a case where the government would be best held at long arms length as good governments are followed by bad as day follows night - and often more frequently
oldsig
Muar River
Member
Excellent timing and news! There is an article in the current Warships magazine about the ex Dutch ship of the class.
Muar River
Member
The APDR reports the upgrade programme on the Anzac frigates continues with the $2bn agreement signed with BAE.
The Perth is due to begin further upgrading in April 2017 at Henderson yard including improving the ship’s engines, propulsion, lighting, heating, cooling, communications systems. Long lead items are being procured as an initial $107m contract has been signed.
Apparently HMAS Parramatta has undocked following her ASMDA upgrade.
BAE Systems welcomes multi-billion dollar industry alliance on ship sustainment | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
- Status