Interesting, considering the rhetoric of 2013/14 about ASC that the two big multi-nationals, who were back grounding then defmin Johnston and being pushed by him and the then PM to take over the AWD project and fix ASCs "stuff ups", now appear to be on the outer.
GF, according to Australian Defence Magazine, there will be CEP for SEA 1180CEP is an aberration
its not part of the normal aquisition process and was a "get out of gaol" process injected when future subs became a political football
there is no CEP for SEA 1180
its now entered the defence lexicon - its not part of the normal defence acquisition model - I work on that side of the acquisition process
G'day
I have found it difficult to find any images of the ship. The first ones were last week or so on:I honestly despair. The October edition of the APDR has an article on OPV's and I want to set the record straight on one issue as there are errors which suggests the reporting is based on assumption:
1. The Aviation training ship (Sycamore ) is not 'based on' the 2400 OPV but is shares a similar hull form. Engineering and internal layout are different and upper works are different. This vessel takes a lot from the EGS and RGS (Stoker and Bessant) in as much as it does from the 2400.
2. The aviation training ship will not do 23 knots. It is less than 20 knots as the vessel only has two main engines not the four of the 2400 (remember that comment about the engineering being different).
3. The vessel is not leased by the Navy, it operated by DMS on behalf of owners (which is officially the NAB ... if you doubt this pay the money and do a search of the register of ships) under contract to provide services to the Navy. It may seem a minor point but 'leasing' or chartering in the maritime world have very specific meaning.
4. It does not have a hanger ..... again, remember that comment abut the upper works being different. If you look at the image posted on the Serco (who own DMS) web site you will see how different this ship is wiht a central funnel and a super structure very similar to the EGS/RGS pair. It has to be to meet the requirements of the Maritime Labour Convention.
Rant over
That is still in the R&D phase however well worth following. Not so much for that particular vessel but at least the tech and concept.
There was an image published for the Damen Song Cam yard but I cannot find it. A poor quality image for the vessel (it is the black hulled one with the safety onrange lifeboats) is at the PK forum Vietnam thread below.
.
I seriously despair at the state of defence "journalism" these days. There's another article floating about today decrying the use of LM for the integration work on the subs, citing the F35 as their main reasoning... :hitwallSounds like some one is job hunting by putting out BS details on the submarines. Is DCNS's imaginary Shortfin Barracuda submarine Australia's biggest defence blunder?
John Stanford works for insight economics whose home page just so happens to promote how well they offer advice to senior management cheaper then what the primes can.. and he has no experience what so ever with defence that I can find.. nore any other employee of the company -_-
Some of the standout BS he stated as 'fact'
- The Australian build Shortfins will cost $4.6 billion each but ignores how Australia cost's it's acquisitions which can include future support, maintenance, supplies, inflation etc
- States Japan could build submarines at $750m a piece for us in Japan but ignores that Japan's offer to us was for 12 Submarines built in Japan for $25 billion, Guess he is only off by $16 billion
- Questioning if the US would want Australia's submarines operating in the SCS even though historically the US has wanted us there with our Submarines.
- Talking up the amount of work to convert the Shortfins to conventional power but ignoring that the others would need an equal if not greater amount of work them selves with the same or greater risks.
- Talking down the Shortfins for not having AIP even though that is now going out of favor and Japan and Germany them selves where pushing Lithium batteries over AIP.
- Talks down the 'tardy' delivery schedule even though that work's as a benefit to allow for more refinement of everything.
- Pulled a number out of his ar*e for the Collins class upgrade stating it would cost 'at least' $15 billion with a 7 year life extension.
Can we ban this guy from ever working on a defence project? Please!
he couldn't have had much of a job within PM&C otherwise he'd know himself that some of the numbers and facts quoted by him contradict actual events and attitudes - and his numbers are just nonsenical
Have a PDF of SYCAMORE plans but I cannot recall file size limits here.... so I guess I'll find out.... Will try ZOOM to flight deck .PNG
NOW .PNG side view and top decks top views
Sycamore Specification JPG attached
Now a .GIF [nope made it a .png] of just the Flight Deck of SYCAMORE