Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[40 deg south]

Austal Awarded Armidale Class Patrol Boat Remediation Work

Austal has just bagged the Armidale-class maintenance and remediation contract. They seem to be on a roll, given they are also designing/building the replacement Pacific Patrol Boats.

 

[vonnoobie]

Austal Awarded Armidale Class Patrol Boat Remediation Work

Austal has just bagged the Armidale-class maintenance and remediation contract. They seem to be on a roll, given they are also designing/building the replacement Pacific Patrol Boats.

Now if only Austal could go through a shake up as occurred with ASC and they could be an even better company. After ASC's shake up they managed to reduce a FCD to 24 months, Not bad for what is practically building the submarine from scratch.

 

[protoplasm]

Now if only Austal could go through a shake up as occurred with ASC and they could be an even better company. After ASC's shake up they managed to reduce a FCD to 24 months, Not bad for what is practically building the submarine from scratch.

The reason ASC was able to get a FCD to 24 months was that they were finally allowed to. It is always worth remembering that ASC has had to march to the tune of whichever misguided politician or bureaucrat was currently dictating terms to them

 

[ASSAIL]

The government has just announced that ASC will not be privatised but split into three seperate entities, infrastructure, shipbuilding and submarine sustainment.

ASC to be split in three but not privatised | afr.com

I believe this ensures the flexibility to use any prime and safeguards against one prime gaining market/cost dominance.

Does anyone have an alternate view?

 

[vonnoobie]

The government has just announced that ASC will not be privatised but split into three seperate entities, infrastructure, shipbuilding and submarine sustainment.

ASC to be split in three but not privatised | afr.com

I believe this ensures the flexibility to use any prime and safeguards against one prime gaining market/cost dominance.

Does anyone have an alternate view?

Could be wrong but the way I read it is that they will effectively be divisions of a single perant company.

If that is the case then it is a smart move as it allow's each individual division to concentrate on it's area of expertice while at the same time allowing there combined profit's to be directed as needed by the perant company to what area the investment is best served.

If done right it could be very good for ASC and Australia.

 

[Volkodav]

ASC Shipbuilding was originally formed as a separate commercial entity with it's own management, staff and facilities, personnel transferring from the submarine side of the business were even given new payroll /employee numbers. The head of ASC Shipbuilding was a shipbuilding expert specifically head hunted for the role, as were most of his senior managers. The CEO of ASC Shipbuilding was also the CEO of the AWD Alliance and experienced ASC (many of them ex Tenix and ADI) staff held critical roles throughout the alliance.

Then for cost saving reasons ASC Shipbuilding was bundled back in with the submarine side of the business and anyone with a submarine equivalent at their level was made redundant. Any function rated as cross functional rather than product related was gutted and handed over to the submarine side of the business to run.

End result AWD lost many of their most experienced shipbuilding people, ASC positions in the Alliance, including CEO, were taken over by Raytheon. Submarines and DMO had already been gutted by previous reviews and cost saving measures, were now expected to step up and replace the shipbuilding people who had been made redundant, as well as tying to stay on top of their existing complex roles. End result was Raytheon ended up putting their people in many key roles. An absolute cluster.

The biggest issue I can see with splitting ASC is in the future a future Smith, Moore or Johnston may see an opportunity to save costs by amalgamating the organization again. Swings and round about.

 

[vonnoobie]

Why can't they just take all of our defence related asset's, bundle it into a single company controlled by those with experience in the field and let them decide the best way to sort it all out.. Politics should not be directly running business.

 

[Volkodav]

Why can't they just take all of our defence related asset's, bundle it into a single company controlled by those with experience in the field and let them decide the best way to sort it all out.. Politics should not be directly running business.

Because you will end up with a BAE a company's whose culture dominates and permeates every level of every subsidiary. BAE can buy a world class operator with existing contracts and proven performance and turn it around to lose the contract for poor performance within a couple of years. This is not something Australia needs.

 

[ASSAIL]

Why can't they just take all of our defence related asset's, bundle it into a single company controlled by those with experience in the field and let them decide the best way to sort it all out.. Politics should not be directly running business.

What you allude to is fraught with the capacity to treat the government as a cash cow, fail in providing value for money and cease to be competitive on a world wide scale, an argument that, as Volk has said, has been used against BAE.
The RN is a case in point. The Type 26 cost has blown the limited RN acquisition budget out of the water and forced a rethink on hull numbers and given birth to the "light" frigate T31. I know that's not the whole storey but it certainly contributes to the awful situation in which the RN finds itself.

By owning the infrastructure ASC (Australian govt) is able to choose whichever prime offers the best capability for price be it Navantia, BAE or Finncantieri, the whole process remains competitive.

I can't remember the details but I believe Davies or Thompson made this point very succinctly in an ASPI paper late last year.

 

[rockitten]

What you allude to is fraught with the capacity to treat the government as a cash cow, fail in providing value for money and cease to be competitive on a world wide scale, an argument that, as Volk has said, has been used against BAE.

By owning the infrastructure ASC is able to choose whichever prime offers the best capability for price be it Navantia, BAE or Finncantieri, the whole process remains competitive.

I can't remember the details but I believe Davies or Thompson made this point very succinctly in an ASPI paper late last year.

So I wonder, how does DCNS has done to be able to keep afloat?

 

[John Fedup]

What you allude to is fraught with the capacity to treat the government as a cash cow, fail in providing value for money and cease to be competitive on a world wide scale, an argument that, as Volk has said, has been used against BAE.
The RN is a case in point. The Type 26 cost has blown the limited RN acquisition budget out of the water and forced a rethink on hull numbers and given birth to the "light" frigate T31. I know that's not the whole storey but it certainly contributes to the awful situation in which the RN finds itself.

By owning the infrastructure ASC is able to choose whichever prime offers the best capability for price be it Navantia, BAE or Finncantieri, the whole process remains competitive.



I can't remember the details but I believe Davies or Thompson made this point very succinctly in an ASPI paper late last year.

This is similar to our CSC program. Irving owns the infrastructure and together with the CDN government a prime contractor for the design will be selected.

 

[SteveR]

Because you will end up with a BAE a company's whose culture dominates and permeates every level of every subsidiary. BAE can buy a world class operator with existing contracts and proven performance and turn it around to lose the contract for poor performance within a couple of years. This is not something Australia needs.

And yet they delivered LHDs on time on budget!

 

[Volkodav]

And yet they delivered LHDs on time on budget!

Really? I was under the impression that, although Navantia delivered both hulls ahead of schedule and under budget that, by the time BAE worked their magic they were late and had multiple defects, including some that couldn't be rectified and had to have waivers.

BAE, being a private entity can basically say anything they like, true or not, and sue anyone who says different. ASC on the other hand has their hands tied and can easily be gagged by their political masters.

Heard today that Hobart is performing exceptionally, even measures such as vibration are much better than specified.

 

[vonnoobie]

I was under the impression while the 1st LHD was late, over budget and had a substantual amount of defects (majority of them minor) the 2nd LHD came out under budget and ahead of schedule. To me sounds like a learning curve that is common practice in shipbuilding.

That all said what is done is done, All we can do is hope that the politicians don't change it up because they think they know what is best.

 

[40 deg south]

So I wonder, how does DCNS has done to be able to keep afloat?

That is a very good question, to which I have never seen a convincing answer. From the outside, DCNS appears to be a better-run naval designer/builder than BAE, with export customers from everything from to submarines to corvettes. Perhaps the tight focus on the naval sector helps, as opposed to BAE's extensive aviation and land interests?

The following interview with the CEO of DCNS might be of interest to Australian readers.
Interview With Hervé Guillou, CEO of French Shipbuilder DCNS

also
Shipbuilder DCNS Expects 'Severe' Competition in Norway's Submarine Tender

 

[Volkodav]

I was under the impression while the 1st LHD was late, over budget and had a substantual amount of defects (majority of them minor) the 2nd LHD came out under budget and ahead of schedule. To me sounds like a learning curve that is common practice in shipbuilding.

That all said what is done is done, All we can do is hope that the politicians don't change it up because they think they know what is best.

There is a fiction that BAE are the premier ship builder in Australia and thhat they consistently deliver to schedule and budget or better. It is mostly their own propaganda and the fact that the politicians with an axe to grind are either parochial in favour of BAE, rabidly anti ASC or both.

The truth is the team that was built up under Transfield and Tenix following the privatisation of Williamstown had dispersed by the time BAE began work on the AWD blocks and the result was entirely predictable and took years to fix. The AWD blocks were basically used to train and certify BAEs new workforce and awd also ended up paying for a new paint shop and upgraded facilities at Williamstown, as well ad substantial support from ASC and contracted marine surveyors, welding instructors, supervisors and engineers. Even with this leg up BAE continued to underperform until many of their senior personnel were replaced by people brought in straight off the Type 45 project.

Having seen first hand the amount of time, (tax payers) money and effort it took to bring BAE up to the minimum required standard, but still not as good as ASC or Forgacs, the opportunity cost of having to rebuild capability at a privately owned company that had been cut to make a buck for said privately owned company and the behavior of said company, backgrounding politicians and media against ASC just pisses me off.

 

[SteveR]

There is a fiction that BAE are the premier ship builder in Australia and thhat they consistently deliver to schedule and budget or better. It is mostly their own propaganda and the fact that the politicians with an axe to grind are either parochial in favour of BAE, rabidly anti ASC or both.

The truth is the team that was built up under Transfield and Tenix following the privatisation of Williamstown had dispersed by the time BAE began work on the AWD blocks and the result was entirely predictable and took years to fix. The AWD blocks were basically used to train and certify BAEs new workforce and awd also ended up paying for a new paint shop and upgraded facilities at Williamstown, as well ad substantial support from ASC and contracted marine surveyors, welding instructors, supervisors and engineers. Even with this leg up BAE continued to underperform until many of their senior personnel were replaced by people brought in straight off the Type 45 project.

Having seen first hand the amount of time, (tax payers) money and effort it took to bring BAE up to the minimum required standard, but still not as good as ASC or Forgacs, the opportunity cost of having to rebuild capability at a privately owned company that had been cut to make a buck for said privately owned company and the behavior of said company, backgrounding politicians and media against ASC just pisses me off.

OK so let me remind you of the ANZAC ASMD program that involved modification to almost all the ANZAC ship compartments and a major systems upgrade - what was wrong with that?

 

[Volkodav]

OK so let me remind you of the ANZAC ASMD program that involved modification to almost all the ANZAC ship compartments and a major systems upgrade - what was wrong with that?

New radars by CEA, upgraded combat system by SAAB, physical metal bashing by BAE in Henderson WA, how does that change the fact the BAE Williamstown stuffed everything they touched from the take over until head office intervened out of embarrassment after losing AWD work?

Besides what's the ANZACs top speed now, what's there draft and how much ballast did they need to maintain metacentric night following BAEs superb design job?

 

[Stampede]

Besides what's the ANZACs top speed now, what's there draft and how much ballast did they need to maintain metacentric night following BAEs superb design job?

G'day

I don't want to get into Company bashing but form what I understand the ANZAC frigete upgrade has given the navy a very respectable air defence capability working within the parameters of a ship of it's size.The mast for the CEAMONT and CEAFAR phased array radar certainly looks a big imposing structure so I would not be surprised if ballast was needed to alleviate top weight issues. If there is a reduction of speed maybe its a fair sacrifice for the ASMD outcome.
Just wondering if further additional ballast was installed on the ANZAC's would the installation of a Phalanx CIWS be an option. Again looking at the trade off of speed would not an extra layer of defence be prudent. I would think any ship sailing into a serious area of contention would need an independent close range ASM hard kill option.This I suggest would apply to all large fleet units; destroyers,frigates,supply vessels, amphibious ships and aircraft carriers.
The ANZAC's will still be in service for many years to come so as wonderful as the ASMD upgrade is I feel we need to look at options for an inner layer of close in defence.

Not fussed as to which company does it so long as its done right and within budget.

Regards S

 

[swerve]

G'day
The mast for the CEAMONT and CEAFAR phased array radar certainly looks a big imposing structure so I would not be surprised if ballast was needed to alleviate top weight issues. If there is a reduction of speed maybe its a fair sacrifice for the ASMD outcome.

Regards S

It's in the published official documentation. Ballast for stability & enclosure of the quarter deck for buoyancy, & a small reduction in top speed.