Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It's in the published official documentation. Ballast for stability & enclosure of the quarter deck for buoyancy, & a small reduction in top speed.
Yep pretty much the case, they actually did the best they could with a platform never designed for the job.

The original plan was for eight stretched ANZACs to replace the FFGs and DDGs for a total of eight tier 1, eight tier 2 and about a dozen tier 3 combatant. These stretched ships with 32 plus strategic length Mk41 with two fire control channels for SM-2, a 3D radar and other better than FFG goodies (think USN NTU) would have negated the need for ANZAC ASMD as well as making a much more suitable platform for a CAEFAR MLU.

I'm just not a fan of the BS surrounding BAE, I see it everywhere, people rewriting history to fit BAEs preferred mythology. I know its business and they are just looking after their reputation but the continual crap that makes out everything they touch turns to gold while ASC stuff everything they look at gets my back up as I was there and saw first hand the excrement churned out from Williamstown and know first hand how Jurassic their Henderson facility is.

One of the biggest issues BAE had was many of Tenix's best jumped ship to ASC, well some jumped and others were done over by BAE when they came in. Many of these same people helped fix things when BAE screwed up the early AWD blocks.

On the stretched ANZAC plans I recently came across another plan (mentioned in an article about the ANZAC contract signature) that suggested that total major combatant numbers would be progressively increased to seventeen to compensate for the loss of the carrier. The FFGs and DDGs would be replaced one for one but there would only be six stretched ANZACs (a modified Type 123 Brandenburg was also mentioned in another article of similar vintage) and the remaining three hulls would be replaced by something better down the track (possibly three Flight IIA Burkes).

Such a fleet seemed excessive to some in the mid 90s hence the dropping of the ANZAC follow on and its replacement with an expanded FFGUP (which cost damn near as much as new ships would have) and saw the slow decline of Williamstown from the world standard yard they had become. With current events globally A fleet of three large AWDs, six CAEFAR FFGs, eight ANZACs and twelve missile corvettes, plus eight to twelve Collins and evolved Collins but likely LPD (NG was really pushing a modified San Antonio) rather than LHD replacements for Bill and Ben, does not seem that over the top. The really scary thing is with the mining boom we could have afforded it (even the LHDs) and but for the gutting of the RANs engineering organisation in a series of short sighted cost cutting exercises, we could have manned it too.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Austal adds Mine Warfare and Maritime Security to its Cape Class Patrol Boat family

Austal is pushing some enhanced variants of the Cape-class at Euronaval this week. No mention of a specific customer in mind, but it seems like a lot of work to do purely on spec.
I find the claims on lifecycle interesting noting the structural issues with the Armadale Class Patrol Boat. A steel hull OPV will provide greater flexibility than what is essentially a high speed craft design..... a more fragile because of it.

At least we know the RAN view on aluminum these days
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I find the claims on lifecycle interesting noting the structural issues with the Armadale Class Patrol Boat. A steel hull OPV will provide greater flexibility than what is essentially a high speed craft design..... a more fragile because of it.

At least we know the RAN view on aluminum these days
It surprises me that there was no indigenous design offered for the RAN's new OPVs. It would have provided an opportunity for local yards to develop an exportable design.
 

SteveR

Active Member
Yep pretty much the case, they actually did the best they could with a platform never designed for the job.

The original plan was for eight stretched ANZACs to replace the FFGs and DDGs for a total of eight tier 1, eight tier 2 and about a dozen tier 3 combatant. These stretched ships with 32 plus strategic length Mk41 with two fire control channels for SM-2, a 3D radar and other better than FFG goodies (think USN NTU) would have negated the need for ANZAC ASMD as well as making a much more suitable platform for a CAEFAR MLU.

I'm just not a fan of the BS surrounding BAE, I see it everywhere, people rewriting history to fit BAEs preferred mythology. I know its business and they are just looking after their reputation but the continual crap that makes out everything they touch turns to gold while ASC stuff everything they look at gets my back up as I was there and saw first hand the excrement churned out from Williamstown and know first hand how Jurassic their Henderson facility is.

One of the biggest issues BAE had was many of Tenix's best jumped ship to ASC, well some jumped and others were done over by BAE when they came in. Many of these same people helped fix things when BAE screwed up the early AWD blocks.

On the stretched ANZAC plans I recently came across another plan (mentioned in an article about the ANZAC contract signature) that suggested that total major combatant numbers would be progressively increased to seventeen to compensate for the loss of the carrier. The FFGs and DDGs would be replaced one for one but there would only be six stretched ANZACs (a modified Type 123 Brandenburg was also mentioned in another article of similar vintage) and the remaining three hulls would be replaced by something better down the track (possibly three Flight IIA Burkes).

Such a fleet seemed excessive to some in the mid 90s hence the dropping of the ANZAC follow on and its replacement with an expanded FFGUP (which cost damn near as much as new ships would have) and saw the slow decline of Williamstown from the world standard yard they had become. With current events globally A fleet of three large AWDs, six CAEFAR FFGs, eight ANZACs and twelve missile corvettes, plus eight to twelve Collins and evolved Collins but likely LPD (NG was really pushing a modified San Antonio) rather than LHD replacements for Bill and Ben, does not seem that over the top. The really scary thing is with the mining boom we could have afforded it (even the LHDs) and but for the gutting of the RANs engineering organisation in a series of short sighted cost cutting exercises, we could have manned it too.
In 2012 (5 years after contract award and after all the learning difficulties should have been solved) we were told ASC would deliver AWDs within budget - within a year that was $300M+ over and has increased year by year to $1B+.

I have friends who work at ASC who told me one ASC AWD (Hobart) superstructure block had to be opened up after being built because the equipment to be installed would not fit through the door. THEN - the same thing happened again on the same block for Perth. That is why AWD has sucked money from the rest of the Defence Budget.

If BAE overspends on a project BAE shareholders pay. If ASC makes a mistake we taxpayers foot the bill, or it is taken out of projects that should be protecting our Army or Air Force!
 
It's in the published official documentation. Ballast for stability & enclosure of the quarter deck for buoyancy, & a small reduction in top speed.
The Perth is the first of class due for upgrade at Henderson Yard in March with Babcock part of the programme. No doubt the diesel engines and airconditioning will be replaced with more powerful and efficient models. Is anyone aware of plans to replace the GTs? It will be interesting because Stuart is likely to still be at the Yard undergoing the ASMDA upgrade.
 

rockitten

Member
If BAE overspends on a project BAE shareholders pay. If ASC makes a mistake we taxpayers foot the bill, or it is taken out of projects that should be protecting our Army or Air Force!
Just wonder, how does BAE/ASC's contracts/works are being priced? In fixed price, or in cost plus?
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
SMX Ocean 3.0

DCNS has unveiled the SMX Ocean 3.0 at Euronaval 2016, not sure about this ?

DCNS unveils SMX®3.0, the submarine concept ship tailored to the needs of Generation Z | DCNS Group

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the original SMX Ocean concept evolve into the Shortfin Barracuda for the RAN CEP ? No real details, and would be guessing/hoping it would not be along the lines of the Shortfin, but for me raises some serious questions about the program and dealing with DCNS !

This should raise some "what the" questions that Gov should be taking directly to DCNS and the French Government to clarify and make assurances !

Better hope that any contract to build we do sign is tighter than a you know what...

Thoughts ?

Cheers
 

rockitten

Member
DCNS has unveiled the SMX Ocean 3.0 at Euronaval 2016, not sure about this ?

DCNS unveils SMX®3.0, the submarine concept ship tailored to the needs of Generation Z | DCNS Group

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the original SMX Ocean concept evolve into the Shortfin Barracuda for the RAN CEP ? No real details, and would be guessing/hoping it would not be along the lines of the Shortfin, but for me raises some serious questions about the program and dealing with DCNS !

This should raise some "what the" questions that Gov should be taking directly to DCNS and the French Government to clarify and make assurances !

Better hope that any contract to build we do sign is tighter than a you know what...

Thoughts ?

Cheers
Well, "technically" it is not as it is a 3000 tonne class submarine with french systems, rather than a near 5000 tonne Aussie boat that carries US combat system and weapons.

IMHO though, 50 years ago, RAAF paid the frogs to integrate the US bombs and AIM-9B on Mirage III, then the frogs sold "a similar" setup to Pakistan without paying us the IP. And now, the frogs just did it again.........
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
In 2012 (5 years after contract award and after all the learning difficulties should have been solved) we were told ASC would deliver AWDs within budget - within a year that was $300M+ over and has increased year by year to $1B+.

I have friends who work at ASC who told me one ASC AWD (Hobart) superstructure block had to be opened up after being built because the equipment to be installed would not fit through the door. THEN - the same thing happened again on the same block for Perth. That is why AWD has sucked money from the rest of the Defence Budget.

If BAE overspends on a project BAE shareholders pay. If ASC makes a mistake we taxpayers foot the bill, or it is taken out of projects that should be protecting our Army or Air Force!
There were multiple late design changes, i.e. the updated design data (drawings were delivered after the work had been completed to the original drawings, this was an issue all block subcontractors had to deal with, including Navantia and is a completely separate issue to the substandard and incomplete work BAE delivered on the keel block for Hobart.

As for your mates who worked at ASC telling you well you find tossers everywhere, I had the miss fortune of sitting near one who used to lecture everyone in ear shot about how incompetent everyone was, not because of what he had seen but because of what he had read in the Murdock press, he also used to tell my how bad the Aussie automotive industry was and how they deserved to shut down, yet he was one of the lazy production workers he was complaining about, again be cause it was the line of his preferred commentators / politicians. Then again he was also a baby boomer looking to early retirement having sat on his backside his entire life complaining about the efforts of others while doing sweet FA himself.

In review the ITPs for the first block from BAE, very pretty, very well laid out and listed everything they had been completed and tested, which was virtually nothing, i.e. 90% of the inspections and tests listed were marked incomplete, or NA. When flushing pipework allegedly completed and tested (one of the few things they claim to have done) they couldn't be flushed properly as the pipes were blocked, directional valves were installed back to front, some valves couldn't be operated because the valve bodies were fouled by rags, gloves etc. Things were so bad the decision was made to inspect and test every pipe segment as there was no confidence any of them were correct and even the suspicion of sabotage. A number of additional videoscopes were acquired and things got even worse from there with scoring from contaminants even weld spatter being found not just in the pipes but in the valves.

As for the schedule slip it was on the news back in 2012 with Stephan Smith slipping the schedule as part of the failed attempt to achieve a budget surplus. Not only was recruitment frozen but a significant number of people were made redundant, not just ASC but DMO as well. Instead of training their teams to undertake the concurrent activities necessary to meet schedule, senior technicians, coordinators etc. found themselves doing the work on their own, instead of parallel activities everything ended up being done in series with the same, smaller teams moving from job to job.

Whinging and sooking and making up stories doesn't change what happened and why, BAE management screwed the pooch and were replaced as a result. Their performance was so bad that even with a new federal government with an agenda to destroy ASC, an Anglophile PM who instructed the Defmin to make BAE prime in place of the Alliance, and a Defmin who had been wined and dined by BAE who was determined to do so, they still couldn't get it across the line because it was too widely known that BAE was not capable of the job. There are some great operators at BAE and they were embarrassed by the performance and behaviour of their masters. I can't say I ever visited Williamstown, I was meant to but as I was one of the people reporting on their F ups they refused to let me on site, in fac that's one of my proudest achievements, because it was a badge of honour within Test and Activation to have an incompetent supplier or contractor ban us from their premises and complain to the government about us.

Do you know BAE weren't even the worst performers, most of the worst of the worst were actually Navantias approved supply chain, including the mob who supplied mild steel hydraulic tanks instead of the specified stainless ones, or the copper pipe supplier who subcontracted to a Chinese mill that was incapable of drawing pipe of consistent section or wall thickness.

Time for a fact check Steve. The F100 was selected because it was meant to be an existing design that could be built to print, it wasn't. Experienced subcontractors were selected for the complex keel blocks without supervision or intervention to avoid delaying the project as it was vital these be ready first to consolidate the rest of the build onto. The existing Navantia supply chain was used to avoid the need to evaluate suppliers ourselves. The primary risks were seen to be the changes to the combat system and the associated changes to the design to incorporate them as well as the required integration and test effort on the RAN specific requirements. Ironically all the bespoke stuff went well because effort was assigned to make sure it worked, it was the stuff that had been left to giant, international groups, who were meant to be expert in those areas, that fell over.

Hobart is the first ship built at the ASC shipyard, which wasn't even completed until 2010 just before first steel was cut, how many ships has Williamstown built? How many keels? How is it that the biggest stuff ups on the platform came from what was supposedly the most experienced and capable yard? How is it that all most all the rework required on non BAE block related to changing design not build error? Go apply for a job at the Murdoch press Steve, because you sure as hell don't know much about ship building.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actually was the block that needed to be cut open hanger and the one immediately forward of it that contains the torpedo tubes and torpedo and aviation weapons (missiles) handling equipment? I just ask because during the critical design review the instruction was given to build the ships for the SH-60B Seahawk, MU90 torpedoes and Penguin missiles, even though it was known that either the NH90 or MH-60R would be selected and in service before Hobart was commissioned.

As neither future helicopter would fit in the original hanger and the type of missile and likely torpedo would change (MU90 is battery and Mk54 is Otofuel with different stowage and safety requirements) it was always known these blocks would have to be changed. The government was advised and the instruction was build to print and a new project, under the AIR 9000, would pay for the rework down the track. Again to someone uninitiated this would look like a stuff up be th shipbuilder but the fact is these compartment could not be outfitted prior to consolidation as it would have resulted in unacceptable delays.

Anything else would surprise me as there was a principle TO assigned from 2010 whose sole task was to verify egress from all line replaceable items and equipment not to be pre-outfitted prior to consolidation and erection. There were also soft patches incorporated into the ship to permit access to fit and replace larger items as required. Again, to the uninitiated, use of such may look like some one stuffed up but it may have been the equipment was simply not available at the time, or even the item that was meant to have been fitted failed pre installation testing or had even been damaged during installation or activation due to a manufacturing fault etc. (I know for instance that one of the main transformers had to be replaced because it not been properly insulated during manufacture and the binding straps were live).

A bloke told me really doesn't cut it. Details or I call BS.

By the way, I have worked for some incompetent, unethical companies, places that I would love nothing more than to be summonsed to give evidence on their behaviour, behaviour that at time put peoples lives at risk, behaviour that should have resulted in people being sacked or even gaoled, ASC is not one of them. ASC is not perfect but because it is government owned and not permitted to defend itself, has become the perennial beating boy for the government and media, lines that are aped by those with something to gain, and those ignorant of the fact who enjoy knocking the actual doers in this country.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Fingers crossed that we don't end up with a similar horror show for our CSC program.
Its not actually a horror show, the ship is exceeding expectations during trials and has been reliably reported as having been constructed to a much higher standard than her Spanish sisters, apparently even the BIW guys were impressed with the build quality. The project was kicked off years late and then the ignorant twits pulling the strings in Canberra expected the first ship built in a new yard, by a new work force, using a management and build structure never before used, anywhere in the world, to deliver to a budget and schedule that was better than worlds best practice.

First of class nearly always takes longer than follow on's and it takes several hulls to achieve true economy of scale (hence the current plans for a continuous build) but you will never get the decision makers to admit they stuffed up the procurement, just like you will never get their successors to admit they cut the size of the work force to make short term savings (at the expense of budget and schedule) or that now the first mob are back in, they will never admit that they deliberately made issues worse in an attempt to justify sending future work offshore.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If Hobart sea trials continue to progress smoothly, this will be a positive for Navantia's design bid chances in the forthcoming RFP for the CSC design selection. Irving has consulted with both OMT and BIW but this does not really matter as it will be the government that selects the design.

Irving's performance on the AOPS will provide some indication as to how they will fare with the CSC.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Volk,
all ways admired how you tell it warts and all and look forward to the next informative post from the inside. But wonder how big corporate dosnt try to step in and try to haul you over the coals. Sometimes I wonder if your doing yourself a disservice with CLM as GF likes to say.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, "technically" it is not as it is a 3000 tonne class submarine with french systems, rather than a near 5000 tonne Aussie boat that carries US combat system and weapons.

IMHO though, 50 years ago, RAAF paid the frogs to integrate the US bombs and AIM-9B on Mirage III, then the frogs sold "a similar" setup to Pakistan without paying us the IP. And now, the frogs just did it again.........
It is not about size, it is about tech, systems to a certain extent and, used in a broad sense, stealth. We know where this is going
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Loved the reply Volk,

Don't know why BAE would block you out though, Personally as an owner of a couple of business I always welcome any critical assessment of them as I can't fix what I don't know is broken (Or occasionally do know but not sure best how to fix).

On the plus side with some of the international praise ASC is now getting and with the 'apparent' step back in control over it by the government may be a chance for them to bring there knowledge to some of our allies (ie: Canada). Reading up on some nations I was surprised at how primitive so many of there facilities are and there procedures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top