- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,141
Eeep, i dont see a fitting on the GDP for a awning...that kinda sucks. Many thanks for the pics, cant wait to see her at sea.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Does anyone know if a helicoptor based AEW solution was considered for the LHD's? I was having a conversation with someone on another board (where someone started going on about buying Harrier GR.9's or F-35B's or something) and I made the comment that i'd rather purchasing a small number of helicopter AEW platforms with the data transferred to the LHD and AWD via link/CEC.
I figured it would be especially useful once SM-6 enters the inventory.
Anyway, just thought i'd throw the question out there.
I figured it would be especially useful once SM-6 enters the inventory.
Anyway, just thought i'd throw the question out there.
JoeMcFriday
New Member
There seems to a smallish problem with the AWD's quality control. I can't get the text to copy properly so I'll just post the Bigpond.com link for the moment.
#articleTitle# | #genre# | BigPond News
I wonder who'll pay for this piece of efficiency?
Mac
The picture with this story isn't an AWD but what the hell, it's painted like one.
Here's a link to the original story in The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...struction-bungle/story-fn59niix-1225943475303
Mac
#articleTitle# | #genre# | BigPond News
I wonder who'll pay for this piece of efficiency?
Mac
The picture with this story isn't an AWD but what the hell, it's painted like one.
Here's a link to the original story in The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...struction-bungle/story-fn59niix-1225943475303
Mac
Last edited:
~24000t
The picture in the Bigpond story is the French oiler Somme. Still, it is a ship I suppose - what more can one expect?
The concept of the AWD contract and its major sub contracts is painshare/gainshare so I would imagine that, if true, there is a lot of commercial discussion going on just now about who gets what share.
(and the damned quotes don't seem to be working properly this morning, I'm obviously doing something wrong...)
Last edited by a moderator:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,146
AUSTRALIA'S largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, has had its first serious setback.
A Melbourne shipyard has botched the construction of the central keel block of the first warship.
The multi-million-dollar bungle could delay the project by up to six months and is believed to have triggered a rift between the Williamstown shipyards, where the hull block was built, and the warship's Spanish designer.
The setback has alarmed the Defence Materiel Organisation, which sees the AWDs as its flagship project and a key test of whether Australia can sustain a viable naval shipbuilding industry.
The three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.
The Australian understands that the central keel block of the first AWD warship, HMAS Hobart, was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding and inadequate quality control at the Williamstown shipyards, operated by an AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems Australia.
The AWD project manager, AWD Alliance, last night confirmed there had been "difficulties in the block fabrication" of the warship in Williamstown, which would affect production schedules.
"The difficulties cannot be attributed to a single cause but production start-up issues experienced by the shipbuilder, some difficulties in specific know-how and technical data have contributed," AWD Alliance told The Australian.
"The difficulties resulted in an unexpected distortion in a component of one of the blocks."
It said two other hull blocks were found to be at risk of distortion but the issue was identified and production processes were changed.
The distortion of the central keel block - which weighs about 200 tonnes, measures 20m by 17m and supports some of the most important heavy machinery on the warship - made it potentially incompatible with other blocks of the ship that are being built in Adelaide and in Newcastle.
One AWD source, who asked not to be named, said: "This is not a small problem - this is a major headache for us. This will have a ripple effect on the whole project because that hull block is critical, and if that block is delayed, then a raft of other things also get delayed."
BAE Systems Australia has been striving furiously for weeks to rework the faulty keel block to the correct specifications to get the project back on track.
A statement from the AWD Alliance, incorporating BAE Systems's response, said yesterday the distorted block had been "remedied by reworking" but said it was too early to say exactly what impact the problem would have on the overall AWD delivery schedule.
Sources have told The Australian that the project would be delayed by up to six months.
The AWD Alliance said it was looking at introducing extra shifts to try to make up lost ground.
BAE Systems won the $300 million contract to build 36 of the 93 hull blocks for the three new AWDs last year amid much fanfare from the Victorian government, which said it would create hundreds of new jobs.
BAE began work on the keel blocks early this year.
It is understood that BAE Systems believes the bungled central keel block was the result of what it considers to be inadequate design drawings provided by the ship's Spanish designer, Navantia.
Other AWD sources said this was unlikely because AWD hull blocks based on Navantia's drawings were also being built by ASC in Adelaide and by Forgacs near Newcastle, and work in those shipyards was progressing on schedule.
A spokesman for Navantia declined to comment yesterday.
The keel blocks are the most complex and important parts of the AWD hulls. Comprising up to 2000 pipes as well as electrical systems, they provide the foundation for the ship's gas turbine and diesel engine propulsion system. The AWD Alliance includes the government-owned Australian Submarine Project, the Defence Materiel Organisation and Raytheon Australia.
BAE's Williamstown shipyards were scheduled to begin shipping completed keel blocks to ASC in Adelaide in the first half of next year.
The AWDs will give a substantial boost to naval capability especially in anti-air warfare with its Aegis combat system allowing them to provide theatre ballistic missile defence over a wide area.
Fail BAE Fail...
A Melbourne shipyard has botched the construction of the central keel block of the first warship.
The multi-million-dollar bungle could delay the project by up to six months and is believed to have triggered a rift between the Williamstown shipyards, where the hull block was built, and the warship's Spanish designer.
The setback has alarmed the Defence Materiel Organisation, which sees the AWDs as its flagship project and a key test of whether Australia can sustain a viable naval shipbuilding industry.
The three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.
The Australian understands that the central keel block of the first AWD warship, HMAS Hobart, was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding and inadequate quality control at the Williamstown shipyards, operated by an AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems Australia.
The AWD project manager, AWD Alliance, last night confirmed there had been "difficulties in the block fabrication" of the warship in Williamstown, which would affect production schedules.
"The difficulties cannot be attributed to a single cause but production start-up issues experienced by the shipbuilder, some difficulties in specific know-how and technical data have contributed," AWD Alliance told The Australian.
"The difficulties resulted in an unexpected distortion in a component of one of the blocks."
It said two other hull blocks were found to be at risk of distortion but the issue was identified and production processes were changed.
The distortion of the central keel block - which weighs about 200 tonnes, measures 20m by 17m and supports some of the most important heavy machinery on the warship - made it potentially incompatible with other blocks of the ship that are being built in Adelaide and in Newcastle.
One AWD source, who asked not to be named, said: "This is not a small problem - this is a major headache for us. This will have a ripple effect on the whole project because that hull block is critical, and if that block is delayed, then a raft of other things also get delayed."
BAE Systems Australia has been striving furiously for weeks to rework the faulty keel block to the correct specifications to get the project back on track.
A statement from the AWD Alliance, incorporating BAE Systems's response, said yesterday the distorted block had been "remedied by reworking" but said it was too early to say exactly what impact the problem would have on the overall AWD delivery schedule.
Sources have told The Australian that the project would be delayed by up to six months.
The AWD Alliance said it was looking at introducing extra shifts to try to make up lost ground.
BAE Systems won the $300 million contract to build 36 of the 93 hull blocks for the three new AWDs last year amid much fanfare from the Victorian government, which said it would create hundreds of new jobs.
BAE began work on the keel blocks early this year.
It is understood that BAE Systems believes the bungled central keel block was the result of what it considers to be inadequate design drawings provided by the ship's Spanish designer, Navantia.
Other AWD sources said this was unlikely because AWD hull blocks based on Navantia's drawings were also being built by ASC in Adelaide and by Forgacs near Newcastle, and work in those shipyards was progressing on schedule.
A spokesman for Navantia declined to comment yesterday.
The keel blocks are the most complex and important parts of the AWD hulls. Comprising up to 2000 pipes as well as electrical systems, they provide the foundation for the ship's gas turbine and diesel engine propulsion system. The AWD Alliance includes the government-owned Australian Submarine Project, the Defence Materiel Organisation and Raytheon Australia.
BAE's Williamstown shipyards were scheduled to begin shipping completed keel blocks to ASC in Adelaide in the first half of next year.
The AWDs will give a substantial boost to naval capability especially in anti-air warfare with its Aegis combat system allowing them to provide theatre ballistic missile defence over a wide area.
Fail BAE Fail...
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
RAN procures some SM2 Blk IIIB for AWD testing.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Australia_10-50.pdf
From the brochure.
"The SM-2 Block IIIB configuration incorporates a side-mounted imaging infrared seeker into the proven Standard Missile guidance system. This sensor significantly improves the missile’s terminal engagement performance against stressing anti-ship missile threats."
RAN procures some SM2 Blk IIIB for AWD testing.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Australia_10-50.pdf
From the brochure.
"The SM-2 Block IIIB configuration incorporates a side-mounted imaging infrared seeker into the proven Standard Missile guidance system. This sensor significantly improves the missile’s terminal engagement performance against stressing anti-ship missile threats."
That is rather disappointing. Presumably there are other issues the general public are unaware of.
Look up Ross Kelly and Whiteboards and you're have a good idea how the subcontracting of module builds for the AWD was decided.
I thought they got rid of the whiteboards, now you just make it up as you go along?
apart from the fact that BAE Williamtown obviously didn't have an engineering dimensions plan in place - the procurement model for this disaster lies with the govt industry decisions.
the sub contractor has stuffed up - and the govt has to wear its inudustry plan.
unfort this isn't the only one.
You do not have to be very upset from this problem in the keel block, it is normal to find some problems in the first ship of the batch, you are being transfered a design from a modern yard like Navantia, so what you are doing is not just to follow some drawings, but updating your yards way of work where rigour is very important. It´s normal to encouenter problems in the first ship, like in any other project.
You cannot be serious? It is the centre keel.
That means that the maritime engineers and build engineers had a compromised dimensions plan.
this is so bloody basic it absolutely beggars belief. the fact that these idiots are trying to blame the spanish tech drawings is so inane that one must assume that they know how badly they have buggered up their elements.
again, the two other builders working off the same drawings have not had the same issues - that points to a competency issue.
I cannot believe that anyone would seek to trivialise this and think that its just a simple cut and shunt and all will be well.
this is not just about not being able to read tech drawings or being able to weld - it gets down to the overall issue of who oversighted the dimensions plan - and a dimensions plan is not just about how and where to cut metal - thats about 10% of the task.
this is another example of where the govt imposed australian industry content parameters into the project and the prime had to sub contract work to a company that was known to be sub standard in their work. Look at the early build grief with the Anzacs.
I said this 3 years ago - I would not let Tenix (now part of BAE) build a bathtub
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,154
An example...drainage holes in messdecks in the centre of a compartment...cause the ship doesnt roll at sea at all and doesnt have water flowing back and forth across the deck in a sea state...its sad the only way to keep the deck dry is mop and bucket because the drain doesnt collect water. The other one, absoloute pearler...when someone onboard an FFH uses a detergent or anything that could create suds...personnel stand clear GDP, Poo on deck...uhuh, the overflow pipe for sewage is on the main mast, which means GDP gets soaked in shit. In the GOA, this became a daily issue till we pulled all the crew up there to clean it one night, its so not cool when on watch. The issue is the pipe, and the sewage unable to deal with suds, pretty poor really. theres so many things we just look at onboard and ask, who thinks of putting that there? These are design and application problems that could have been solved early on, by someone looking into it and going "wait, thats just retarded, dont do that" instead they just know its no their problem and the navys now.
Concur,
Another classic example is how the flight deck is on an angle......down into the hanger AND there is no drain running across the entrance of the hanger, so when ever it rains the hanger floods......
OR
How the over engineered lift for moving food stores down and up from fridge flat runs just one deck, is too small for nearly every box, is a pain to set up to use and is so incredibly slow it NEVER gets used. On an ANZAC we store ship the same way they would of 200 years ago, 100% manually. Which I am sure you would all agree is not the best use of personnel on a minimally / critically manned ship.:hitwall
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,156
Hanger...Birdy problem...heheConcur,
Another classic example is how the flight deck is on an angle......down into the hanger AND there is no drain running across the entrance of the hanger, so when ever it rains the hanger floods......
OR
How the over engineered lift for moving food stores down and up from fridge flat runs just one deck, is too small for nearly every box, is a pain to set up to use and is so incredibly slow it NEVER gets used. On an ANZAC we store ship the same way they would of 200 years ago, 100% manually. Which I am sure you would all agree is not the best use of personnel on a minimally / critically manned ship.:hitwall
We had 2 heavy jackstays forward while on deployment, where you take each box down one deck, and all the way aft. down another deck then sort, whole crew evoloution thanks to USN ship being unable to have helos fly over(meh, woke the greenies for once...
)At least on FFG you jackstay on the Flt deck, pallet jack down to breezeway, lift onto a ELEVATOR then it gets sorted in the ton of room in the fridge flat...they at least made FFG for war and practicality.
The most amusing thing atm is we've entered contractor central...and just for fun, they are painting the upper decks for us...which is nice, except they wont do Fcstle, apparently thats a little too much. As long as we dont get the Thales Grey(green) then we wont have a problem...i still have pics of Darwin outboard of Newie, for two ships in the same navy, the paint scheme is so different, darwin repainted after there downgrade, newie had to as we came out Thales Grey(green)
Navy Gripes...im sure contractors have their own, but ours are related to the fact we have to use the bloody thing afterwards!
deleted.
(sorry I was posting an article for discussion but I dont have time to write a response to the article. Will bring it up again when I have more time.)
(sorry I was posting an article for discussion but I dont have time to write a response to the article. Will bring it up again when I have more time.)
Well, yes and no. It certainly points to problems in achieving dimension control in this particular case; but it is not quite so fundamental as that. The problem is correctable and will be corrected.
But Jaimito's wider point is valid. This is the start up block in the start up ship; world's best says one doesn't actually achieve repetitive production excellence until the fourth ship of a run so we would expect to be having some problems at this very early stage. Anybody who believes major projects such as this can be achieved without encountering, and overcoming, problems is dreaming.
spoz,
I've worked on various sub projects both here and overseas, I've also been involved with a series of light skimmers (OPV's). I've been involved in armoured vehicle programs, ballistic weapons programs and various turbine prohects including ring generators. I do have some idea about the intricacies of major platform builds
the fundamental issue is that BAE are blaming the Spanish drawings when the other 2 builders who are doing exactly the same work are not. The dimension planning cycle is not just about physical measurements, its about the dimension planning for the entire project.
This is not the first time that Willy yards have stuffed up a major build. They had a lousy reputation when I was overseas, and they have a lousy reputation in the current site because most of the old guard are still there.
At least Forgacs has learnt their lesson and fixed processes.
its not about production excellence hit by a 4th vessel which will never come - its about getting the processes right as far as possible on day 1
at an engineering management level one could raise any number of points about how quality and integrity control was being managed - and they are NOT unfair questions.
BAE blaming the spanish over the quality fo the drawings is too cute by half
Thanks for the heads up gf.
Keel blocks are more complex however this is no excuss for an experienced shipbuilder, especially considering the amount of support they were provided. Lloyds weren't just engaged they have been involved with the project for some time as have other specialists from the US with extensive experience in naval ship building. Two of the block fabricators took the offered advice onboad, one didn't.
I just hope performance on this project is remembered when it comes time to award the construction of the new frigates and OCV's
- Status