Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[weasel1962]

Re:

I think gf is making the point that its not even an acceptable excuse for an inexperienced shipbuilder, much less an experienced one. Getting the plans right before construction should be like 101 in the process book even if one suffers from lack of common sense.

Having said that, they'll just have to rectify it. What would be funny is if they were to invoice for the extra work done. And funnier still if it gets paid.

 

[Volkodav]

I think gf is making the point that its not even an acceptable excuse for an inexperienced shipbuilder, much less an experienced one. Getting the plans right before construction should be like 101 in the process book even if one suffers from lack of common sense.

Having said that, they'll just have to rectify it. What would be funny is if they were to invoice for the extra work done. And funnier still if it gets paid.

Agreed, in fact I would go as far as saying an inexperienced shipbuilder working to develop a new capability would have done a better job. Williamstown have a track record of under valuing and failing to retain their skilled work force. They assume that when they have work they can just hire the people they need off the street.

There have been some very basic errors that will cause grief to the entire project. It doesn't matter if every other block is correctly completed ahead of schedule and below budget, if there is no keel block then there is nothing to consolidate the other blocks onto and nothing to outfit.

The saddest part of the situation is that this provides ammunition to those who believe that Australia is incapable of undertaking projects of this scale. BAE have let down all the dedicated and talented people and organisations who have done their jobs properly, for less money than BAE are rumoured to have been paid.

 

[spoz]

spoz,

I've worked on various sub projects both here and overseas

Me too and I still am, although my projects have tended to involve MFUs. I don't disagree this is a stuff up; nor do I disagree that BAE (Tenix, Amecon, Transfield, WND) have stuffed things up in the past - I go back to Cook and the DE mod program, even the differences in quality between Swan and Torrens or Derwent and Stuart. But keep this one in proportion; the sky is not falling and the issue will be controlled. That this problem was one of dimensional control doesn't mean that their entire dimensional control program is u/s it just means that it didn't work here, in start up, and the reasons for that need to be identified and corrected. Nor do I disagree about the implications of the other yards' results with the drawings from Navantia although I would note that the majority of work they are doing is flat panel.

They also presumably don't have as developed a pre-existing system, both IT and management, which then has to accept data from Navantia and one should never underestimate the complexity of doing that. Forgacs are used to being subbies and anyway treat shipbuilding as just another heavy engineeing job while ASC have I imagine created their systems for this one from scratch and around the Navantia output. BAE definitely see themselves as shipbuilders and presumably (again) are reusing systems they have employed before, most recently on Protector (and yes, I know of its problems)

Lloyds involvement in the AWD Program has previously been consultative about parts of the design. This issue is the first time that I am aware of that they have been brought into the construction process and it is my understanding that it was done some time ago although I don't have the details.

But if we are to have an MSC (and by extension SM) building program in Australia (we can argue about that if you want) then there are only a few legitimate players - and the owner of WND under whatever title you like will be one for the foreseeable future. Austal are players in a different market, and effectively so are NQEA if they're still in the game. Thales appear to be exiting and anyway we've never actually built at GID; Oberon full cycles don't count building is different. Leaves ASC, Forgacs and you-know-who. Else, we're going to be buying overseas.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Me too and I still am, although my projects have tended to involve MFUs. I don't disagree this is a stuff up; nor do I disagree that BAE (Tenix, Amecon, Transfield, WND) have stuffed things up in the past - I go back to Cook and the DE mod program, even the differences in quality between Swan and Torrens or Derwent and Stuart. But keep this one in proportion; the sky is not falling and the issue will be controlled. That this problem was one of dimensional control doesn't mean that their entire dimensional control program is u/s it just means that it didn't work here, in start up, and the reasons for that need to be identified and corrected. Nor do I disagree about the implications of the other yards' results with the drawings from Navantia although I would note that the majority of work they are doing is flat panel.

I'm not sure I'm saying that the sky is falling, but I personally believe that the problems for BAE will not go away as there are some significant corporate cultural problems to deal with. ASC has similar problems with some of its engineers who do seem to think that they are sub design experts.

They also presumably don't have as developed a pre-existing system, both IT and management, which then has to accept data from Navantia and one should never underestimate the complexity of doing that. Forgacs are used to being subbies and anyway treat shipbuilding as just another heavy engineeing job while ASC have I imagine created their systems for this one from scratch and around the Navantia output. BAE definitely see themselves as shipbuilders and presumably (again) are reusing systems they have employed before, most recently on Protector (and yes, I know of its problems)

one would think that the basics have been established though. they might not be bursting big chunks of design by satellite to each other, but there are still ways to transfer significant blobs of data and handle, translate etc at the other end. We transfer 30gig data files now with relative unimpeachability. we do it with countries that have less sophisticated comms infrastructure than the spanish. Culturally it is very different dealing with the spanish, and I am not shy stating that some of my most frustrating projects involved dealing with spanish companies, but it can and has been done.

Lloyds involvement in the AWD Program has previously been consultative about parts of the design. This issue is the first time that I am aware of that they have been brought into the construction process and it is my understanding that it was done some time ago although I don't have the details.

I'd have to defer on Volkadov on this as my prev exp involved dealing with Norde Veritas

But if we are to have an MSC (and by extension SM) building program in Australia (we can argue about that if you want) then there are only a few legitimate players - and the owner of WND under whatever title you like will be one for the foreseeable future. Austal are players in a different market, and effectively so are NQEA if they're still in the game. Thales appear to be exiting and anyway we've never actually built at GID; Oberon full cycles don't count building is different. Leaves ASC, Forgacs and you-know-who. Else, we're going to be buying overseas.

I've got a high regard for Austal. They do some very smart stuff and they have a good cohort of ME's
I've got a very diminished view of INCAT under Clifford (he's a first class prique). the difference in quality between Austal and INCAT is like chalk and cheese IMO
and lastly my opinion of NQEA was when Don Fry was front and centre. when I worked with an american company on hypersonic weapons solutions. Fry was the lead engineer on various engineering touch points in Oz and I found his behaviour to be unbearable and somewhat conceited. I dealt with Fry on another project involving the adaptation of ring generators for land based solutions. So I haven't dealt with him at the shipbuilding level - Some of the german companies I dealt with regarded NQEA as top shelf, so I'd have to defer to them. He however was a first class knob.

 

[t68]

No we picked the right asset, we used the wrong build model.

Any chance of expanding on that?
Are you refering to the problems with BAE and the keel block, should their be one builder, one ship, one yard star to finish?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Any chance of expanding on that?
Are you refering to the problems with BAE and the keel block, should their be one builder, one ship, one yard star to finish?

From memory one of the build options offered by BAE (nee Tenix) was to build the LHDs from keel up at the AMC CUF in Perth. The hull build in Spain and bridge in Oz was the cheaper option.

 

[Volkodav]

lastly my opinion of NQEA was when Don Fry was front and centre. when I worked with an american company on hypersonic weapons solutions. Fry was the lead engineer on various engineering touch points in Oz and I found his behaviour to be unbearable and somewhat conceited. I dealt with Fry on another project involving the adaptation of ring generators for land based solutions. So I haven't dealt with him at the shipbuilding level - Some of the german companies I dealt with regarded NQEA as top shelf, so I'd have to defer to them. He however was a first class knob.

A relative who worked on the Fremantles has an extremely low opinion of Fry but admired his father.

As an aside the current problems with BAE are Don Fry's fault too. BAE were the second choice but after Fry retired and alledgedly took NQEAs cash reserves with him, leaving his son and the company unable to meet the contracted requirements, the AWD Alliance then had to go to BAE and negotiate the best deal they could in the time available.

Root cause of the keel block distortion issue, Don Fry.

 

[Samoa]

The problems with block distortion was related to the platform jigs, which were fabricated in accordance with Navantia dwgs. As it turns out, the Navantia dwgs were incorrect. This problem does not manifest until all the sub-assemblies making the block are fully assembled to make the complete block. Apparently Navantia experienced exactly the same problem themselves with their first F100 build, but never updated the dwgs to reflect the change. BAE have now addressed this and a reworking the build platforms accordingly. The other block builders will not have this problem, as they are not building the key keel blocks.

This is not the first time BAE has had problems with Navantia dwgs. This job is a build to print, and changes to the build sequence (or any other mods) need to go back to Navantia via ASC before any progress can be made when an issue raises it's head. Any ship builder outside Navantia would have had exactly the same problem.

 

[Jaimito]

The problems with block distortion was related to the platform jigs, which were fabricated in accordance with Navantia dwgs. As it turns out, the Navantia dwgs were incorrect. This problem does not manifest until all the sub-assemblies making the block are fully assembled to make the complete block. Apparently Navantia experienced exactly the same problem themselves with their first F100 build, but never updated the dwgs to reflect the change. BAE have now addressed this and a reworking the build platforms accordingly. The other block builders will not have this problem, as they are not building the key keel blocks.

This is not the first time BAE has had problems with Navantia dwgs. This job is a build to print, and changes to the build sequence (or any other mods) need to go back to Navantia via ASC before any progress can be made when an issue raises it's head. Any ship builder outside Navantia would have had exactly the same problem.

Sorry, my reply is down.

 

[Jaimito]

The problems with block distortion was related to the platform jigs, which were fabricated in accordance with Navantia dwgs. As it turns out, the Navantia dwgs were incorrect. This problem does not manifest until all the sub-assemblies making the block are fully assembled to make the complete block. Apparently Navantia experienced exactly the same problem themselves with their first F100 build, but never updated the dwgs to reflect the change. BAE have now addressed this and a reworking the build platforms accordingly. The other block builders will not have this problem, as they are not building the key keel blocks.

This is not the first time BAE has had problems with Navantia dwgs. This job is a build to print, and changes to the build sequence (or any other mods) need to go back to Navantia via ASC before any progress can be made when an issue raises it's head. Any ship builder outside Navantia would have had exactly the same problem.

The F100 design is 5900 tonnes at max. displacement, the Fritdorjf Nansen frigates are 5200 tonnes, and F105 design, which is supposed to be used for the Awd is 6050 tonnes, maybe the Awd is supposed to be still bigger (but you say that "it is a build to print"), then any mods to the keel block design needed and so updated the drawings? The F105 has quite a few mods wrt F100, needed to be updated in drawings.
Navantia building blocks are spread out in different sites, so that it is not the same site always building the jigs, they need correct drawings for each building of 10 ships done so far.
If Navantia has done any mistake, then they can claim to Navantia.

 

[Jaimito]

Just to try to free of doubts wrt the Canberra success:
-the problem with one of the diesel engines in the Jc1 it is fully solved, it was like an experimental engine, someway different to improve a little the propulsion, they have gone for the normal engine. Navantia has many years of experience with diesel engines, they have their own engines, the Bravos, they have licenses from MTU, Man, Caterpillar, etc, and they make engines for trains, tanks, electricity generation plants, a for many civil ships, and of course they repair them and produce the parts, just in the year 2009 they made 127 repairs and maintenances for very different big ships, including many lng tankers. But i do not know what engines will go in the Canberras, i heard Mitsubishi for the auxiliar engine.
-the problem with the fore propellers of azymutal pods, Navantia said also that the change of the propellers was not really needed (in terms of cavitation problems), but they changed and found and improvement in the propulsion.
-the doubts, or fears wrt potential problems that could arise with the pods themselves: you can have the precedent problems years ago from Mermaid pods for Royal Caribean line cruisers, but you have the reference also from ABB pods, that are carried in more than 40 big ships, ie cruisers and lng tankers, bigger than the Canberras, and they have not given special problems and they are doing thousands of kms per year. The Siemens-Schottel solution is paired with the double propeller, and both give very good effienciecy. But in the case there was a critical problem with these, then ABB pods could be used probably. Apart other companies.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But in the case there was a critical problem with these, then ABB pods could be used probably. Apart other companies.

There are any number of podded solutions available that have high availability, are reliable and have established track records - and on much heavier vessels.

experimenting with new technology sets and/or new desigsn would not be something that RAN should even contemplate

 

[Aussie Digger]

There are any number of podded solutions available that have high availability, are reliable and have established track records - and on much heavier vessels.

experimenting with new technology sets and/or new desigsn would not be something that RAN should even contemplate

Damn right, experimenting with risky, unproven technology is DMO and CDG's purview, isn't it???

 

[gf0012-aust]

Damn right, experimenting with risky, unproven technology is DMO and CDG's purview, isn't it???

well, no single entity within the trI-archy can push for a technology. the users go to CDG who then direct DMO (if they are the PM's) to build it....

DMO won't build anything unless the capability owners and capability managers direct it to do so.

 

[alexsa]

Me too and I still am, although my projects have tended to involve MFUs. I don't disagree this is a stuff up; nor do I disagree that BAE (Tenix, Amecon, Transfield, WND) have stuffed things up in the past - I go back to Cook and the DE mod program, even the differences in quality between Swan and Torrens or Derwent and Stuart. But keep this one in proportion; the sky is not falling and the issue will be controlled. That this problem was one of dimensional control doesn't mean that their entire dimensional control program is u/s it just means that it didn't work here, in start up, and the reasons for that need to be identified and corrected. Nor do I disagree about the implications of the other yards' results with the drawings from Navantia although I would note that the majority of work they are doing is flat panel.

They also presumably don't have as developed a pre-existing system, both IT and management, which then has to accept data from Navantia and one should never underestimate the complexity of doing that. Forgacs are used to being subbies and anyway treat shipbuilding as just another heavy engineeing job while ASC have I imagine created their systems for this one from scratch and around the Navantia output. BAE definitely see themselves as shipbuilders and presumably (again) are reusing systems they have employed before, most recently on Protector (and yes, I know of its problems)

Lloyds involvement in the AWD Program has previously been consultative about parts of the design. This issue is the first time that I am aware of that they have been brought into the construction process and it is my understanding that it was done some time ago although I don't have the details.

But if we are to have an MSC (and by extension SM) building program in Australia (we can argue about that if you want) then there are only a few legitimate players - and the owner of WND under whatever title you like will be one for the foreseeable future. Austal are players in a different market, and effectively so are NQEA if they're still in the game. Thales appear to be exiting and anyway we've never actually built at GID; Oberon full cycles don't count building is different. Leaves ASC, Forgacs and you-know-who. Else, we're going to be buying overseas.

Sorry I don't agree, QC and independent verification during build (susch as class involvement) should deal with this. Errors of the magnitude that appear to rend this block unusable are a significant falure.

Any yard that is competent, even with basic systems, should get a block dimensionally right (or close enough to be usable) on a single run. A failry basic ship yard in SE asia working off a rudamentry CAD system (noting we are talking about relatively complex hull structures) and hand cut plate can manage this.

Given this ship is based on an existing in service design it would appear reasonable to assume that plate sections cut would have been verifed against the structural design drawings before being incorprated in the block. Not having all the details I can only assume thsi was not the case.

 

[alexsa]

The F100 design is 5900 tonnes at max. displacement, the Fritdorjf Nansen frigates are 5200 tonnes, and F105 design, which is supposed to be used for the Awd is 6050 tonnes, maybe the Awd is supposed to be still bigger .

Or deeper, don't forget displacement also increase by making the ship heavier with a slightly deeper draft. The hull form may not alter bt you may immerse it deeper by a number of cm based on the TPC..

 

[Jaimito]

There are any number of podded solutions available that have high availability, are reliable and have established track records - and on much heavier vessels.

experimenting with new technology sets and/or new desigsn would not be something that RAN should even contemplate

Siemens pods are alreday in service with 20000 tonnes ships, not as powerful as Canberras (11 mw), but they are supposed to be easy to change...

 

[Jaimito]

Or deeper, don't forget displacement also increase by making the ship heavier with a slightly deeper draft. The hull form may not alter bt you may immerse it deeper by a number of cm based on the TPC..

We do not know if the Awd are bigger than 6050, then it would have their own mods need express for that, the keel blocks sure are affected by tonnage or at least the draft... It is been said that it was a mix of "know-how", "technical data", and possibly quality control.

 

[alexsa]

We do not know if the Awd are bigger than 6050, then it would have their own mods need express for that, the keel blocks sure are affected by tonnage or at least the draft... It is been said that it was a mix of "know-how", "technical data", and possibly quality control.

If weight increase (notingit is quite small) is effected by an increase in draft this will ahve no effect on the design of the keel block

 

[StingrayOZ]

I believe the 7,000t often quoted is from increase in draft over the life of the ship.

When first built they may only displace 6,000t but growth weight will increase draft pushing maxium displacement to 7,000t.