Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
[hint] Red means he's got his moderator hat on[/hint]
Back on topic:
Is there any further word on how Largs Bay's refit is going over in the UK and when they think she'll get out here.
Also does anyone know when they'll publicly release what she'll be called in RAN service?
Back on topic:
Is there any further word on how Largs Bay's refit is going over in the UK and when they think she'll get out here.
Also does anyone know when they'll publicly release what she'll be called in RAN service?
and its not going to be done in this forum
On a side note, you've made some bad assumptions anyway, so the fact that no uniforms or DMO /CDG/Service staffers can actually set you straight makes the debate one sided.
Thats unfort a legacy of governments taking away the capacity for the Services or Divisions to respond and directing it back to the Ministers Office - and thats a direct legacy of the Minister (both Defence and PM&C) wanting to control the message.
No doubt you're aware of the $1bn items that were selected by the Govt and weren't even on the initial selection list - again a "vulnerable seat" purchase made at an election.
You obviously have a view which is patently one sided. Perhaps you could lobby your own local minister to have more transparency in ministerial decisions.
Or perhaps you could ask the "right" people why procurement is subjected to a process that is defined by Govt and yet is subject to intervention and thus breaks the procurement model anyway?
There are whole pile of other forums where people just as ill informed will carry your flag, but I do suggest that you understand the procurement process before coming in and making some raher bold but inaccurate statements.
As Bonza has said, other forums exist for that kind of chat, but not in this one. If we bar others from discussing politics in their own countries procurement decisions, then it behoves us to stay consistent.
excellent, thank you for not reading my entire response and electing to continue to make assumptions about not only procurement but about my integrity as well.
while you're away perhaps you could do some research on the 2 Pass process, do some research as to what DMO does, what CDG does and what the Services do as part of the procurement process and how it goes through various review gates as established by Govt
If you'd bothered to read my previous respo0nse in detail, or if you knew anything about me at all then you'd realise that I'm one of the generation of people who actually worked in industry and understand multiple sides of the equation - the fact that you are singling out DMO as an entity shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what projects have gone west and who was involved.
while you're doing your research you could also study the basics of scope creep and how creep is managed by the Govt procurement process - ie how all parties in the various stages of assurance come to a determination.
when you've understood that process, then perhaps like Cartman you might become a bit of an "authoritaire" rather than make bland blase statements which although convenient and sound bitish in delivery, do little to demonstrate an appreciation of how, why, when projects have failed.
Here's a taster for you: The Self Propelled Howitzer has to comply with ADR (civil vehicle certification requirements to be used on public roads). This despite the fact that all the vehicles in question all have been driven on public roads in their host countries and usually get transported anyway when going long distance (because they chew fuel like free beer going off at a wharfies picnic). making a 155mm self propelled howitzer compliant to the same standards as your dads commodore is an engineering curiosity more than a requirement.... Understandable why industry then wonders why they're bidding in the first place.
Thanks for demonstrating your debating maturity as well, I'm sure you just set some kind of record.
Gf, you missed the point, a sense of indignation and welf rightousness does not rely upon fact or any understanding of the industry as wrs as demonstrated.
Trying to focus on industry doing it better than government is really a nonsense as well. The differnece is they answer to the board and some things (stuff ups) simple do not become common knowledge.
Trying to focus on industry doing it better than government is really a nonsense as well. The differnece is they answer to the board and some things (stuff ups) simple do not become common knowledge.
In othter news BAE and the Navy are announcing that HMAS Perth successfully engaged a target with the new ASMD combat system as part of acceptance trials. Looks like they gave it quite a working over. Some nice pictures at the defence webpage.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Now, *that* I didn't know and honestly don't see the point of. No matter what you do a 50t armoured vehicle isnt going to be safe to a pedestrian or other vehicle if hit, and they have enough mass and strength that they'd probably go straight through anything they hit without much of an impact felt inside by harness wearing crew.
So who made up that rule? Even if they were road registered they'd be under some sort of conditional registration (like tractors) rather then a full registration like wrs's dad's falcadore.
Edit: I'd love to see a speeding ticket for an ASLAV, M113 or M1A1. Would really make my day.
Just asking the question - if it's been discussed someplace else, then point me at it but what did the 1bn relate to? I'm a casual observer on the Hobarts and it does look like they're going to be expensive - I wondered what the drivers were on that?
Ian
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The Bushmaster IMV comes to mind as being a project which IIRC was chosed on political and not technical merit, though I do not think that is the one GF was referring to.
Now do not get me wrong, the Bushmaster did meet requirements, but there was a competing design which met or exceeded the same requirements, and was expected to have a lower support/lifecycle cost but the production facility was located in 'hostile' territory. In other words, the seat was in the a different party's control whereas the Bushmaster was/is built in a seat which was under the control of the dominant party at the time and control of the seat was threatened. I doubt it was the first time that has happened, or that it will be the last time either.
Now, back to RAN discussion. Has there been any more information released about what RFA Largs Bay will be called once it becomes HMAS... If anyone can say anything without getting an official visit that is.
-Cheers
Where did you get that information just out of curiosity?
Never going to happen. We will never have the Astute for so many reasons. I once argued for the acquisition of the Astute platform however this was severely misguided on my part.Kirkzzy said:
In my mind there are a few events which will shape some of the Sea 1000 development pathways:
1. Greece, Portugal and Spain debt default (more critically the German/French structural response)
2. US deficit control (can the defence budget be sustained and what tradeoffs will be found)
3. Floating of the Yuan currency.
These are the global tectonic shifts that could re-map some of the 'technological transfer' that feeds into our Sea1000 platform. All of them pertain directly to the level of access we have to US technology.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Sea Sprites cost over a billion, but that was years ago now. The decision to purchase Sea Sprite dates back to Keating, but they werent cancelled until not long before Howard got given the boot.
why would we touch the Astutes? the USN and NAVSEA were involved with fixing those as wellKirkzzy said:
IN fact it was the subsequent US Dept Commmerce report which sent the alaerm bells going off about the state of their industry - something that Aust should have also considered paying more detailed attention to. ie the state and capacity of industry to deal with the work.
justsomeaussie
Member
Sweet. So shes all intergrated and working?
justsomeaussie
Member
Yep, hard to launch if it wasn't. A couple of more hoops to jump through then it's full steam ahead.
On the general topic of what’s wrong with the AWD, in the past 30 years since the ADF has moved to international competition for sourcing designs for domestic license production the following trend can be seen:
Local license build projects that came in late, over cost, under spec, failed, etc: Success AOR, Melbourne FFG, Collins SSG, Hobart DDG, Seasprite helo, Tiger helo, MRH90 helo, MU90 torpedo, Steyr rifle, Bushmaster PMV, M113AS4 APC
Local license build projects that worked just fine: Fremantle PB, Anzac FFH, Huon MHC, PC-9 trainer, Hawk LIFT, Hornet HUG, Hamel field gun, Minimi LMG, ASLAV armoured car
The difference between the successful and un-successful projects was that all of the un-succesful projects had never been license produced before and all of the successful projects had a history of successful license production. With the exception of the Melbourne FFGs (Australian Frigate Project) whose objective was to also try and rehabilitate Williamstown Dockyard for which it succeeded but at huge cost to schedule.
The lesson is just because something has been proven and built before overseas doesn’t mean it can be successfully built and proven in another country. Unless of course the contractor has done it before. Otherwise the license build is just as risky as a new un-proven design. If the new, un-proven product has been designed for Australian industry then it is likely to be even less risky than a virgin license build of a proven product.
Local license build projects that came in late, over cost, under spec, failed, etc: Success AOR, Melbourne FFG, Collins SSG, Hobart DDG, Seasprite helo, Tiger helo, MRH90 helo, MU90 torpedo, Steyr rifle, Bushmaster PMV, M113AS4 APC
Local license build projects that worked just fine: Fremantle PB, Anzac FFH, Huon MHC, PC-9 trainer, Hawk LIFT, Hornet HUG, Hamel field gun, Minimi LMG, ASLAV armoured car
The difference between the successful and un-successful projects was that all of the un-succesful projects had never been license produced before and all of the successful projects had a history of successful license production. With the exception of the Melbourne FFGs (Australian Frigate Project) whose objective was to also try and rehabilitate Williamstown Dockyard for which it succeeded but at huge cost to schedule.
The lesson is just because something has been proven and built before overseas doesn’t mean it can be successfully built and proven in another country. Unless of course the contractor has done it before. Otherwise the license build is just as risky as a new un-proven design. If the new, un-proven product has been designed for Australian industry then it is likely to be even less risky than a virgin license build of a proven product.
Last edited:
I know you're not here any more mate, but FYI, it hasn't officially been the "Tigre" for more than 10 years.
It's official designation is the EC-635 Tiger. It is known as the Tigre in French and Spanish service, but that is a local affectation. It's official designation and in German and Australian service as well as official Eurocopter marketing material it is the Tiger.
Tiger helicopter, military helicopter, eurocopter tiger - Eurocopter, an EADS company
But hey, no-one has ever accused you of accuracy, Perplexed...
Please continue to enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance.
Wow... we need to slow down, no reason fighting over any of this stuff right? (even if understandably ignorance on these forums can be extremely irritating to the more knowledgeable members of the forum, I myself just demonstrated this ignorance a couple posts above) As I said before we all need to drop it.. who cares if its tigre or tiger... same thing really.
Back to the matter at hand though, navy. Abe, just curious but are your last couple lines a reference to the Mini Burke vs F100?
He's nothing but a troll. He's a sycophantic APA follower from other websites who has migrated his way here and done nothing more then launch personal attacks on people (and organisations) who can't defend themselves publicly.
As they allegedly want to argue the "facts", I'll take every available opportunity to make sure we and they) do so...
- Status