Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

The "answer" for almost-any politican is to go to so-called independant Consultants whether those consultants are truly independant, truly proficient in arriving at any reasonable conclusion someone here couldn't have reached over coffee in the morning, and produce something that will serve as a guide to be actually followed, rather than serve as a shelf weight.

I am not optimistic...........

in my 1st PS tour I wrote a report at what then was an EL2 equiv (SOG-B). Report was rejected by the 1 star
left the PS, joined one of Australias top 3 consultancies (then) and we did an unsolicited proposal costed at approx 15 times my hourly rate as a SOG-B. We basically resubmitted my original proposal

It was accepted and we scored a contract out of it - from the same headshed under the same Govt I had previously served

go figure

 

[Joe Black]

in my 1st PS tour I wrote a report at what then was an EL2 equiv (SOG-B). Report was rejected by the 1 star
left the PS, joined one of Australias top 3 consultancies (then) and we did an unsolicited proposal costed at approx 15 times my hourly rate as a SOG-B. We basically resubmitted my original proposal

It was accepted and we scored a contract out of it - from the same headshed under the same Govt I had previously served

go figure

It's not just the govt. The private sector behaves exactly like that too. External parties' words are always given more weight than internal, even when the findings are exactly the same. Go figure that.

 

[Joe Black]

Anyway, back to SEA5000, personally I think working with Navantia and coming up with something like the F110 design based on F105 hull or the sea frame will probably be the best for RAN, but like the report says, RAN needs to specify their requirements and they also need to understand not to gold plate everything, and allow a lot of space for future growth.

 

[t68]

Anyway, back to SEA5000, personally I think working with Navantia and coming up with something like the F110 design based on F105 hull or the sea frame will probably be the best for RAN, but like the report says, RAN needs to specify their requirements and they also need to understand not to gold plate everything, and allow a lot of space for future growth.

Wasn't that the diffrence between Navita and the Gibbs&cox the later having exsess growth and the current AWD doesn't ?

 

[StingrayOZ]

quite frankly all of the lessons learnt are available (classified) in the doc that the USN and US Dept of Commerce did

I only had a casual read of the doc, and it didnt read to be authorative but did reference us and uk experiences. Interestingly it doesnt just stick to ships, I found the comparison to tanks, planes, and combatants and non combatants.

I do wonder if how much is read and how much of that is understood. At several levels. It

 

[buglerbilly]

in my 1st PS tour I wrote a report at what then was an EL2 equiv (SOG-B). Report was rejected by the 1 star
left the PS, joined one of Australias top 3 consultancies (then) and we did an unsolicited proposal costed at approx 15 times my hourly rate as a SOG-B. We basically resubmitted my original proposal

It was accepted and we scored a contract out of it - from the same headshed under the same Govt I had previously served

go figure

Yup, sadly happens all too often, in Industry as well as Defence............

 

[t68]

A good article from WA regarding one of the most important peices of the puzzle for Collins and one we ran into on numerous occasions with Kockums, if we modify a soruyo class who owns the IP?

Replacing submarines for Australian defence goes beyond operational sovereignty | watoday.com.au


Any help on this one GF or is it out of bounds for you?

 

[gf0012-aust]

A good article from WA regarding one of the most important peices of the puzzle for Collins and one we ran into on numerous occasions with Kockums, if we modify a soruyo class who owns the IP?

Replacing submarines for Australian defence goes beyond operational sovereignty | watoday.com.au


Any help on this one GF or is it out of bounds for you?

I disagree with some of the arguments proffered in that article - and there is a layer of additional complexity which he doesn't touch

bear in mind that I have no association with the current project but can offer a view from when I was contracting on subs and not employed by defence.

there are tech transfer issues as well as inherited IP issues
the core Japanese design is not Japanese - so how did the japanese modify the base Oyashio design (st georges cross) to the Soryu (st andrews cross) unless they had permission from the original benefactor? (rhetorical)
the best of the euro designs is vaporware - so its the same problem base that we had with kockums - why the hell would we want to travel that road again (regardless of what the vendor says, it changes on the day you sign docs and then from the day that you start disputing about responsibility)
the other euro designs offered have had problems (irrespective of what the manufacturers say behind the wine glass at a conference)
the japanese design as it currently stands is still the best acoustic solution out there - better than any of the current legacy euro designs)
mods made to US nukes on the sails of their subs have appeared across various sub types in the last 20 years - fundamentally its US Govt IP but everyone has copied it (except for RAN as USN provided it to us as part of helping fix Kockums NV issues)

are the mods hull based or internal? different suppliers or different tech sets (combat and sensors) invariably is an acceptable change not hitting on IP issues.
is the drive train changed? if so then that is a significant dynamic that changes sub performance, operational contraints, utility, discretion etc.....

IMO any IP or tech transfer should be about a core build requirement - and any mods done by the customer to meet their own specs are their IP (that can be managed and is done so already with electronic widgets procured)

we've already seen what happens with constraints set by the french and the swedes in the past, the last thing we need is for us not to have control over how we use and modify our own assets - and if the vendors are as honest as they say, then they won't be obstructive. and if we travel down this path it should be negotiated govt to govt and not govt to vendor.

FMS might have some irritations, but the US can control the vendor via State easier than we can

I'm more concerned about AustGov getting held hostage by vendors than I am by countries.

The IP issue is manageable.

 

[t68]

I disagree with some of the arguments proffered in that article - and there is a layer of additional complexity which he doesn't touch

bear in mind that I have no association with the current project but can offer a view from when I was contracting on subs and not employed by defence.

there are tech transfer issues as well as inherited IP issues
the core Japanese design is not Japanese - so how did the japanese modify the base Oyashio design (st georges cross) to the Soryu (st andrews cross) unless they had permission from the original benefactor? (rhetorical)
the best of the euro designs is vaporware - so its the same problem base that we had with kockums - why the hell would we want to travel that road again (regardless of what the vendor says, it changes on the day you sign docs and then from the day that you start disputing about responsibility)
the other euro designs offered have had problems (irrespective of what the manufacturers say behind the wine glass at a conference)
the japanese design as it currently stands is still the best acoustic solution out there - better than any of the current legacy euro designs)
mods made to US nukes on the sails of their subs have appeared across various sub types in the last 20 years - fundamentally its US Govt IP but everyone has copied it (except for RAN as USN provided it to us as part of helping fix Kockums NV issues)

are the mods hull based or internal? different suppliers or different tech sets (combat and sensors) invariably is an acceptable change not hitting on IP issues.
is the drive train changed? if so then that is a significant dynamic that changes sub performance, operational contraints, utility, discretion etc.....

IMO any IP or tech transfer should be about a core build requirement - and any mods done by the customer to meet their own specs are their IP (that can be managed and is done so already with electronic widgets procured)

we've already seen what happens with constraints set by the french and the swedes in the past, the last thing we need is for us not to have control over how we use and modify our own assets - and if the vendors are as honest as they say, then they won't be obstructive. and if we travel down this path it should be negotiated govt to govt and not govt to vendor.

FMS might have some irritations, but the US can control the vendor via State easier than we can

I'm more concerned about AustGov getting held hostage by vendors than I am by countries.

The IP issue is manageable.

Thanks GF

Just need to get my head around it more as I have never dealt with this type of thing or how complex an issue it is.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks GF

Just need to get my head around it more as I have never dealt with this type of thing or how complex an issue it is.

NP.

its a tad compressed so I've broadbrushed.

Its a topic in its own right, a lawyers feast unfort.

 

[the road runner]

Its a topic in its own right, a lawyers feast unfort.

Everyone seems to get their pound of flesh from the defense pie.
One thing .... dose Australia have the "smarts,"to design/build our own subs so the IP will be owned by the Commonwealth of Australia?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Everyone seems to get their pound of flesh from the defense pie.
One thing .... dose Australia have the "smarts,"to design/build our own subs so the IP will be owned by the Commonwealth of Australia?

anythng we buy from offshore gets looked at by legals so as to ensure what our rights are.

the commonwealth is now very tough on IP issues

lessons learnt

 

[Volkodav]

anythng we buy from offshore gets looked at by legals so as to ensure what our rights are.

the commonwealth is now very tough on IP issues

lessons learnt

I could not believe the Kockums IP deal, to give you an idea of how bad it was, if I was told that the the Australian government team who negotiated it subsequently moved on to negotiate Australia's free trade agreements, you know the ones that incompetently sacrificed Australian manufacturing and technology industries (major employers) for the sake of greater export opportunities for primary producers and resource sectors (comparatively small workforces).

Fewer people working means fewer people paying tax and more people on welfare which is a drain on government coffers. More specifically, production workers, engineering trades, technicians and professional engineers tend to be on well above average wages and as such, they pay more tax, receive less welfare, have private health cover, tend to send their children to private schools, buy / build new houses, buy new cars, go on expensive holidays etc. Low paid service industry workers, which is all that is left for the majority who aren't farmers or miners are pretty much the opposite, they pay less tax, receive more welfare and can't afford to do anything above subsistence. This is why developing countries aim to develop manufacturing industries, then heavy engineering and finally high tech industries instead of just relying on agriculture and mining. Australia has it completely back to front, we have killed off or are killing off manufacturing and heavy industry without a robust high tech sector to supercede them.

 

[Volkodav]

anythng we buy from offshore gets looked at by legals so as to ensure what our rights are.

the commonwealth is now very tough on IP issues

lessons learnt

I could not believe the Kockums IP deal, to give you an idea of how bad it was, if I was told that the the Australian government team who negotiated it subsequently moved on to negotiate Australia's free trade agreements, you know the ones that incompetently sacrificed Australian manufacturing and technology industries (major employers) for the sake of greater export opportunities for primary producers and resource sectors (comparatively small workforces).

Fewer people working means fewer people paying tax and more people on welfare which is a drain on government coffers. More specifically, production workers, engineering trades, technicians and professional engineers tend to be on well above average wages and as such, they pay more tax, receive less welfare, have private health cover, tend to send their children to private schools, buy / build new houses, buy new cars, go on expensive holidays etc. Low paid service industry workers, which is all that is left for the majority who aren't farmers or miners are pretty much the opposite, they pay less tax, receive more welfare and can't afford to do anything above subsistence. This is why developing countries aim to develop manufacturing industries, then heavy engineering and finally high tech industries instead of just relying on agriculture and mining. Australia has it completely back to front, we have killed off or are killing off manufacturing and heavy industry without a robust high tech sector to supercede them.

 

[RobWilliams]

Flight trials for HMAS Canberra whilst underway are to begin in March next year with the goal to have MRH-90 and S70-B qualified by the middle of the year.

RAN prepares for March 2015 flight trials on first-of-class LHD - IHS Jane's 360

There is a plan to use some of the data collected for MH-60R trials however according to the RAN Cmdr there are currently no plans for embarking that helicopter. Limited clearances for other classes of helicopter are expected to be announced to allow foreign visitors.

Tiger ARH and CH-47F flight trials are planned for 2016.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I could not believe the Kockums IP deal, to give you an idea of how bad it was, if I was told that the the Australian government team who negotiated it subsequently moved on to negotiate Australia's free trade agreements, you know the ones that incompetently sacrificed Australian manufacturing and technology industries (major employers) for the sake of greater export opportunities for primary producers and resource sectors (comparatively small workforces).

Fewer people working means fewer people paying tax and more people on welfare which is a drain on government coffers. More specifically, production workers, engineering trades, technicians and professional engineers tend to be on well above average wages and as such, they pay more tax, receive less welfare, have private health cover, tend to send their children to private schools, buy / build new houses, buy new cars, go on expensive holidays etc. Low paid service industry workers, which is all that is left for the majority who aren't farmers or miners are pretty much the opposite, they pay less tax, receive more welfare and can't afford to do anything above subsistence. This is why developing countries aim to develop manufacturing industries, then heavy engineering and finally high tech industries instead of just relying on agriculture and mining. Australia has it completely back to front, we have killed off or are killing off manufacturing and heavy industry without a robust high tech sector to supercede them.

successive governments have screwed local industry in the quest for FTA's and not had a plan

first was textile and clothing, now its manufacturing. they still think that manufacturing is about fitters and turners, capstan lathes and hydraulic presses

turning the country into a quarry or gas extractor is not a business generation model

 

[buglerbilly]

Hey! Leave the Gas Extractors alone, I work for one!

If you want to look at manufacturing Industry in Australia, then you need to have a consistent strategy NOT reliant on what you currently have but on what you WANT & (strategically) need............

Car manufacturing was a dead duck in Australia as soon as Free Trade was discussed with anyone, full stop. No amount of Union whinging, or State or Federal hand-outs was going to change that. What have we got to replace that that is of worth? Nothing, zip, de nada, nowt, zero!

No thoughts, zero ideas, and no one standing up and saying what about this? You want to keep manufacturing in Australia? With what?

Tell me a good proposal, I'm all ears..........

Back to the IP requirements, what do you need them for, that's the question that needs to be seriously asked and for why? THEN you approach the Japanese or anyone else and say this is what I need, bottom-line, if you cannot provide that then Sayonara Chopsticks, Auf Wiedersehen Puppsi, Au Revoir Mon-sewer and Farvä´l Meatballs, simple as that!

You need a very clear declaration of what it is you want to achieve under ALL current and future circumstances. WE need the ability to maintain and modify the subs according to our developing needs. If we touch the Hull, we SHOULD refer back to the designer for his agreement, not the reason why we are touching his hull but that fact the hull will stand up to the modification. If we change the Combat Centre then we refer back to the USA. This is NOT Einstein stuff.........you just have to state up-front this is what you need or bye bye.

ASC should be told, STFU, you are owned by the Government, YOU are our Servants not our Rulers, nor are you on par! IF this was industry, and a subsidiary made the same level of "noise" there'd be wholesale disposal of the whole of their senior management. Because the Government owns them they feel free to spout whatever crap they can come up with..........really? Y'all think that's an OK thing?

ASC has continually ignored the fact their money will be made from Final Fit-out and more significantly, Life-cycle maintenance........more money over a longer time, consistent cash-flow for 20-30 years.........I'd love to have a business like that!

Anyway, my 20 cents worth...........

Regards, BUG

 

[Volkodav]

successive governments have screwed local industry in the quest for FTA's and not had a plan

first was textile and clothing, now its manufacturing. they still think that manufacturing is about fitters and turners, capstan lathes and hydraulic presses

turning the country into a quarry or gas extractor is not a business generation model

And whether certain elements like it or not, coal, in particular, is on its way out due to environmental reasons. Forget greenhouse gases and climate change, I am talking smog, brown haze over cities and all the associated health problems it causes. Poisoned water supplies, ruined farmland, a lot of environmentalism has little if anything to do with climate change and anyone who denies the damage done by pollution needs to look at the bigger picture.

 

[Volkodav]

Hey! Leave the Gas Extractors alone, I work for one!

If you want to look at manufacturing Industry in Australia, then you need to have a consistent strategy NOT reliant on what you currently have but on what you WANT & (strategically) need............

Car manufacturing was a dead duck in Australia as soon as Free Trade was discussed with anyone, full stop. No amount of Union whinging, or State or Federal hand-outs was going to change that. What have we got to replace that that is of worth? Nothing, zip, de nada, nowt, zero!

No thoughts, zero ideas, and no one standing up and saying what about this? You want to keep manufacturing in Australia? With what?

Tell me a good proposal, I'm all ears..........

Back to the IP requirements, what do you need them for, that's the question that needs to be seriously asked and for why? THEN you approach the Japanese or anyone else and say this is what I need, bottom-line, if you cannot provide that then Sayonara Chopsticks, Auf Wiedersehen Puppsi, Au Revoir Mon-sewer and Farvä´l Meatballs, simple as that!

You need a very clear declaration of what it is you want to achieve under ALL current and future circumstances. WE need the ability to maintain and modify the subs according to our developing needs. If we touch the Hull, we SHOULD refer back to the designer for his agreement, not the reason why we are touching his hull but that fact the hull will stand up to the modification. If we change the Combat Centre then we refer back to the USA. This is NOT Einstein stuff.........you just have to state up-front this is what you need or bye bye.

ASC should be told, STFU, you are owned by the Government, YOU are our Servants not our Rulers, nor are you on par! IF this was industry, and a subsidiary made the same level of "noise" there'd be wholesale disposal of the whole of their senior management. Because the Government owns them they feel free to spout whatever crap they can come up with..........really? Y'all think that's an OK thing?

ASC has continually ignored the fact their money will be made from Final Fit-out and more significantly, Life-cycle maintenance........more money over a longer time, consistent cash-flow for 20-30 years.........I'd love to have a business like that!

Anyway, my 20 cents worth...........

Regards, BUG

On the first, easy, ask VW to set up a state of the art facility in Australia, tax free, producing a range of models on their modular platform. The government will make their money off income tax, gst and the fact the components industry will survive. A win win.

Personally I think you have it back to front on ASC, a privately owned company would never put up with the level of government interference and gagging that ASC is forced to live with. In fact, BAE, Raytheon and Navantia have all been more to blame for the issues with the AWD than ASC, but being private companies, are able to respond to criticisms, lobby and tell outright lies. Much of the public comment attributed to ASC is actually the findings of independent inquiries or in response to direct questioning in senate committees.

I find it interesting that less than twelve months after submarine maintenance has been completely turned around by ASC finally being able to do the work in a sensible methodical manner based on adequate upfront funding and receiving accolades for their performance their CEO has been forced to resign by the owner, they are now apparently not trusted to build a canoe and all future work is set to be done offshore. No wonder the Defence Minister has been sacked, his handling of shipbuilding and sustainment has been little short of schizophrenic. Things would be very different if ASC had never been nationalised.

 

[buglerbilly]

Personally I think you have it back to front on ASC, a privately owned company would never put up with the level of government interference and gagging that ASC is forced to live with. In fact, BAE, Raytheon and Navantia have all been more to blame for the issues with the AWD than ASC, but being private companies, are able to respond to criticisms, lobby and tell outright lies. Much of the public comment attributed to ASC is actually the findings of independent inquiries or in response to direct questioning in senate committees.

Perhaps I have, I'm not personally involved with anything to do with the AWD programme, I just read and listen, or try to.

Now let us suppose you are correct BAE, Raytheon and Navantia are the primary groups at fault, I don't see half the pronouncements from them I see from ASC so perhaps the gagging aspect is somehow related to something else? Lobbying is a fact of life unfortunately, personally, I'd like to make most aspects of it a criminal offence under expanded anti-corruption laws. Tell outright lies? Really? And what would they be then? IF anyone has told lies then I'd expect there to be a negative reaction from the Government at least............

Does my response sound pro-BAE et al?

Do not live under that illusion, I wouldn't trust any of them further than I can throw a grand piano. None of them have anywhere near-immaculate Project Management experience or capability.

What severely pains me is that in the middle of this mish-mash we appear to have almost illusionary control of the project, despite the fact we are years into it and have tens if not hundreds of Government staff or consultant personnel working for us in senior positions.

What's everybody doing? Getting paid for?

If we cannot adequately Project Manage the AWD or LHD, why on Earth does anyone think that somehow, miraculously, we are going to get better for a 6/8/10 or 12 x sub programme? And Project MANAGEMENT is the key here, at the moment we are akin to the old saying "couldn't organise a p**s-up in a brewery", a state of affairs it severely pains me to see.

By the way, my background is 40+ years Contracts and Procurement management for Major Projects in Oil and Gas & Resources but with a smattering of Government-related stuff buried in there.

One thing I do know is how a major project should be run. Unfortunately, all too often I see people wandering around like a fart in the breeze seemingly incapable of asking for help from other people, even in their own group or company, who have vastly more knowledge and experience, both good and BAD.......

It pains me that something so vital as Defence repeats the same or similar mistakes time after time..............would I trust ASC to build a canoe? Nope, not from an industrial or project management viewpoint, they are nowhere near ready to LEAD a major project...........

All of this puts aside the "nasty" questions of Per Tonne COSTS to build the damn things..............

Thanks for listening..............apologies if I get over-emotive about some aspects but if you cannot believe passionately in some things, don't believe at all and keep your mouth shut............

Regards, BUG

On the first, easy, ask VW to set up a state of the art facility in Australia, tax free, producing a range of models on their modular platform. The government will make their money off income tax, gst and the fact the components industry will survive. A win win.

Nope! VW would do exactly what they did, go to Thailand and China where you are paying far LESS in per hour costs to build the things that you then ship to Australia under the Free Trade Agreements. AND they get Tax Free to establish and/or expand............