Do not want to be awkward because I think we are splitting hairs but I would like just to point out that Navantia also and only outfit blocks in halls and only when blocks are done and fully fitted are then moved to the slipway for "consolidation".The only difference as I see it is is the slight angle difference between the hard and horizontal stand and the slipway, and maybe also a greater availability of heavier cranes and lifting structures to handle bigger blocks on the side of Navantia. I would imagine the last point I made is completely trivial since I am pretty sure ASC has all the lifting equipment required for the project .
About the support given by Navantia to the project.... I would imagine it has been all that was required and contracted to them, too much or to little ???? I do not know but I remember reading a few weeks back in these same pages, a report about the issues on the part of the AWD Alliance, and that very little involvement was required-wanted from Navantia on managing, following up or over all responsibility on the final outcome of the project other than building a few blocks and delivering the design ( 2D!!!!!).
I do imagine that has to do with chunks of the overall project budget and pricing of responsibilities , liabilities within the project. The role of Navantia within the project is little more than that of a subcontractor.
It was made public in Spain a few months back that on the request of the Australian Goverment 17 (I think but could provide links to the news) of Navantia's top project managers involved on the F100 project were moving to Australia to take a hands on role within the build.
Regards.
The reason Navantia has been contracted to send additional personnel to Australia is because the recently sacked defence minister was incompetent and in the pocket of multinationals who were determined to sideline ASC and secure a bigger chunk of the contract for themselves. While I have no issue with any of the Navantia people I worked with I was very disappointed with them at the corporate level specifically relating to the quality and timeliness of design changes and not telling us about issues encountered on F-105, leaving us to find them for ourselves, further mucking up the schedule.
That said Navantias part in the mess is nothing compared to that of Rod Equid (Raytheon employee and head of the Alliance) and BAE Australia the mangler of blocks, to quote my old boss, handing management of the build over to BAE, Raytheon and Navantia is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
On risk management, the Australian government was very poor at it from the late 90s onward, just look at FFGUP, ANZAC WIP, ACPB, LCM2000, Super Sea Sprite, MRH90, ARH, MU90, Wedgetail, Vigilaire, and M-113 upgrade off the top of my head. Can't blame the workers or unions for any of those and they were all different contractors too (although some of the contractors are not blameless), the common factor was Cabinet and more to the point dept of PM&C, can't even blame the DMO as they were set up after many of the troubled projects had started so they were not a common factor either. The real shame is Australia's predominantly privately owned defence industry, i.e. before ASC was nationalised, had been doing quite well for quite a while before this, delivering world class products and securing exports at ever improving schedule and cost.