Yes, and the resultant decisions are not always logical or even the best choice from the tendered competitors.
As Assail says there are numerous examples in the ADF that politics has screwed with, without even looking abroad
MB
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
As Assail says there are numerous examples in the ADF that politics has screwed with, without even looking abroad
MB
I should point out that steel id being cut on the first Type 26 very shortly and build will be well advanced and the baseline should be well established well before we cut steel, even if it is 2020.
I should add the issue with the Hobart build wasn't the new or modified parts, which our limited number of experts were all over, but the basic stuff that should have been right, considering Hobart was the sixth ship of that basic design, an existing supply chain, and established block subcontractors were used.
The problem was the design data was not complete and contained errors that the Spanish yard had been aware of and worked around, contractual issues forced a change in block subcontractors, Williamstown was not up to speed when they started work and key, non technical people had no idea of the actual situation, i.e. the actual risk profile.
These things will not be an issue on any of the new frigate options, unless of course Austal get all twelve OPVs and Tec Port sits dormant for two years. Most of the people who learnt their trade on the Hobarts are still around and if they could make it through that contractual mess the new frigates shouldn't be any harder.
The problem isn't new or different features on the selected design, its being able to identify and mitigate risk. If you put your limited resources' into fixing something that isn't broken you could miss something that you thought was ok but wasn't.
I should add the issue with the Hobart build wasn't the new or modified parts, which our limited number of experts were all over, but the basic stuff that should have been right, considering Hobart was the sixth ship of that basic design, an existing supply chain, and established block subcontractors were used.
The problem was the design data was not complete and contained errors that the Spanish yard had been aware of and worked around, contractual issues forced a change in block subcontractors, Williamstown was not up to speed when they started work and key, non technical people had no idea of the actual situation, i.e. the actual risk profile.
These things will not be an issue on any of the new frigate options, unless of course Austal get all twelve OPVs and Tec Port sits dormant for two years. Most of the people who learnt their trade on the Hobarts are still around and if they could make it through that contractual mess the new frigates shouldn't be any harder.
The problem isn't new or different features on the selected design, its being able to identify and mitigate risk. If you put your limited resources' into fixing something that isn't broken you could miss something that you thought was ok but wasn't.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
No doubt the discussion on which of the three designs is best suited for the RAN's Future Frigate will rage on until the Government makes the announcement (and will probably rage on until well after too!).
And has been pointed out a number of times, the RFT is not in the public domain, so we are all 'guessing' and making assumptions on which of the contenders will meet the RFT specs.
There appears to be plus and minus with all three (my opinion of course!).
Navantia Evolved AWD/F105
When it comes to meeting the deadline of 'cutting steel' in 2020, the evolved AWD would certainly appear to have a bit of head start, being an evolution of what's in production now, yes questions have been raised as to the 'age' and suitability of that design for the Future Frigate, but lets not forget that the USN's AB Class Destroyers have been in 'series' production since the late 1980's and continue to be in production, and no doubt evolved and improved since that time too.
And something that doesn't get mentioned these days, is that back in mid 2014 the (then) Def Min Johnston announced that the Govt was investing approx. $80m for 'design and engineering research' for the evolution of the AWD hull:
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...ranscript-naval-shipbuilding-announcement-cea
The relevant paragraphs are:
BAE Type 26
On the one hand the T26 is the least mature of the three designs and possibly less likely to meet the 2020 cutting steel deadline, but on the other hand the UK is going to commence cutting steel this year (three years before Australia), possibly their first hull might be in the water (not commissioned), by that time, so the 'basic' ship should be a known entity.
Some of the 'pluses' in my opinion are, production of at least 17 hulls (RAN 9, RN 8), over the same period of time, and potentially (if Canada choses the T26, and if it gets it act together!), approx. a total of 30 hulls in production at the same time.
With 17, or up to 30, hulls of the same 'basic' design under construction at the same time there is the 'potential' for savings in construction with bulk purchase of the various basic systems, and also through life support and future upgrades too.
And lets not forget BAE Australia's relationship with CEA (CEAFAR) during the Anzac class ASMD upgrade program, I could go on...
FREMM
The wild card in the pack (but so was the F-105 too!), on the one hand it is the one ship that is in current series production, but it needs to be modified for CEAFAR (so do the other two), one thing of note is the lack of 'spare' real estate on the bow, room for 32 VLS and a 5" gun and not much more (could do with a stretch of a few metres 'if' 48 VLS was part of the RFT).
The evolved F105 is probably the ship that is easiest to get into production to follow on from AWD's, but is it the right ship for the 30 years of service life ahead of it?
The Type 26 is probably the least mature (more risk?), but maybe it is the right ship for the next 30 years of service.
FREMM, the wild card, toss of the coin?, it's in the short list, so it does have a one in three chance of being selected.
Anyway, just my two cents worth, what would I predict? Not going there.....
Cheers,
And has been pointed out a number of times, the RFT is not in the public domain, so we are all 'guessing' and making assumptions on which of the contenders will meet the RFT specs.
There appears to be plus and minus with all three (my opinion of course!).
Navantia Evolved AWD/F105
When it comes to meeting the deadline of 'cutting steel' in 2020, the evolved AWD would certainly appear to have a bit of head start, being an evolution of what's in production now, yes questions have been raised as to the 'age' and suitability of that design for the Future Frigate, but lets not forget that the USN's AB Class Destroyers have been in 'series' production since the late 1980's and continue to be in production, and no doubt evolved and improved since that time too.
And something that doesn't get mentioned these days, is that back in mid 2014 the (then) Def Min Johnston announced that the Govt was investing approx. $80m for 'design and engineering research' for the evolution of the AWD hull:
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...ranscript-naval-shipbuilding-announcement-cea
The relevant paragraphs are:
I have never seen anything reported in the public domain about the results of that $80m investment, but assuming no doubt that Navantia and CEA were involved in that 'design and engineering' study, it would appear to give a 'head start' to the evolved AWD design for this competition.
BAE Type 26
On the one hand the T26 is the least mature of the three designs and possibly less likely to meet the 2020 cutting steel deadline, but on the other hand the UK is going to commence cutting steel this year (three years before Australia), possibly their first hull might be in the water (not commissioned), by that time, so the 'basic' ship should be a known entity.
Some of the 'pluses' in my opinion are, production of at least 17 hulls (RAN 9, RN 8), over the same period of time, and potentially (if Canada choses the T26, and if it gets it act together!), approx. a total of 30 hulls in production at the same time.
With 17, or up to 30, hulls of the same 'basic' design under construction at the same time there is the 'potential' for savings in construction with bulk purchase of the various basic systems, and also through life support and future upgrades too.
And lets not forget BAE Australia's relationship with CEA (CEAFAR) during the Anzac class ASMD upgrade program, I could go on...
FREMM
The wild card in the pack (but so was the F-105 too!), on the one hand it is the one ship that is in current series production, but it needs to be modified for CEAFAR (so do the other two), one thing of note is the lack of 'spare' real estate on the bow, room for 32 VLS and a 5" gun and not much more (could do with a stretch of a few metres 'if' 48 VLS was part of the RFT).
The evolved F105 is probably the ship that is easiest to get into production to follow on from AWD's, but is it the right ship for the 30 years of service life ahead of it?
The Type 26 is probably the least mature (more risk?), but maybe it is the right ship for the next 30 years of service.
FREMM, the wild card, toss of the coin?, it's in the short list, so it does have a one in three chance of being selected.
Anyway, just my two cents worth, what would I predict? Not going there.....
Cheers,
I hope note as that is a recipe for block obsolescence during build (as happened with the ANZAC). I Purchase contract that systems to be evolved over the build is essential. This can be negotiated with a provider but is critical in avoiding known issues
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I do understand the problem of 'block' obsolescence if 'all' is purchased and delivered at the one time, but may not be fitted until many many years later.
But, if such a large number of ships were ordered then the 'bits' (whatever they are), are ordered in batches, obviously the next batch is an evolution of the first and so on.
Certainly not suggesting that all the bits are ordered and stored in the one go, more an ongoing process, eg, there will be X number required, but delivered and evolved over X years, etc.
Just to add to the noise around SEA 5000, I wouldn't rule out a split build of 3 x MoD Navantia and 6 x ? But probably T26.
This would seem to be the lease risky option whereby Navantia could leverage the work already done on the Hobarts and BAE will have derisked the T26 having already commissioned a couple.
I guess the one impediment here would be the contractual arrangements and whether they're written for 9 single type. The other would be the shipyard arrangements where the contract may be devalued to the point where infrastructure investment in the yard becomes uneconomical for the builder.
This would seem to be the lease risky option whereby Navantia could leverage the work already done on the Hobarts and BAE will have derisked the T26 having already commissioned a couple.
I guess the one impediment here would be the contractual arrangements and whether they're written for 9 single type. The other would be the shipyard arrangements where the contract may be devalued to the point where infrastructure investment in the yard becomes uneconomical for the builder.
Certainly there would be merit in this option as we would need a new hull for the follow on AAW DDG to follow the last future frigate (destroyer)
PS: not holding my breath though
Last edited:
That would be ideal, the reason I make this point is they have done it before and the idea of saving a bundle by buying 9 shipsets at the outset is not beyond expectations ...... despite the fact it is a poor decision.
Possible, but unlikely. I think for other reasons the government doesn't want to be tied to a single build. If the project goes pearshaped,it will drag on for a long time. The AWD project for all of its flaws, was at least a short one.
I think the F-105 is all that is viable now. I think the Type 26 is what we really want.
3+3+6 would seem to be a fair compromise.
Yes but the supply chain director you did that was the sort of bloke who would walk into the solid pain of glass next to the automatic doors, spend an entire meeting day dreaming while playing with the retractor for his security pass and rip into people for being too fussy about unimportant things before ignoring everything they said and proceeding to make every mistake they tried to warn him about. Unfortunately this is what you get when you employ non defence commercial "experts" into high end technical projects.
I suspect from my experience and interactions the potential for the same approach to be re-employed is not yet zero
Regardless of design surely the build would be done in three batches of three?
At the planned rate of production each batch would span 5 years and you would expect a fair bit of technological change in that time.
Regards,
Massive
This would be the logical approach but once the pollies and the non defence bureaucrats are involved, all such logic is null and void.
And lets remember we built the 10 ANZACs as a single production run. I think the lessons of that have not been lost on all so I am hoping that it will be iterative batches
As has been discussed there is merit in all three designs and I guess it makes selecting the winner hard to predict.
I would suspect all three contenders would serve the RAN well, so the point of difference may not necessarily be the ship, but defence/governments confidence in the long term relationship with manufacturer and supply chain that may prove the decider.
Regards S
Damen has announced that the new Multi-role Aviation Training Vessel (MATV) MV Sycamore has successfully completed its sea trials and is scheduled to arrive in Australia next month.
Successful sea trials for Australian MATV | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
The timing could be pretty fortuitous for Damen in its quest to win the SEA 1180 contract
... and here she is in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL1SU46Kwo8
Successful sea trials for Australian MATV | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
The timing could be pretty fortuitous for Damen in its quest to win the SEA 1180 contract
... and here she is in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL1SU46Kwo8
Last edited:
And again this is not a warship. It is a commercial vessel with a flight deck and some service equipment to support aviation training. While it appears to be a well managed project it is not the same as a military build with a combat system and weapons.
I like the Damen OPV product we need to compare apples with apples
True, probably doesn't hurt. Damen have also been selected for the icebreaker.
BTW there is a competition to name it.. Boaty McBoatface?
I would hope we get something of the size of the UK river class batch II. It would seem silly not to learn from the UK mistakes (batch I are being withdrawn?).
River class Batch 1 is being withdrawn because we're buying Batch 2.
We're buying Batch 2 because we have a contract with BAE to spend a minimum amount on warships each year, meant to tie us into continuous build to avoid the waste inherent in stop-go.
Despite having that contract in place the MoD & politicians have failed to get their act together to order the planned ships, i.e. Type 26..
So we had to either give BAE the money for nothing, or order something.
Buying something has the advantages of keeping up workforce skills (one of the aims of the continuous build contract), & we can also get something better & newer than what we already have.
River Batch 2 was about the only thing that could start building quickly enough & would actually be useful.
So, we're not buying 'em because Batch 1 is thought to need replacing. It's the other way round.
It's a ghastly waste of money, entirely due to the shocking incompetence & indecisiveness of politicians, the MoD, & the RN high command.
We're buying Batch 2 because we have a contract with BAE to spend a minimum amount on warships each year, meant to tie us into continuous build to avoid the waste inherent in stop-go.
Despite having that contract in place the MoD & politicians have failed to get their act together to order the planned ships, i.e. Type 26..
So we had to either give BAE the money for nothing, or order something.
Buying something has the advantages of keeping up workforce skills (one of the aims of the continuous build contract), & we can also get something better & newer than what we already have.
River Batch 2 was about the only thing that could start building quickly enough & would actually be useful.
So, we're not buying 'em because Batch 1 is thought to need replacing. It's the other way round.
It's a ghastly waste of money, entirely due to the shocking incompetence & indecisiveness of politicians, the MoD, & the RN high command.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
That sounds so Canadian!
- Status