New Submarines

[pottery beige]

cool story bro

this is the word on the street

The Prime Minister's Office released a statement on Tuesday saying: "Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the Government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity.

we're building a prototype, thats as easy and as simple as i can keep it

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by cheap

Defence Minister doesn't trust Australian shipbuilder to make 'a canoe'

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...25-11tqv7.html

Defence Minister David Johnston says he wouldn't trust the government's own shipbuilding firm to "build a canoe", seriously denting hopes the next fleet of submarines will be made locally.

The extraordinary remark comes as the government weighs up whether the replacement for the Collins Class submarine will be built in Australia or outsourced overseas.

The Adelaide-based government shipbuilder ASC would be certain to play a role in any local work on the new submarines.

The firm is also central to the $8 billion project to build Australia's most powerful ever warship, the Air Warfare Destroyer, and is responsible for sustainment work on the Collins Class.

But in response to questions from the Opposition in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Johnston took aim at ASC over its recent poor performance on the three Air Warfare Destroyer ships, which is deeply over budget and beset by delays.

"They're $350 million over budget on three Air Warfare Destroyer builds. I'm being conservative. It's probably more than $600 million, but because the data is so bad, I can't tell you.

"You wonder why I'm worried about ASC and wonder what they're delivering to the Australian taxpayer? You wonder why I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe?"

Senator Johnston has repeatedly said in the past that local shipbuilders including ASC would need to lift their game to win the new submarine work, but Tuesday's remarks go much further.

They came amid a stoush in Parliament over the projected cost of building the new submarines locally, which the ASC itself put during a Senate hearing last week at $18 billion to $24 billion for 12 boats – figures the government dismissed but which Labor seized on to back the case for building them in Australia.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute however has found 12 new boats would cost about $36 billion – generally seen as the most thorough independent estimate.

A spokeswoman for ASC declined to comment and referred questions to the office of Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who serves as the firm's shareholder on behalf of the federal government.

Senator Cormann's office did not respond to Fairfax Media's enquiries by deadline.

Labor swiftly leapt on Senator Johnston's remarks, demanding that he return to the Senate chamber and apologise to the workers of ASC, though Shadow Defence Minister Stephen Conroy stopped short of calling for the minister to resign.

The Opposition has been running a hard campaign against any proposal to build the next fleet of submarines overseas.

The government is understood to have been enthusiastic several months ago to pursue a deal with Japan for a version of its Soryu Class boat. But since then, it appears that concerns in Japan about sharing such sensitive technology, along with dogged counter-lobbying by Germany, France and Sweden, have thrown open the field.

Government MPs in South Australia are also understood to be feeling heat over the diversion of potential manufacturing jobs if the submarine work is sent abroad.

The European countries have all said that at least some of the building work could be done in Adelaide.

The Prime Minister's Office released a statement on Tuesday saying: "Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the Government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity.

Dont worry bro, nearly 50% of us don't trust the current mob to run the country so it goes both ways.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Dont worry bro, nearly 50% of us don't trust the current mob to run the country so it goes both ways.

i wont get in to it much

massive project, and what you read on wiki and what the knockers love to read

they want you to believe

[Road_Warrior]

I'd like to see the full Hansard transcript to see if that is what he actually said...

[cheap]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

cool story bro

this is the word on the street

The Prime Minister's Office released a statement on Tuesday saying: "Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the Government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity.

we're building a prototype, thats as easy and as simple as i can keep it

Something like this?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by cheap

Something like this?

image

much like all your other posts

out of yo depth bro

[cheap]

Looking forward to seeing the prototype materialise, but then again we probably never will, ASC would claim it is ultra stealth, so advanced it can not every been seen.

Just as long as it isn't a canoe ASC will be fine.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by cheap

Looking forward to seeing the prototype materialise, but then again we probably never will, ASC would claim it is ultra stealth, so advanced it can not every been seen.

Just as long as it isn't a canoe ASC will be fine.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by cheap

Something like this?

image

That would be no good, Seppo subs are Left hand drive !

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

cool story bro

this is the word on the street

The Prime Minister's Office released a statement on Tuesday saying: "Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the Government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity.

we're building a prototype, thats as easy and as simple as i can keep it

So why is the AWD such a prototype? Isn't the hull a proven production hull? Granted the Aegis combat system is a total redesign for the hull. Still reckon we should have gone with the Arleigh Burkes.
The ANZACs were largely changed in design and built here too, Williamstown did a damn fine job on those, not to mention the current ASMD upgrades.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Cashie

So why is the AWD such a prototype? Isn't the hull a proven production hull? Granted the Aegis combat system is a total redesign for the hull. Still reckon we should have gone with the Arleigh Burkes.
The ANZACs were largely changed in design and built here too, Williamstown did a damn fine job on those, not to mention the current ASMD upgrades.

bout this much, plus a little bit of column B, column C... etc

Ship 2 is coming along quite well, lessons learnt

[Road_Warrior]

Ship 01 of any new build program is always going to have problems, the whole learning curve and all that, this isn't like building a kit car in your garage, ships are quite complex things to build, multiply that by a factor of three if you're talking about naval construction. Arleigh Burkes were a non starter because they were too large and expensive so designer Gibbs & Cox produced a scaled down version for the project which was a horrid looking thing and wasn't a proven design, the F100 was already in service with the Armada and was using AN-SPY1E/F and Aegis plus met the size and design criteria for the project, gave Navy the ability to choose its powertrain and there were supposedly benefits to be had by buying the design from the same builder of the LHD

[Road_Warrior]

Poor form Minister, poor form.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston. I refer the minister to his mocking comments about the CEO of submarine builder ASC, Mr Stuart Wiley:

The guy's a fascinating submarine sustainer but I'm not sure he's built too many himself.

Why is the minister so intent on breaking his promise to build 12 new submarines in Adelaide that he is now personally denigrating someone who has built and maintained all six Collins class submarines at the ASC for the past 25 years?

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:57): It may be that we have one submarine builder in Adelaide, because we have not built one for 20 years. I want to say that, when I was appointed to this particular ministry, I was told two key facts by the department with respect to submarines. Firstly, that the inaction of the previous government meant that we were facing a very serious capability gap because of the planned withdrawal date of the Collins class submarine. Of course, Senator, you would be aware that this is a vital piece of strategic deterrence to us, given we have most of the value of our $1.6 trillion economy using the sea. Secondly—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator JOHNSTON: I note that I am being interrupted by the person sitting at the table leading the opposition. She knows the truth about the value of this program. The estimated cost of the future submarine program was said to me to be more than $40 billion. Essentially the same figure was handed to me from the previous government. That is the whole program cost for 12 submarines.

The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock.

Senator Moore: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. There was only one question; it was asking the minister why he was denigrating Mr Wiley, and we have not come close to that.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Moore. I remind the minister that he has 39 seconds left to answer the question.

Senator JOHNSTON: These numbers should be known by everyone in the submarine enterprise. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute supported the $40 billion price tag by saying, in 2009, that they thought the value of 12 submarines built in Adelaide would be $36 billion. Taking into account the cost of inflation, the out-turned dollar value of a 20-year build of 12 submarines is—

The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock.

Senator Moore: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. In terms of the process, the minister may feel that we need to know those figures, but the question was: why is he denigrating Mr Wiley?

Senator JOHNSTON: Everybody knows, including the former finance minister, that the out-turned cost of the program in the 2009 white paper was more than $80 billion. As finance minister, she knows that number, and that is why they did nothing. That is why they— (Time expired)

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (14:59): I have a supplementary question. I refer to Senate estimates, where the CEO of the ASC, Mr Wiley also said he had 'no idea how anyone could come up with an estimated local build cost of $80 billion' for our new submarines. Will the minister stop using this outrageously inflated estimate to justify breaking his promise to build Australia's future submarines in Adelaide?

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (15:00): Senator, if you were honest with the Senate you would show us the piece of paper that I have seen, because I asked ASC to show me their costings. It is a one-page document based upon a piece of computer software, where you fit in a 4,000 tonne submarine in terms of materials, and out pops a number. They do not even know our top-end requirements. They have never designed a submarine at ASC. They have never designed a submarine.

Let's get real here. This is not for people who are looking for a job. This is a professional program that is about national security, and we will take the advice of the service chiefs, not somebody who is looking for a job.

The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock.

Senator Conroy: I rise on a point of order. The minister is referring to a document. I was wondering if the minister would table it for the Senate. He is inviting people to know.

Here is your chance: table it.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, do you have anything on the point of order? There is no point of order, Senator Conroy.

Senator JOHNSTON: The opposition is fully aware of the problem that is confronting the government with this program. Having done nothing they are now saying, 'You should be doing something.' They did nothing because they had costed it at an out-turned dollar value of $88 billion.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:01): I have a further supplementary question. Why has the minister resorted to trashing the hard-working men and women of the Australian ship and submarine building industry in order to justify breaking his promise? Isn't it time that government held a competitive tender process for our new submarine fleet so that the Australian people can be confident that the submarines were chosen on merit, not the personal bias of the minister?

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (15:02): ASC was delivering no submarines in 2009 for $1 billion. ASC was delivering no submarines for Australia in 2009 for $1 billion. They have no improved their output, thankfully, after two or three visits from Mr Coles to tell them how to do it properly. They are $350 million over budget on three air-warfare destroyer builds. I am being conservative. It is probably more than $600 million but because the data is so bad I cannot tell you. You wonder why I am worried about ASC and what they are delivering to the Australian taxpayer! Do you wonder why I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe? What they have done on the air-warfare destroyer I have had to—and Mathias Cormann has had to—repair. And she is the one who owned them. She owns them! She let the project just go to the four winds. It is all her fault. (Time expired)

Senator Abetz: Mr President, I ask that further question be placed on the Notice Paper.

Senator Wong: I would ask the President to consider, after looking at the Hansard, the standing order—I think it is 168—dealing with the tabling of documents in light of the minister's answer. I just ask that you reflect upon that.

The PRESIDENT: I can probably deal with that now. That standing order refers to document that were quoted from. I do not believe the minister was quoting from a document.

An opposition senator: He did.

The PRESIDENT: Let me investigate, and I am happy to report back to you if I need to do that.

[Road_Warrior]

Interesting. I've just found out that Liberal sycophant Sophie Mirabella has been parachuted into a position on the board of ASC. You couldn't get a more anti-local industry board member if you tried.

[pottery beige]

*bump for cheap*

business as usual lads, keep up the good work

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Interesting. I've just found out that Liberal sycophant Sophie Mirabella has been parachuted into a position on the board of ASC. You couldn't get a more anti-local industry board member if you tried.

I think you will find several new members were appointed to the ASC Board at the same time as Mirabella.

If you have a problem with Mirabella then you'd also have a problem with union hacks with zero experience appointed to boards or running their own private quango's.

Ever wonder who is managing union superannuation funds (like CBUS), ever wonder what these people get up to, their renumeration, their ethics - go and read the transcripts of the Union corruption royal commission, what a fine upstanding bunch that board is (not).

[mcnews]

Mirabella was parachuted into there because the ignorant cow was stupid enough to lose her own seat (where I live)

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by cheap

I think you will find several new members were appointed to the ASC Board at the same time as Mirabella.

If you have a problem with Mirabella then you'd also have a problem with union hacks with zero experience appointed to boards or running their own private quango's.

Ever wonder who is managing union superannuation funds (like CBUS), ever wonder what these people get up to, their renumeration, their ethics - go and read the transcripts of the Union corruption royal commission, what a fine upstanding bunch that board is (not).

The only three board members who have been appointed to the board since the federal election are Paul Rizzo, Peter Iancov, and Sophie Mirabella.

The latter person in that list made it her business to bad mouth and ridicule Australia's car industry and its people at a time when the car industry simply didn't need that sort of rubbish, especially from a politician.

Yes I'm sure there are a dirty bastards from Union circles in places they should not be. I don't doubt that for one second. But I'm not a union sycophant and I'm not an Liberal party arselicker either, I am a pragmatist that has a huge issue with a former Liberal politician being put on the board of a company, an industrial company tasked with supporting our national security, who has such a bias against industry in the first place.

[pottery beige]

I have no clue who this Sophie chick is??

I'm busy trying to build a ship

no bs

[Road_Warrior]

THE AUSTRALIAN DECEMBER 10, 2014 12:00AM
Cameron Stewart
Associate Editor
Melbourne

THE success or failure of the seven-month rescue plan unveiled for the country’s largest defence project is likely to determine whether warships continue to be built in Australia.

If this latest plan does not get the $8.5 billion Air Warfare Destroyer project back on track by July, there will be little political appetite to construct the next generation of frigates here, spelling the end of this strategically important industry and the jobs of up to 6000 workers. The government said as much yesterday when it declared: “The outcomes of this interim period will also inform the government’s considerations on the Australian naval shipbuilding industry in the context of the 2015 defence white paper.”

These are high stakes and ones that require firm leadership, unity and a clear vision to ensure the survival of the troubled industry.

Yet the government’s promise yesterday that these new “major steps” would mark a “turning point” for the AWD project and “renew confidence in the future of Australia’s shipbuilding industry” gloss over a darker reality.

The AWD project and naval shipbuilding is bedevilled by a lack of political will, indecision and infighting. When leadership is needed, Defence Minister David Johnston is being rendered impotent by the perception among his colleagues that he is not up to the job and the expectation that he will be replaced in a ministerial reshuffle early next year.

Even without a winged Defence Minister, the Abbott government finds itself caught in an ideological no-man’s land on naval shipbuilding. Politically, it can’t afford to let the industry die no matter how inefficient it is because it would mean the abandonment of Adelaide as the hub of the defence industry — a mantra that all sides of politics have invested in for 25 years.

Witness the sharp political backlash in South Australia when Johnston said he wouldn’t trust the Adelaide-based government shipbuilder ASC, which employs 2600 people, to build a canoe.

The government was already on the nose in South Australia for backtracking earlier this year from its promise to construct 12 new submarines in Adelaide — as well as the shutdown of Holden — and Johnston’s canoe comment was blamed for contributing to the surprise large swing to Labor in the Adelaide seat of Fisher by-election at the weekend.

Yet the government also ref*uses to pick favourites to save naval shipbuilding. Rather than view the industry as a national security asset that requires a degree of government protection, it has applied the same free market philosophy that doomed the local car industry.

As such, the government has muddled away for more than a year without a clear vision for how it intends to save the industry and its flagship project to build three AWDs, the largest and most sophisticated warships constructed for the Royal Australian Navy.

Until now, the government has been able to take political refuge behind the failures of Labor, which oversaw the blowout in the AWD project, made no headway in planning for future submarines and then slashed the Defence budget before being voted out.

The Rudd-Gillard governments also left office without a plan to avoid the so-called Valley of Death in which thousands of shipyard workers lose their jobs between large projects because naval ship orders are so uneven.

Yet in the 14 months since gaining office, Johnston has also been unable to solve the Valley of Death issue and the AWD project has gone from bad to worse.

The AWDs will provide theatre missile defence to protect large convoys of troops embarking on the two new Landing Helicopter Dock ships, which at 27,000 *tonnes are the largest ships in the navy. The two LHDs, the first of which was commissioned into the navy this month, were built in Spain and fitted out in Melbourne in a project that is on budget.

The future frigate project will seek to replace the navy’s fleet of four ageing Adelaide-class frigates and eight Anzac-class frigates.

The new submarine project will seek to buy anywhere between six and 12 new submarines to replace the fleet of six Collins-class submarines.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann revealed yesterday that AWD ships one and two are 30 months late (up from 21 months), while ship three is three years late. The project is believed to be about $600 million over budget already with total cost blowouts expected to eventually reach $1 billion — a worse outcome than the famously troubled Collins-class submarine build.

To fix the AWD project, Johnston and Cormann this year commissioned an independent report to suggest a way forward.

Written by former US Navy secretary Don Winter and Australian shipbuilder John White, the report found that the AWD project was flawed from the start. A leaked draft copy of the yet-to-be-released report obtained by The Australian was highly critical of all parties, including the lead shipbuilder, the ASC; the architect of the project, the Defence Materiel Organisation; the Spanish designer, Navantia; and the block-building subcontractors, BAE Systems and Forgacs.

It said that each of these parties had failed in their own way due to a lack of co-ordination, accountability and shipbuilding experience.

In particular, it implied that the project was doomed from the start because DMO had insisted that the AWD project would be managed by a multi-headed entity called the AWD Alliance which included ASC, DMO and Raytheon. It was unwieldy, unaccountable and unworkable.

“It is difficult to know how the alliance can operate as a ‘virtual organisation’, particularly in the event of serious disagreements and even debate on critical issues,” the Winter report said.

It contrasted this messy management structure with previous naval projects such as the Anzac frigates, which had a sole contractor accountable for schedule and costs. The Anzacs were delivered on time and on budget.

The Winter report said the solution to the AWD project was simple: install a single experienced shipbuilder to manage the project and to be accountable for its turnaround. The report said BAE was the most experienced shipbuilder operating in Australia and should therefore be chosen as the “sole source selection of AWD management functions”.

Johnston liked the idea and held a press conference in June to say the government would accept the Winter report’s findings. But then the original rescue plan unravelled behind closed doors.

Cormann and his Finance Department backed away from the report’s key findings that a single experienced shipbuilder needed to take charge of the AWD project.

Finance feared that installing BAE as the project manager would amount to a takeover by stealth of the government-owned ASC, which would reduce its eventual sale price.

But as things stand, ASC’s reputation is so bad it would be virtually worthless as an asset. “Until such time as there is a turnaround in the AWD project, you would struggle to find a buyer,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Mark Thomson said this week.

Defence, DMO and Johnston wanted to install BAE as the sole manager, but Cormann and Finance, which owns ASC, refused.

Cormann was always going to prevail in this tussle against a weakened Johnston.

These arguments, combined with complex contractual obstacles, meant that the rescue package took eight months to formulate when the Winter report warned that the plan needed to be enacted within three to six months to prevent further delays and cost blowouts. In the end, a compromise solution was reached where ASC would continue to manage the project but would be assisted by a small team of experts from each of Navantia, BAE and Raytheon. Raytheon will embed 20 experts in ASC while Navantia will provide 11 and BAE will be permitted to provide only eight.

Yet these companies see the other as international competitors, so they are loath to assist each other in ways that reveal trade secrets. They are also privately wary of the plan to strengthen ASC to the point where it may one day compete with them for future *projects.

The government brazenly claimed yesterday it “was implementing the reform strategy” recommended by the Winter report despite ignoring the report’s central call for a single manager for the AWD project.

“The whole point of the Winter report was that it called for a sole manager for the AWD project rather than the dog’s breakfast of companies which collectively mismanaged it before,” one defence source says. “Now they have just created a new dog’s breakfast in order to rescue the project.”

The irony is that the three-year delay to the AWD project may help the government to address the Valley of Death because it will reduce the gaps between the AWD project and the frigates project.

The government wants the new frigates to be built in Adelaide using the same hulls as those of the AWD, leading to a rolling build that would sustain shipbuilding in Australia for many years. It has already committed $78m to explore design options for the new frigates and would like to bring the project forward.

But to justify such a massive new program, it must first fix the AWDs.

If the AWD project shows improvement then the government is likely, as early as March, to award the future frigate project to ASC, guaranteeing the future of shipbuilding in Adelaide.

Sources say the AWD project has recently posted the first long-overdue improvements in productivity, although it was premature for Cormann to declare yesterday that “the good news is we have turned a corner”.

The government has made no decision about the future management of the AWD project after this interim rescue ends in July next year.

“The announcement of the federal government’s plan to salvage the flawed Air Warfare Destroyer project may improve the AWD situation but should only be the first step in a bigger rescue strategy,” Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox says.

A commitment to build new frigates in Adelaide after the AWD also would help offset the political anger generated in South Australia by the government reneging on its election promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.

Johnston says all options remain open with new submarines but privately the government is looking to buy submarines from overseas because they are cheaper, less risky and could be introduced before the Collins-class boats are retired from the mid-2020s. Japan remains the favoured option to provide the new boats, with other contenders being Germany, France and Sweden.

A DMO team is in France to discuss whether its submarine maker DCNS can build a large conventional version of its Barracuda-class nuclear submarine for the Australian navy.

The government yesterday promised that as part of its naval shipbuilding plan it would “create a sovereign submarine industry”.

The term “sovereign submarine industry” led some to wonder whether the government was reconsidering building new submarines in Australia and the government declined to elaborate.

“In the near future there will be further announcements as to exactly the nuts and bolts and mechanics of precisely what we intend for that,” Johnston said.

But this so-called sovereign industry will almost certainly be limited to using Adelaide as the base to modify, repair and sustain the new submarines, rather than to build them there. The government argues, correctly, that this will still create several thousand jobs in Adelaide, but fewer jobs than if the submarines were constructed in Australia.

The new rescue package for the AWDs is only the first step to saving and then securing the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia, including submarines.

There may be no second chances if it doesn't work.

[Cashie]

The project is a bunfight. It really needs a pull through from the top down.
Anyone with ears on the AWD project has been worried for a long time, 3 years overdue is a major concern.
It's now time for the project team and industry to pull together and get this thing back on the road, or I worry these ships will be the next Sea Sprite.
Also, is it unprecedented for an external company (BAE and Raytheon) to come onto someone else's dockyard to assist/fix a major project?

[pottery beige]

its a very complex project, first build will smash you

stay positive

[cheap]

^ sounds like a broken record, too complex, never been done before... blah blah blah.

Project management 101, risks identified and mitigations put in place. Unless the plan was always to be 3 years behind schedule and $300-600 million over budget? Someone is making money from the delays.

IMO Collins and now the AWD fiasco, spell then end for shipbuilding here in OZ. Some people will turn a blind eye and keep on borrowing more money, but we're broke, reality has to set in.

The lessons learnt will be to build offshore, fixed price the contract, payment on delivery of an acceptable vessel. Offload the risks to someone else.

[Cashie]

This report pretty well sums up the AWD situation http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/.../Audit-summary
Some fundamental stuff ups in this project, a flawed alliance that failed to include the ship designer (Navantia), going with a ship designer who has never exported a design to another ship yard, again modifying a design (F104) adding bits of another design (F105) and changing the Combat System, building the ships at a ship yard that has never build a major surface warship before, making changes on the fly and having to rework constructed parts, every drawing having an average of 2.75 changes... The list goes on.
Sorry, I still think what I felt several years ago when the government has a hard on for Spanish designed warships, we went with the wrong design (and in effect designer), the modified Arleigh Burke (even built here) would have carried substantially less risk.
To think Hobart should have been completed this month.

[pottery beige]

soo much negativity cheap

[cheap]

Not negativity, it is simply reality catching up with miserably managed projects. Enjoy making ships/money while you can. Things are never going to be the same again.

Make sure you've got a plan B, because the bozo's that got the project into the mess, have already lined their pockets and are probably on their next fleecing scheme "project"

[jpblue1000]

but that's like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Corruption should be quashed not ignored. The fleecing or lining of pockets at the expense of the contract is paramount to corruption if the original organisation of business to business relations was ever workable, otherwise its just poor 'team' building by whoever set it up. (which is irrelevant no matter what side failed)
The maintenance of these contracts and many others is important to the local community firstly and then in this instance, defence, important to the nation.
I agree its a shambles and in this case proof that private business doesn't always do it more efficiently then government. But I believe with appropriate leadership and decision making, it can be turned around to the benefit of the project and future of other projects.
I believe at some point we as a nation have to take a stand and start making stuff we need rather than sending very large sums of money to help support others economies. I also think the learning, training and advancement of out abilities is worth investing in, rather than paying someone else to do the hard stuff.
I learnt to change washers in the taps years ago took me a week (not really) and since then I have never had to pay for someone else to do it saving me money and wasted water much in excess of the original outlay to learn.


JP

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by cheap

^ sounds like a broken record, too complex, never been done before... blah blah blah.

Project management 101, risks identified and mitigations put in place. Unless the plan was always to be 3 years behind schedule and $300-600 million over budget? Someone is making money from the delays.

IMO Collins and now the AWD fiasco, spell then end for shipbuilding here in OZ. Some people will turn a blind eye and keep on borrowing more money, but we're broke, reality has to set in.

The lessons learnt will be to build offshore, fixed price the contract, payment on delivery of an acceptable vessel. Offload the risks to someone else.

Cheap...did you read that article I posted? The issues with the AWD are greater than physical builders mistakes, they go back to the core governance and structure of the alliance.

Sure there have been mistakes made and stuffups with the build, but you can only blame the builder so much when a lot of the problems were caused by the top end. Here is the crux:

Written by former US Navy secretary Don Winter and Australian shipbuilder John White, the report found that the AWD project was flawed from the start. A leaked draft copy of the yet-to-be-released report obtained by The Australian was highly critical of all parties, including the lead shipbuilder, the ASC; the architect of the project, the Defence Materiel Organisation; the Spanish designer, Navantia; and the block-building subcontractors, BAE Systems and Forgacs.

It said that each of these parties had failed in their own way due to a lack of co-ordination, accountability and shipbuilding experience.

In particular, it implied that the project was doomed from the start because DMO had insisted that the AWD project would be managed by a multi-headed entity called the AWD Alliance which included ASC, DMO and Raytheon. It was unwieldy, unaccountable and unworkable.

“It is difficult to know how the alliance can operate as a ‘virtual organisation’, particularly in the event of serious disagreements and even debate on critical issues,” the Winter report said.

It contrasted this messy management structure with previous naval projects such as the Anzac frigates, which had a sole contractor accountable for schedule and costs. The Anzacs were delivered on time and on budget.

Political meddling and this stupid "alliance" business is caused by one thing and one thing only - government. It was government who insisted on an "alliance" or "joint venture" project build when they didnt need to but wanted to keep everyone happy because interest groups were all wanting a piece of the action. FORGACS/Tenix didnt have any of these problems with the ANZAC frigates, they just got on with it and built the bloody things.

[Road_Warrior]

From another (non-car) source:

The problem is BAE are the company that took over arguably the best shipbuilder in country and proceeded to stuff up the project protector OPVs for NZ, completely mess up the keel of the first AWD and deliver the first LHD a year late with a litany of faults.

We hear all the time how bad ASC is but their performance has never been as bad as BAE Australia's shipbuilding arm has been since its inception. Come to think of it BAEAustralia have a pretty consistent track record f stuffing up. They were the original winners of a big slice of LAND 121 but when they delivered their first trucks they were so fragile and unfit for purpose the government tore up the contract and put the project out for tender again. Then there is project Wedgetail, behind schedule and significantly over budget, from what I understand a big part of the problem was one of the subcontractors, BAE Australia, sound familiar, the prime cops all the flack and BAEgets off pretty much Scott free?

BAE taking over ASC could be the very worst outcome as I would not trust BAE Australia to run a contract cleaning service.

[SB076]

As I have said before anything with Defence is state of the art new technology. We have to push boundaries and with that comes issues.

I would hate to think that we have learnt some valuable lessons through all this only to throw it all away and let an industry fall. I would much prefer acknowledgement of the issues, learn form the mistakes and make sure the next project goes ahead a lot smoother.

I hope ASC gets to build the new subs, as it will be interesting to see how it goes after learning so much through building the Collins class