Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Janiz

Senior Member
Great story Jura. Japanese offer was probably the best from the start and favored by the Navy's side but lack of experience in this field led to losing the contract. They thought they can win with quality of the product ommiting crucial steps in the process but that's part of the learning curve for them. Not even two years in the business but at least they haven't lost money there.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
oh all the credit goes to Reuters ... let's see what
SamuraiBlue
will have to say :)

Here is my response;

Basically Japan drew a line in the sand saying we will not go beyond the line and will not pursue win for the sake of winning sacrificing production.

Japan was skeptical in ASC's level of competence and wanted to train their personnel before they go on their own because after all the Japanese boat's reputation is also on the line.

Some people are so quick to forget the following problem that plagues ASC.

Industry Confirms Australia’s Hobart Class Destroyers $870 Million Over Budget, Lead Ship 30 Months Late

By:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

October 14, 2015 12:14 PM


SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA — The consortium building three air warfare destroyers (AWDs) for the Royal Australian Navy has provided an update on the construction of the ships, as well as an overview on the lessons learned from the delays and cost overruns that have plagued the program.

Speaking at a conference on the sidelines of the Pacific 2015 International Maritime Exposition in Sydney, Australia, Rod Equid, chief executive officer of the AWD Alliance, also touted steady progress on the remaining two ships even as the lead ship, HMAS Hobart nears completion.

The ships were ordered as part of Australia’s SEA 4000 program for a new class of AWDs to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s Adelaide-class (Oliver Hazard Perry) frigates and its stopgap air warfare capability with the Raytheon SM-2 surface-to-air missile as part of requirements outlined in the 2000 Australian Defense White Paper..... to read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Within the article a passage that is quite revealing;

Soon after construction on the AWDs began in 2010 with the fabrication of pre-fabricated hull blocks at three widely-distributed locations in Australia, reports began emerging of challenges facing the process. These reportedly were primarily related to workforce inexperience with Equid estimating that 95 percent of the workforce was new hires who needed to be trained in the specialized roles they were working in, but also because of issues with drawings available for the alliance to work with.

Mitsubishi Heavy's concerns is not something imaginary or considered as them being special but a deep concern based on past and present situation.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Industry Confirms Australia’s Hobart Class Destroyers $870 Million Over Budget, Lead Ship 30 Months Late

Do 10 % about in more 0.9 on 8 bill for the 3
The original contract cost was A$8 billion for the three ships
in fact nothing particular many recent/actual programs have exceeded this %
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Very late yes.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Do 10 % about in more 0.9 on 8 bill for the 3 in fact nothing particular many recent/actual programs have exceeded this %
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Within the link it also states;

The original contract cost was A$8 billion for the three ships.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
By March 2014, the project was running A$302 million over budget. By May 2015, this had increased to A$800 million, with a predicted minimum cost overrun by project end of A$1.2 billion.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
1.2 maybe or 0.8 bill, + 15 or 10 % same, Samurai sorry but you quibble a little there :rolleyes: how many programms actually have exceeded the initial cost of 20 % or more, sure minimum 1 on 5 or more...
 
1.2 maybe or 0.8 bill, + 15 or 10 % same, Samurai sorry but you quibble a little there :rolleyes: how many programms actually have exceeded the initial cost of 20 % or more, sure minimum 1 on 5 or more...
LOL FORBIN while it might look as quibbling to you, in fact the problems SamuraiBlue mentioned would likely have eaten up the profit of the Japanese (two
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

private companies: why would they bother then? it's not like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
which can always be fed from the country budget)
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
A good article from thediplomat regarding the Australian submarine deal .
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Although the author did not offer anything new, she did put all the political aspects of the deal in a very good chain of reasoning.

I believe, as she pointed out, a military acquisition of such scale is more political than technical and financial. All offers have pro and cons, not much dramatic advantage one over another. So if we stand a bit higher, the political consideration (mostly local job, maintenance, competence, self sustainability during a real military confrontation) becomes dominant.

Regarding the quality of local work share, it is truly a reasonable concern, but that is the reality on the ground, a business man has to do something about it instead of snubbing the customer.

Regarding the possible cost overrun, there is no doubt it will, most of such military program does, F-35 is a good example where most of its delay and cost overrun is caused by domestic supplier LM. On this account, none of Japan or Germany and France can avoid it, but the deal is here, take it or leave it. And I believe, the Australian government and DNCS/France is aware and prepared for the overrun because at the end of the day weapon is for war which is 100% political, one pay whatever cost to fight.

The author dismissed the notion by many of China factor, I totally agree with her. On the other hand in regards of "self sustainability" in a pure military perspective, no sane military leader would have his weapon's cache or factory closer to the front line than his troops (in case Australia is forced to confront China). That may be a very tiny possibility or impossibility as neither China nor Australia want that, but a serious politician and military lead will never rely on (im)possibilities.

This brought my conclusion that "local production or maintenance" is a MUST that Japan failed to meet but France succeeded and probably the deciding factor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top