Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Program. [Archive]

buglerbilly

15-04-10, 02:47 PM

Construction of Air Warfare Destroyers Underway

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued April 15, 2010)

Australia’s future Air Warfare Destroyers are derived from the Spanish Navy’s F101 frigate design, whose lead ship, Alvaro de Bazan, is seen here. (US Navy photo)

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, announced today that full production of Australia’s three Hobart-Class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) is now underway.

In a ceremony at the BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne, Mr Combet announced that full production of hull blocks has now commenced at three shipyards: ASC in Adelaide, BAE Systems in Melbourne and Forgacs in Newcastle.

“More than 500 people are now working on building hull blocks for the AWDs, and this will grow to a total workforce in the three shipyards of over 1,000 people,” said Mr Combet.

“Overall, more than 3,000 people will be working to build these warships around Australia and importantly, about 200 apprentices will join the project in the next few years.

“Each ship will be made up of 31 blocks fabricated at the three shipyards. The construction of each ship will require 51 kilometres of piping, 427 kilometres of electrical cable, 4,700 tonnes of steel, 138,000 litres of paint, 4,700 mechanical valves and 1.5 million fasteners.

“By mid-2011, completed hull blocks will begin to arrive in Adelaide for consolidation into the complete warship at the Government of South Australia’s Common User Facility.

“Successful completion of pilot fabrication work and production readiness reviews has finalised the transition of the project from detailed design into full production of the ships.

“This is an important milestone for this national project, and I wish to congratulate everyone involved in helping us reach this point,” Mr Combet said.

The project is on track to deliver the first AWD, HMAS Hobart, in December 2014. HMAS Brisbane is scheduled for delivery in the first quarter of 2016 and HMAS Sydney in mid 2017.

(ends)

AWD Construction Commences in Victoria, NSW and South Australia

(Source: ASC; issued April 15, 2010)

Construction of Australia’s air warfare destroyer (AWD) capability is underway, with three Australian shipyards simultaneously building destroyer blocks.

Adelaide-based ASC, shipbuilder for the AWD Project, has congratulated its block subcontractors - BAE Systems (Williamstown, Victoria) and FORGACS (Newcastle, New South Wales) - for commencing their build programs on time.

ASC Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Steve Ludlam said the simultaneous construction of AWD blocks in multiple Australian shipyards reflected a truly national commitment to building the three AWDs.

“A critical part of ASC’s AWD bid in 2005 was to share block construction with other companies across Australia that have the capability to build blocks for three AWDs,” Mr Ludlam said.

“This vision is now a reality with shipyards in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales simultaneously building blocks for the largest defence project in the nation’s history.”

ASC has subcontracted the construction of 65 blocks to BAE Systems and FORGACS over the life of the AWD Project. ASC will build 28 blocks, and integrate and consolidate all 93 blocks into three next generation warships.

ASC will undertake its own fabrication and construction of ship blocks in its dedicated AWD shipyard, which was officially opened in January 2010.

The $120 million shipyard will also be home to the assembly of the AWDs (including handling and transport), outfitting work, set-to-work of equipment and systems, and trial activities.

AWD BLOCKS

The AWDs will be constructed using the block build method.

Thirty per cent of the blocks will be constructed by ASC at its Osborne, South Australia shipyard with the other 70 per cent to be built by BAE Systems in Williamstown, Victoria and FORGACS in Newcastle, New South Wales.

The blocks constructed off site will be transported by sea to Adelaide for block erection and integration by ASC.

Blocks will average 15 metres by 12 metres by 9 metres, and weigh around 200 tonnes each.

ASC (formerly known as Australian Submarine Corporation) is the nation’s last remaining Australian-owned prime defence contractor. The company constructed the Collins Class submarines and today delivers design, upgrade and maintenance services for the submarines through-life. ASC is also the shipbuilder of Australia’s next generation warships – the Hobart Class air warfare destroyers. ASC employs over 1,600 personnel in South Australia and Western Australia, including 280 engineering and technical specialists.

-ends-

Weasel

15-04-10, 09:11 PM

Milne Bay

15-04-10, 11:54 PM

Did anyone else notice in the latest issue of The Navy magazine a photo of a 1:72 scale AWD on display at the RAN Sea Power Conference? It appears shows the forward superstructure, complete with two AN/SPG-62 radars (implying a total of three such directors in total). Anyone heard anything about this?

I recall seeing a picture of the model some time ago, and yes it does from memory have the three illuminators.
Just for reference here is a pic of a US Aegis cruiser USS Normandy of the Ticonderoga class showing its three illuminators.
Also a pic of a model AWD. Not sure if this is the model or not but here goes

SteveJH

16-04-10, 12:01 AM

You know, I have had this funny feeling before (and its not because I'm totally biased. Australia would have done better going with the AB design -period).

Oh, right that's it. Its the same feeling I had before Hurricane Katrina made landfall.

Good luck! lol

cheers

w

Yeah, your biased.:dunno

The burke was a more capable design, but with ADF/Australian Government involvment I could see it all going horribly wrong (no offense gf). Remember it wasnt actually a burke, it was a smaller design with less VLS and half the crew. It was a paper design, much more susceptible to scope/design creep.

Gubler, A.

16-04-10, 03:47 AM

Yeah, your biased.:dunno

The burke was a more capable design, but with ADF/Australian Government involvment I could see it all going horribly wrong (no offense gf). Remember it wasnt actually a burke, it was a smaller design with less VLS and half the crew. It was a paper design, much more susceptible to scope/design creep.

The RAN just wanted to build DDG-51 Flight IIAs in Australia after the Govt. said OK to an AEGIS DDG. The DoD/Govt got invovled and wanted a competition, which meant Aus specific designs and which then meant post Kinnaird off the shelf vs new and so on.... Apart from the end product probably being as expensive and not as capable as a DDG-51 Fligth IIA across the mission roles this process also added about four years to the project...

Gubler, A.

16-04-10, 04:04 AM

Did anyone else notice in the latest issue of The Navy magazine a photo of a 1:72 scale AWD on display at the RAN Sea Power Conference? It appears shows the forward superstructure, complete with two AN/SPG-62 radars (implying a total of three such directors in total). Anyone heard anything about this?

Its just a model. That position where the lower SPG-62 is located is where the forward Typhoon 25mm gun is supposed to be. With two more Mini-Typhoons aft on either corner above the flight deck.

Unicorn

18-04-10, 03:41 AM

More recent images

Exsandgroper

18-04-10, 05:56 AM

Gubler, A.

18-04-10, 09:54 AM

In reference to Unicorn's post #9 model of Air Warfare Destroyer, the following quote is from the AWD site.

"John Gallacher said, “These models, unlike the ones we’ve previously seen, show exactly how our ships will look, with all of the modifications required by the Royal Australian Navy.”

Commodore Cawley said the models would help systems developers and those involved in the project to see the three-dimensional operating environment of the warship."

Then we are getting three directors as per photo of the lastest model, also shown on the AWD site.

That was two years ago and in relation to some models that did NOT have three SPG-62s...

I know the RAN would prefer three SPG-62s to significantly reduce capability degradation when one breaks down. But if a third SPG-62 was to be fitted it would be unlikely in that location shown which severally limits its training arcs. Also that model has the US built version of the Typhoon 25mm in a position which would mean no one can be on the bridge wings when active. This may be where the Spanish have their 20mm guns but they are literally WW2 built manually controlled guns just used for shooting over the bow of a ship they want to heave too.

The AWD’s configuration layout was set a while ago as:

http://www.ausawd.com/content.aspx?p=101

Chunder

18-04-10, 01:42 PM

JimWH

18-04-10, 02:14 PM

Fair enough Abe, but I'm sure you can see why I asked.

Exsandgroper

19-04-10, 12:57 AM

Fair enough Abe, but I'm sure you can see why I asked.

To clear it up, I asked Russ French from Defence Models and Graphics who built the model. He kindly replied :-

"The plan is now to have only two directors. The "space and weight" was
provided in the original drawings for this third one but only the two will
be fitted, the one on the module on the hanger roof and the other atop the
superstructure under the mast. The third was an option early on but now
they have fitted the nav radar in its place, which was on the starboard side
of the bridge roof, in this position behind the EOSS. The two 25mm
Typhoon guns (fully automated versions of those on the ARMIDALE Class PB)
are at the moment still going to be fitted to the ship on the bridge wings.
However at the moment anything could change and modifications to the model
you speak about (our prototype model) have already been done including some
other changes around the transom. The other models of the AWD that we
have done will, once all the changes have been sorted out, come back to us
here and will be modified."

Cheers

Unicorn

20-04-10, 12:45 PM

That'd be Russ, a good bloke.

buglerbilly

21-04-10, 04:11 PM

“The AWD project will benefit from Babcock’s expertise”

Babcock provides various systems solutions for Australia’s AWDs.

Interview with Ken Grove, Director Business Development Australia, Babcock Marine

06:26 GMT, April 21, 2010 defpro.com | Last week, Babcock International announced it had received a contract to supply the weapon handling equipment (WHE) for Australia’s Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD)s. This contract is the company’s latest success in its growing contribution to Australian defence programmes. The UK-based company’s Australian arm has 20 years of experience in supporting the Australian defence industry in design, supply and support of naval systems. In light of this recent success, Nicolas von Kospoth of defpro.com talked to Ken Grove, Director Business Development Australia at Babcock Marine.*

defpro.com: Mr Grove, congratulations on the recent contract award in support of Australia’s AWD programme. Is the company’s involvement in this programme limited to this particular equipment or are there further contributions agreed upon or possible?

Grove: The WHE contract from ASC covers design and supply of systems for all thee AWDs, and Babcock holds a contract from Raytheon Australia to provide the Mk 32 deck mounted Torpedo Launcher Systems. In addition, Babcock is also supplying high pressure air reduction stations for the three AWDs in co-operation with Thomson Valves Ltd. Further orders are possible as the project moves into the construction phase. However, these are more likely to involve manufacture and providing technical support.

defpro.com: Could you briefly describe the technical principle of the weapon handling equipment? What are the key advantages for the crew of the AWD being provided with this equipment?

Grove: The WHE provides the crew with a safe means of moving the MU90 torpedoes around the stowage compartment and into the torpedo launchers when the ship is at sea and subject to considerable movement. As Babcock has been engaged for both the WHE and the launchers, it will be able to take ownership for the entire operation.

defpro.com: To what extent is the system based on the submarine WHE and discharge systems, also in use with Australian submarines? In what way can the AWD programme benefit from the company’s long experience with these systems on Australian naval platforms?

Grove: While providing a similar function, surface ship systems are simpler than those fitted to submarines. This is due to the fact that submarine systems are complicated by the need to withstand the demanding underwater environment which impacts hull integrity and operational performance. However, the AWD project will benefit from Babcock's extensive expertise with both submarines and surface ships and the fact that their local design capability can support the equipment throughout its life and even adapt it to accommodate a change in weapons or operational requirements.

defpro.com: Could you please give our readers a brief overview of the history of Babcock’s activities in Australia and on the company’s current and future work there?

Grove: Babcock acquired Strachan & Henshaw (S&H) in April 2008, which included the Australian subsidiary. The company was formed in 1990 to manage the local content of the Collins Discharge System contract awarded by ASC. Babcock (then S&H) designed and supplied equipment for all six submarines, undertaking 65 per cent of the work in Australia and working with local industry. The technology was transferred to the Adelaide office to enable in-service support to be undertaken locally. Initially the company was contracted by the Department of Defence, but following the awarding of the long term Through Life Support contract to ASC in 2005, Babcock was provided with a flow-down of this contract for an initial five-year period. The company also undertakes local support for the Collins Air Purification System and ANZAC High Pressure Air Equipment as licensees for Wellman Defence and Thomson Valves, respectively.

Over the past three years the company has created a local engineering design capability to allow it to be involved in major new building projects such as AWD and the Future Submarine. Since its acquisition by Babcock, significant investment has been made in people, facilities and operating tools. In October 2009 the business relocated to new, purposely-designed premises at Techport Australia, Australia’s naval industry hub.

While the existing business has concentrated, to date, on the supply and support of systems and equipment, a strategy has now been developed which will allow Babcock to become involved in all aspects of naval platform supply and support.

The Future Submarine project (SEA1000) offers a significant opportunity, given that twelve submarines will be procured that meet Australia's unique requirement. In addition to its established local presence, Babcock is able to offer up-to-date weapon system products that are compatible with US weapons and can be engineered to suit any hull design. In the UK, Babcock is part of the collaboration delivering the UK’s future submarine concept, with responsibility as the recognised industry expert in submarine support and for the design for support processes (in addition to its design role, and systems and equipment expertise). This experience and expertise is equally relevant for Australia.

defpro.com: Is Babcock exclusively working as a supplier to Australian defence companies, such as ASC, or is there also a direct dialogue, negotiation and contracting with the Australian government?

Grove: Currently, Babcock works with major companies such as ASC and Raytheon but, in addition, secures around 20 per cent of its business directly from the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). In expanding its business, Babcock will be seeking to work at a Tier 1 and Tier 2 level and will engage more with government departments.

defpro.com: Some of the work for the AWD will be performed in the UK and a great share will be carried out in Australia. How is this work distributed in terms of technical activities and what is the approximate share of work being performed in Australia?

Grove: With respect to the WHE, the majority of the work will be undertaken in Australia. The design will be completed jointly by Babcock staff from Whetstone and Adelaide working closely together, and it is intended that all manufacturing will be completed in Australia. Overall, the Australian content will exceed 70 per cent of the contract value.

defpro.com: How would you describe the present co-operation with Australian companies, the Defence Forces and the government? Would you consider it to be a good model for Babcock’s co-operation with other current and future international customers?

Grove: The Australian naval defence market is at an interesting stage. The 2009 White Paper identified a major maritime acquisition programme and, in addition, the Strategic Reform Program has set out a need to save costs from the current sustainment activities. These initiatives will require a change to the existing contracting approach (and relationship with industry) that will create opportunities for Babcock. In the UK, Babcock has worked closely with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to deliver savings through performance-based contracts, and this experience is relevant for Australia. Babcock also has plans for further growth in Canada, where it currently holds the support contract for Victoria class submarines; this is a long term, multi-vessel, performance-managed contract which seeks to transform the delivery of submarine maintenance.

defpro.com: Australia is an important hub within the scope of international markets covered by Babcock. Approximately, how great is the share of activities in Australia within the company’s overall revenue and does Babcock plan to increase this share in the future?

Grove: While the existing business provides an excellent foundation for growth, it is currently only a small percentage in terms of Babcock’s revenue from the naval sector. However, the growth strategy will aim to make Babcock a major player in the Australian naval sector during the next five years.

defpro.com: What is the status of Babcock’s support of the Australian submarine fleet and what are the next steps in this particular field of activities?

Grove: Currently, Babcock fulfills a key role in providing support for critical systems fitted to Collins submarines. The deep maintenance, which includes equipment refurbishment, is undertaken in Adelaide. Support for routine maintenance on operational submarines is undertaken out of the company’s facility at Henderson in WA. Given Babcock’s extensive submarine support experience in the UK and Canada, the company will highlight this capability at a time when there are significant shortcomings with Collins submarines which, if not resolved, could threaten the SEA1000 project.

Recently, Babcock also responded to an Invitation to Register (ITR) from the DMO covering repair and maintenance of its Major Fleet Units (surface ships). This is seen as an opportunity for Babcock to demonstrate its ability to assist customers in achieving their objectives. Its UK experience, where it is a member of the Surface Ship Support Alliance with the MoD, is particularly relevant.

Babcock has had significant involvement in the concept phase of the UK future submarine project over the past four years with a specific responsibility for ‘Design for Support’. Babcock intends to use this experience in Australia on the SEA 1000 project, where there is a need to ensure that the selected design is compatible with the long term support capabilities and budget.

defpro.com: What are the next key milestones for Babcock in Australia?

Grove: Over the next six months Babcock will increase its local footprint, appointing senior managers to lead each of the projected business streams.

defpro.com: Thank you very much, Mr Grove.

----
* Ken Grove is responsible for development of Babcock business strategy for Australia. Previously he was Managing Director of Babcock Integrated Technology Australia where he positioned the company for a significant role in the growing naval market.

Ken was Managing Director of Strachan & Henshaw Ltd (acquired by Babcock in April 2008) between 1993 and 2004. Previously he managed numerous key naval projects for the company including the Weapon Discharge System contract for Collins Submarines in Australia. He joined the company in 1975 from Rolls Royce.

buglerbilly

04-05-10, 05:23 PM

U.S. Navy Awards Northrop Grumman Follow-On Order for Shipboard Multimission Radar Systems

(Source: Northrop Grumman Corp.; issued May 3, 2010)

MELVILLE, N.Y. --- Northrop Grumman Corporation has received a follow-on order from the U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command for additional AN/SPQ-9B shipboard radar systems.

Under the fixed-price $41.4 million contract option, Northrop Grumman's Maritime Systems facility in Melville, N.Y., will supply six radar shipsets, including the third radar of a three-system procurement for the Royal Australian Navy's Air Warfare Destroyer, and three antenna groups.

The follow-on order is part of a five-year $281.5 million contract awarded last October to Northrop Grumman with options that encompass a number of ship classes including U.S. Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers, Ticonderoga-class cruisers and amphibious assault ships, the U.S. Coast Guard National Security Cutter, as well as the first international sale of SPQ-9B to the Australian Navy.

"The high-resolution X-band AN/SPQ-9B search radar sets greatly improve the ability to defend against small, high-speed threats, such as surface-skimming anti-ship missiles, and will be integrated with the ships' fire-control systems," said Todd Leavitt, director of Northrop Grumman's Maritime Sensors business unit. "This sensor is a key part of helping meet littoral and blue-water naval defense challenges, and we are committed to enhancing the multimission capability of surface ships, now and in the future."

The multimission radar is designed to detect small, fast-moving targets in the presence of clutter from ocean waves, rain and land returns, as well as chaff and jamming. Additional capabilities now in final development include 3-D volumetric search, demonstrated late last summer for the U.S. Navy in live aircraft tracking tests at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dam Neck Naval Base, Va.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-05-10, 03:40 PM

Air Warfare Destroyers - Satellite Communications

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued May 20, 2010)

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, today announced that the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance has selected Thales Australia Limited as the preferred supplier for satellite communications (SATCOM) equipment for the Hobart Class destroyers.

“The AWD will go to sea with a communications system that will not only meet the operational needs of a modern warship, but also allows the ship’s crew to keep in touch with family and friends via email and internet services,” Mr Combet said.

“Satellite communications are key to the operation of the AWDs. This system will provide world-wide coverage of high-speed broadband for multiple users for both voice and data services. The system also includes equipment critical to meeting safety at sea obligations.

“The AWD Alliance, which comprises the Defence Materiel Organisation, ASC and Raytheon, has selected a solution that combines modern, proven technology and value for money.

“The AWD system incorporates equipment from leading SATCOM suppliers including ViaSat, SITEP and Thrane & Thrane. Some of this equipment is already deployed on RAN warships and this commonality will result in efficiencies in both training and maintenance support.

“Thales Australia will be undertaking design and fabrication work at its Garden Island facility in Sydney before installing the equipment on the AWDs at Techport Australia in Adelaide.”

The contract is worth about $9 million and will support 20 jobs.

The AWD project is on track to deliver the first AWD, HMAS Hobart, in December 2014.

-ends-

Deks

20-05-10, 05:14 PM

Is it typical for RAN sailors to have internet access on warships ?

Unicorn

21-05-10, 11:23 AM

Typically yes, unless the ship is operating under EMCON.

buglerbilly

17-06-10, 03:35 PM

Air Warfare Destroyer Block Transport Contract Signed

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued June 16, 2010)

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, today announced that the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance has signed a contract with Toll North Pty Ltd for the transport of 66 hull blocks by sea from Newcastle and Melbourne to Adelaide where they will be consolidated into Australia’s three Hobart Class AWDs.

Mr Combet said the signing of this $25 million contract represented a significant milestone in the multi-billion dollar project.

“Full block production is now underway at three shipyards across Australia: ASC in Adelaide, BAE Systems in Melbourne and Forgacs in Newcastle,”
Mr Combet said.

“The completed blocks will be transported on a barge towed by a tug boat from the Melbourne and Newcastle shipyards to Adelaide.

“By mid-2011, the blocks will begin to arrive at the Government of South Australia’s Common User Facility for consolidation into the complete warship,” Mr Combet said.

Each ship is made up of 31 blocks. The blocks will be transported in groups, with 15 trips from BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne and eight from the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle.

“This work will employ 14 people, part of a 3,000 strong workforce building these warships around Australia,” Mr Combet said.

The project is on track to deliver the first AWD, HMAS Hobart, in December 2014. HMAS Brisbane is scheduled for delivery in March 2016 and HMAS Sydney in June 2017.

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-09-10, 03:31 PM

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued September 17, 2010)

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems & Sensors, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded a $197,500,977 cost-plus-fixed-fee, performance incentives contract for post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Aegis Combat Systems Engineering to support the government of Australia (case AT-P-LCQ) under the Foreign Military Sales program.

The government of Australia selected the Aegis Combat System for its Australian Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) program. These requirements include the necessary combat systems engineering, computer program development, ship integration and test, logistics technical services, technical manuals and staging support to design and build an Aegis Weapon System (AWS) to support the AWD program.

The AWD AWS baseline will be derived from a technology refreshed variant of the U.S. Navy AWS Baseline 7 Phase I.

Naval Sea Systems Command contract N00024-09-C-5104 supported these efforts through Aegis Combat System Critical Design Review. This contract will support all post-CDR efforts.

This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $211,425,860. Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J. (86 percent), and Adelaide, Australia (14 percent), and is expected to be completed by December 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured.

The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-10-C-5125).

-ends-

Exsandgroper

25-10-10, 11:10 PM

$8bn navy flagship founders after construction bungle
EXCLUSIVE: Cameron Stewart From: The Australian October 26, 2010 12:00AM

A Spanish-designed F100 air warfare destroyer outside Sydney heads in 2007. Picture: AFP Source: The Australian
AUSTRALIA'S largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, has had its first serious setback.
A Melbourne shipyard has botched the construction of the central keel block of the first warship.

The multi-million-dollar bungle could delay the project by up to six months and is believed to have triggered a rift between the Williamstown shipyards, where the hull block was built, and the warship's Spanish designer.

The setback has alarmed the Defence Materiel Organisation, which sees the AWDs as its flagship project and a key test of whether Australia can sustain a viable naval shipbuilding industry.

The three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.

The Australian understands that the central keel block of the first AWD warship, HMAS Hobart, was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding and inadequate quality control at the Williamstown shipyards, operated by an AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems Australia.

The AWD project manager, AWD Alliance, last night confirmed there had been "difficulties in the block fabrication" of the warship in Williamstown, which would affect production schedules.

"The difficulties cannot be attributed to a single cause but production start-up issues experienced by the shipbuilder, some difficulties in specific know-how and technical data have contributed," AWD Alliance told The Australian.

"The difficulties resulted in an unexpected distortion in a component of one of the blocks."

It said two other hull blocks were found to be at risk of distortion but the issue was identified and production processes were changed.

The distortion of the central keel block - which weighs about 200 tonnes, measures 20m by 17m and supports some of the most important heavy machinery on the warship - made it potentially incompatible with other blocks of the ship that are being built in Adelaide and in Newcastle.

One AWD source, who asked not to be named, said: "This is not a small problem - this is a major headache for us. This will have a ripple effect on the whole project because that hull block is critical, and if that block is delayed, then a raft of other things also get delayed."

BAE Systems Australia has been striving furiously for weeks to rework the faulty keel block to the correct specifications to get the project back on track.

A statement from the AWD Alliance, incorporating BAE Systems's response, said yesterday the distorted block had been "remedied by reworking" but said it was too early to say exactly what impact the problem would have on the overall AWD delivery schedule.

Sources have told The Australian that the project would be delayed by up to six months.

The AWD Alliance said it was looking at introducing extra shifts to try to make up lost ground.

BAE Systems won the $300 million contract to build 36 of the 93 hull blocks for the three new AWDs last year amid much fanfare from the Victorian government, which said it would create hundreds of new jobs.

BAE began work on the keel blocks early this year.

It is understood that BAE Systems believes the bungled central keel block was the result of what it considers to be inadequate design drawings provided by the ship's Spanish designer, Navantia.

Other AWD sources said this was unlikely because AWD hull blocks based on Navantia's drawings were also being built by ASC in Adelaide and by Forgacs near Newcastle, and work in those shipyards was progressing on schedule.

A spokesman for Navantia declined to comment yesterday.

The keel blocks are the most complex and important parts of the AWD hulls. Comprising up to 2000 pipes as well as electrical systems, they provide the foundation for the ship's gas turbine and diesel engine propulsion system. The AWD Alliance includes the government-owned Australian Submarine Project, the Defence Materiel Organisation and Raytheon Australia.

BAE's Williamstown shipyards were scheduled to begin shipping completed keel blocks to ASC in Adelaide in the first half of next year.

The AWDs will give a substantial boost to naval capability especially in anti-air warfare with its Aegis combat system allowing them to provide theatre ballistic missile defence over a wide area.

Cheers

Exsandgroper

25-10-10, 11:13 PM

We can't afford another Collins-class debacle
Cameron Stewart, Associate editor From: The Australian October 26, 2010 12:00AM

THE failure to correctly build the central keel block on Australia's first air warfare destroyer in Melbourne is a dismal start to the nation's largest defence project.
It is also a wake-up call to the defence industry here.

If local naval shipbuilders have trouble constructing three AWDs, based on a tested Spanish design, what hope will they have of carrying out the government's plan to build 12 new submarines here virtually from scratch?

This setback in the $8 billion AWD project is a serious one, but it also provides an opportunity for early lessons to be learned before the warships start to take shape.

Australian navy shipbuilders are out of practice. Much expertise has been lost since the ANZAC frigates and the Collins-class submarines were built in the 1990s.

Defence is trying to work out who is to blame for the faulty keel block and who should be held accountable.

Is it the Melbourne sub-contractor, the ship's designer Navantia or the Adelaide-based AWD project managers? Whichever way, the problem proves the need for much more rigour in applying best-practice standards in our shipyards because the country can't afford a rerun of the problems that haunted the building of the Collins-class submarines.

Cheers

Exsandgroper

03-11-10, 05:33 AM

Shipyard on uneven keel after all hull breaks loose in navy order

Cameron Stewart From: The Australian November 03, 2010 12:00AM
Up to $75 million of naval hull construction work could be stripped from Victoria.
The threat follows the bungling of the construction of the central keel block of the navy's first air warfare destroyer by workers at Melbourne's Williamstown shipyard.

But the prime contractor for the $8 billion AWD project, the AWD Alliance, would try to cushion any blow to the shipyard by giving it extra "fit-out" work on the new warships to maintain the overall volume of work and prevent possible job losses.

The shipyard's manager, BAE Systems, which last year won a $300m contract to build one-third of the hull blocks for the navy's three new AWDs, is in damage control after it constructed a keel block to the wrong dimensions, triggering an estimated six-month delay in the nation's largest defence project.

The AWD contract was lauded by the Victorian government at the time as a boost for the local economy that would secure work for up to 500 shipyard employees.

However, the prime contractor, the Adelaide-based AWD Alliance, is understood to be considering an option to strip some hull construction work from BAE in Williamstown and give it to the other two shipyards that are also building AWD hull blocks: the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide and Forgacs in Newcastle.

Under the plan, which is yet to be formally approved, nine of the 36 AWD hull blocks that were due to be built by BAE in Williamstown would now be constructed in Adelaide and Newcastle, effectively stripping BAE of 25 per cent of its hull construction work.

AWD Alliance told The Australian yesterday that it was considering "reallocating" block work between the three shipyards while also "increasing the levels of advanced fit-out work done by the shipyards".

The alliance claimed that under this plan, "the volume of work allocated to each shipyard would not be reduced".

AWD Alliance -- a group comprising ASC, the Defence Materiel Organisation and Raytheon Australia -- is urgently looking at options to get the massive project back on schedule, with the first ship due to enter service from 2014. The alliance is also examining putting on shifts for workers at Williamstown to help make up for lost time.

It blamed BAE for the keel bungle, saying a lack of know-how was a contributing factor. Sources say faulty welding and inadequate quality control led to the miscalculation in the keel block dimensions. BAE says the faulty keel has now been fixed.

Under the original contract, ASC, Forgacs and BAE would each build about one-third of the 96 hull blocks for the three warships and then the warships would be constructed at ASC in Adelaide.

The three new 6500-tonne AWDs, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston has said he believes the keel bungle has put the AWD project at least 12 months behind schedule.

Cheers

Deks

03-11-10, 10:10 PM

Anyone heard what the real story is? I find it hard to believe the shipyard decided to guess instead of putting the onus back on either Navantia or ASC.

Unicorn

03-11-10, 11:16 PM

The tolerances are pretty fine, it only has to be a few millimetres out of true to frak it up.

Done much the same thing with my models. :(

Unicorn

Milne Bay

28-01-11, 07:28 AM

This may have been covered previously but I cannot see it and it is a puzzle.
The AWD hanger space for the embarked helicopter is apparently large enough to accommodate its storage, but for one of the two possible helicopters, the hangar is too small to allow maintenance work to be carried out. I'm not sure which helicopter this is but I presume it is the NH-90.
Now a decision on which helicopter, is apparently not due until FY 2015/16 to 2017/18 - Air 9000 phase 8.
Surely the hangers will be well and truly set in their specifications by then - HMAS Hobart is due for delivery in 2014.
So the questions are these - is there really only one helicopter that can be accommodated in the existing hangar so this will win selection by default, or is there a re-design of the hangar underway that we do not know about? Or is the date for helicopter selection as published here: http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/AIR9000/Project_Details.asp -incorrect?
???
MB

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

28-01-11, 08:30 AM

Or is the date for helicopter selection as published here: http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/AIR9000/Project_Details.asp -incorrect?
???
MB

that evaluation is currently under way. approx 20m away from me.

ARH v.3.1

28-01-11, 11:33 AM

that evaluation is currently under way. approx 20m away from me.

Who's winning?

Milne Bay

29-01-11, 07:18 AM

that evaluation is currently under way. approx 20m away from me.

Is the size of the hangar an issue or is the hangar going to be modified?

McFriday

29-01-11, 11:29 AM

Who's winning?

So subtlety and guile are only two of your strong points Andrew? LOL

Cheers,
Mac

amtp10f

31-01-11, 12:03 PM

Who's winning?

The lawyers (as always).

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

31-01-11, 12:25 PM

The lawyers (as always).

ours can be a frigging nightmare....

buglerbilly

16-02-11, 03:20 PM

Babcock AWD Torpedo Launcher Contract Moves Into Next Phase

(Source: Babcock International; issued Feb. 15, 2011)

Assembly of the Mk32 Mod 9 torpedo launchers for the Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers is now underway at Babcock's Techport Australia premises, marking an important milestone in the contract. Babcock Pty Ltd, part of Babcock International Group, was awarded the contract in December 2008 by Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd, on behalf of the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance.

Two Mk32 Mod 9 torpedo launcher assemblies will be mounted in magazine compartments, port and starboard, on each of the three Hobart class AWDs. Originally designed for the US Navy, the Mod 9 launcher is a twin barrelled variant of the Mk32 launchers currently in operation on Anzac and FFG frigates in Australia and will be modified to discharge Eurotorp MU90 torpedoes.

Babcock engineers and technicians are now commencing assembly of the launchers, which will take around seven months for all six launchers (three ship sets), and will be followed by Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) of each set at Babcock's newly developed facility at Techport, South Australia. FAT will involve safety and interlock checks and the measurement of additional system parameters during the discharge of a dummy weapon from the launchers into a specially designed rig.

Under the contract to date, the first phase has seen Babcock working closely with the US Naval Underwater Weapons Centre at Rhode Island, and transfer of a technical data pack to Australia under a license granted by the US Department of State, in accordance with appropriate US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The data pack provides the basis for the procurement, manufacture, assembly and test of the equipment in Australia. Babcock now has the system and processes in place to handle ITAR controlled design information and procure ITAR controlled hardware through its US network.

Manufacture of component parts, including barrels, quadrants, breech locking rings, and air charging panels, as well as a number of major sub-assemblies, has also been on-going during the first phase of the contract. While some equipment has been sourced from specialist international suppliers, all other work is being carried out in Australia, representing around 60% of the contract value.

"Having the component parts and sub-assemblies arrive at our Techport Australia site, and starting the assembly process, marks an exciting and important milestone in this contract," Babcock director Pat Donovan comments. "Delivery of the completed launchers is on track against our project schedule, and ahead of the customer's required delivery date of September 2011 for the first ship-set."

-ends-

buglerbilly

18-05-11, 03:19 PM

Inaugural ASC Community Open Day

(Source: ASC; issued May 15, 2011)

ASC is pleased to invite the public to its shipyard today to reveal progress on the construction of Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) in an event jointly hosted with the AWD Alliance.

ASC is the Shipbuilder for the AWD Alliance. The Alliance is responsible for delivering three AWDs to the Royal Australian Navy.

The inaugural Community Open Day will give the public the opportunity to walk through the shipyard from 12-noon to 3pm and see the large steel blocks that are being outfitted with equipment - including pipes, ventilation ducts and cabling - in readiness for building the warships at the neighbouring Government of South Australia’s Common User Facility at Techport Australia.

ASC Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Steve Ludlam said that this is the first time ever that the ASC Shipyard will be open to the public.

“The public will get the rare opportunity to see what goes on behind the scenes at our shipyard and get a glimpse of some of the blocks that will be used to build the AWDs for the Navy,” Mr Ludlam said.

Blast and paint facilities

This week also marked the start of blast and paint work at a new $8 million facility at ASC’s Shipyard to paint steel blocks under construction.

Blast and paint work is one of the final stages of block production before the blocks are consolidated to build the warship. Once the blocks are painted, the final fit-out work is done.

The AWDs are being built using a block strategy, which involves the ship being constructed in 31 separate blocks at three shipyards across Australia – ASC in Adelaide, BAE Systems in Melbourne, and Forgacs in Newcastle.

AWD Alliance CEO Rod Equid said the start of blast and paint work is another important step forward in delivering the AWDs. In December 2010, the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare announced the contract to carry out the blast and paint work had been awarded to Transfield Services as part of a contract worth more than $35 million.

“The contract with Transfield Services will create jobs for more than 60 people over the next six years. Transfield will do paintwork on the blocks built by ASC and will also blast and paint the complete ships when they are assembled on the Common User Facility,” Mr Equid said.

“The Transfield Services start-up team includes a relatively small group of about 19 people which will rapidly grow over coming months to as many as 100 people by 2012.”

Job opportunities

The $8 billion AWD project is the largest Defence procurement project ever undertaken in Australia. It is a nation-building project that is expected to create 3,000 jobs benefiting thousands of businesses and families in Australia. The AWD Alliance workforce is growing and will peak during full production in 2012.

Around 200 skilled workers are sought for the project over the next 12 months. Current and future job opportunities within the AWD project are being showcased at the 2011 National Careers Expos. The first two were held in Melbourne and Sydney. Expos will be held in Brisbane this weekend, in Adelaide next weekend (May 20-21) and in Perth in August.

AWD Alliance

The AWD project is being delivered under an Alliance arrangement between Raytheon Australia, ASC and the Commonwealth, represented by the Defence Materiel Organisation.

The AWDs are based on the Spanish F100 design and include key features of the F104 design, an Australianised combat system and platform upgrades that will provide the Navy with one of the world’s most advanced multi-mission warships.

-ends-

Chunder

19-05-11, 11:13 AM

Read an article in Mondays paper re- AWD that a 4th one was almost 'gauranteed' NOT to go ahead.

Unicorn

19-05-11, 01:14 PM

Given the government's demand for Defence to help fund the costs of set top boxes for pensioners, AKA building the entertainment revolution, it was a non-starter.

.

Trackmaster

26-05-11, 09:22 AM

Not a good story...BAE in strife

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/new-warfare-destroyers-running-a-year-late/story-e6frfku0-1226063590590

A NEW air warfare destroyers (AWDs) are set to run a year late with some construction work to be re-allocated from the stretched Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard to yards in Adelaide and Newcastle.
As well, some work worth millions of dollars will now be performed in Spain rather than Australia.

This will avoid what would have been an even worse delay of two years.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the government, the AWD Alliance and BAE Systems took the delivery schedule for AWD and landing helicopter dock (LHD) ship projects most seriously.

A plan had been developed over the last few months to re-allocate some of work, he said.

"This is necessary because in addition to the AWD work, the Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard is also building 14 blocks for the superstructure for the two new landing helicopter dock ships due for delivery in 2014-15," he told parliament.

The $8-billion AWD project will deliver three advanced warships based on the Spanish-designed Navantia F100 destroyer.

These vessels are being constructed in 90 modular blocks fabricated at the ASC yard in Adelaide, at BAE Systems in Melbourne and at Forgacs in Newcastle. The final vessels will be assembled in Adelaide.

BAE Systems advised in February there would be delays of two years if nothing was done to relieve pressures on the yard, Mr Smith said.

That would have pushed delivery of the first vessel Hobart out to December 2016. The other vessels Brisbane and Sydney would have arrived at year intervals after that.

BAE Systems and the AWD alliance, which includes the Defence Materiel Organisation, had worked out an action plan to reduce schedule slippage to a year, Mr Smith said.

Up to 13 steel hull module blocks for the first two ships would be reallocated among the three Australian shipyards. Up to five blocks would be reallocated to Navantia in Ferrol, Spain.

Navantia is already manufacturing three hull blocks containing the vessel's sonar system. Earlier this year the AWD Alliance reallocated construction of nine blocks from Melbourne to Newcastle.

BAE Systems will now finish construction and initial outfitting work on seven blocks it is working on, as well as all its work on the 14 blocks for the LHD project.

This action would reduce the schedule risk for both projects, Mr Smith said.

"I am advised that there will be little if any adverse impact on the current Melbourne BAE Systems ship yard workforce which is around 300.

"That workforce will continue to have the opportunity to work on the AWDs as well as the LHDs and that's a good thing for Melbourne as it is for Adelaide and for Newcastle."

Mercator

26-05-11, 09:41 AM

Unicorn

26-05-11, 10:36 AM

A monumentally embarrassing (and very public) frak up on BAe System's part

Official release

Changes to Air Warfare Destroyer Construction Program

The Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced the reallocation of construction work for the $8 billion Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Project.

Australia is constructing three AWDs based on a proven design from the Spanish Navy. The ships are due to be delivered from December 2014. When complete, the AWD will be one of the more capable types of warship of its size in the world.

The AWD Project is an important element of Force 2030. The Government and Defence have been actively working with Defence Industry and the AWD Alliance, which is managing the AWD project, to deliver the project. The AWD Alliance consists of ASC, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Raytheon.

Construction of the AWDs involves 90 separate steel blocks being built at three shipyards in Adelaide (ASC), Melbourne (BAE Systems) and Newcastle (Forgacs). Three additional sonar block assemblies are being built in Spain and the United Kingdom.

The Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard is also building 14 steel blocks for the superstructure of two new 27,500 tonne Landing Helicopter Dock ships (LHDs) due for delivery in 2014 and 2015.

Last year the project encountered difficulties in relation to engineering and construction of some of the first AWD hull blocks. To assist the AWD project schedule, earlier this year the AWD Alliance reallocated construction of nine steel blocks from BAE Systems in Melbourne to the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle.

The Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard remains stretched, working on two major projects at the same time – steel blocks for the Air Warfare Destroyers and the superstructure and integration of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships.

The Government, the AWD Alliance and BAE Systems take the schedule for both these important projects extremely seriously.

In February 2011, BAE Systems advised the AWD Alliance of potential schedule delays.

Over the last few months, the AWD Alliance and BAE Systems have been working closely to develop options to improve the production program.

In March, the Minister for Defence met with Guy Griffiths, the Group Managing Director - International of BAE Systems UK, in London to discuss this project.

The Minister for Defence Materiel has also met with the CEO of BAE Australia, Jim McDowell, on a number of occasions about this project.

Earlier this month BAE Systems presented the AWD Alliance with a plan to adjust its workload on the AWD Project.

The advice of the AWD Alliance is that if no action is taken to relieve the pressure on the Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard the first ship would be two years late, approximately 25 per cent over schedule.

The AWD Alliance (with the support of BAE Systems) therefore proposes to take the following action:

Up to 13 steel blocks will be reallocated among the three Australian shipyards in Adelaide, Melbourne and Newcastle – seven for advanced fit out and six for construction; and
Up to five steel blocks will be reallocated to Navantia in Ferrol, Spain.
These changes involve the reallocation of blocks for the first two ships only and are subject in the usual way to satisfactory commercial arrangements with the shipyards.

BAE will complete the structural steel and initial outfitting work on the seven steel blocks it is currently working on, as well as all its work on the 14 blocks for the superstructure of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships and the integration work.

A decision on the reallocation of blocks, if any, on the third AWD will be made later in the project.

This action will reduce the schedule risk to both this project and to the LHD ships project.

The AWD Alliance has advised that this action will reduce the delay of the completion of Ship 1 by up to 12 months, and of all three AWDs by up to 12 months.

It will also reduce the pressure on BAE Systems to complete the construction of the superstructure and the integration of Australia’s two new LHD ships.

Defence will plan its comprehensive options to manage the transition from the current Adelaide Class frigates to the AWDs taking into account the agreed reallocation of blocks.

Unicorn

30-05-11, 04:38 AM

Labor warned of air warfare destroyer delays and blowouts

EXCLUSIVE Cameron Stewart From: The Australian May 28, 2011 12:00AM

THE Gillard government was secretly warned in February that deeply flawed design data was being used to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, which would ensure further delays and cost overruns in the $8 billion project.

The publicly owned Australian Submarine Corporation ignored the warnings from the BAE Systems shipyard at Williamstown in Melbourne, and ordered it to continue building the destroyers using the data.

The standoff between the two organisations has escalated to the point that BAE has rejected the ASC-issued design pack for the second of the three new air warfare destroyers, saying it is of such poor quality that it could ruin the nation's largest defence project.

BAE believes poor design detail contributed to the botched welding job on the central keel of the first AWD in Williamstown last September, which initially set the AWD project back by at least 12 months.

The Australian revealed yesterday that bitter infighting had paralysed the AWD project, which is running two years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, barely a year after construction of the three warships began in Melbourne, Adelaide and Newcastle.

The future of naval shipbuilding in Australia hangs on the success of the AWD project.

Defence officials have been shocked by the size and speed of the problems that have beset the AWDs. And some are warning privately that this bodes badly for the government's $36bn plan to build a dozen state-of-the-art submarines in Australia to replace the ailing Collins Class fleet.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith, who has struggled to manage a string of military sex scandals and procurement bungles, was forced this week to reveal the problems affecting the AWDs after he became aware The Australian had the story and was planning to publish the story the next day.

BAE Systems has been contracted to build about a third of the 90 separate steel blocks for the three destroyers, which will be the navy's most potent warships when they enter service.

BAE has told ASC and the government's Defence Materiel Organisation it is unhappy with the quality of the warship's Spanish design drawings, which it claims are too sloppy and incomplete to be relied on for construction.

The design drawings provided to BAE via the ASC are largely the work of the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, which has based the AWDs on its own Spanish F100 warships.

Mr Smith has defended Navantia, saying it has provided a "proven design".

The ASC has rejected BAE's criticism and has refused to agree to BAE's request to issue an improved design package. A spokesman for Navantia declined to comment yesterday. However, it is understood that both ASC and the DMO blame BAE almost entirely for the estimated two-year delay in the AWD project. They argue that the other two AWD hull block manufacturers - the ASC in Adelaide and Forgacs in Newcastle - have constructed their hull blocks using the Navantia design without problems.

BAE counters that it was given the most complex hull blocks on the AWD project, such as the keel blocks, which include about 2000 pipes as well as electrical systems, and that the ASC-Navantia design data does not provide sufficient detail for these key parts of the warships.

Mr Smith this week stripped the BAE Williamstown shipyard of some of its AWD block work, saying the vital defence project would be at least two years late unless the workload of the shipyard was eased.

He said the reallocation of work on the project might reduce the current two-year delay by up to 12 months, meaning the first AWD would still not enter service until at least 2015.

The 6500-tonne destroyers will be fitted with Aegis combat systems that will give the navy the ability to protect large convoys of troops and the power to destroy enemy aircraft over 150km away.

SOURCE: The Australian

Unicorn

30-05-11, 04:40 AM

'More than 2400 faults' in data on $8bn destroyers

EXCLUSIVE: Cameron Stewart From: The Australian May 30, 2011 12:00AM

THE Gillard government has been told more than 2400 faults have been discovered in the data used to build the hulls of the navy's $8 billion air-warfare destroyers.

These are said to include wrong dimensions for the hull shapes, inconsistent assembly instructions, missing measurements and faulty welding guides, which have flummoxed naval shipmakers at Melbourne's Williamstown shipyards.

The problems are so serious the shipyard owner and AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems, plans to set up a team of more than a dozen experts to identify alleged faults in the design and construction data that was sent to BAE by the official shipbuilder for the AWD project, the Adelaide-based Australian Submarine Corporation.

The ASC has rejected BAE's claim that there were serious faults in the design data that was provided to ASC by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, which is designing the three AWDs being constructed in Melbourne, Adelaide and Newcastle. Navantia has declined to comment on the issue.

The infighting between BAE, the publicly owned ASC and the Defence Materiel Organisation has paralysed the massive project, with each party blaming the other.

The AWD is the nation's largest defence project, but after barely a year of construction the plan to build three state-of-the-art destroyers is already two years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.

The project initially fell six months behind schedule late last year, when BAE bungled welding work on the central keel block of the first AWD, HMAS Hobart, but continued problems have now caused the project to fall further behind.

BAE blames the delays on what it says are poor design and construction data, which made it difficult to produce the types of detailed steel blocks required for construction of the AWD.

But ASC and the Defence Materiel Organisation blame the problems on poor project management and lack of naval shipbuilding expertise at BAE's Williamstown shipyards.

The government has been frustrated by what it sees as BAE's failure failure to recruit the number of skilled workers it needs to undertake the complex engineering of the AWD steel hull blocks, which are laden with pipes and electrical systems.

The Defence Minister Stephen Smith last week announced that he was stripping the BAE shipyard of some of its AWD work to ease the danger of further delays to the project.

The setbacks to the AWDs are expected to force the government to put the project on its official list of Defence "projects of concern".

It will be a galling admission for a government that once touted the AWD project as a model for the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia.

Milne Bay

28-07-11, 11:18 PM

Minister for Defence Materiel – Air Warfare Destroyer gun mounts have arrived
27 July 2011

The Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare announced in Adelaide today that the $8 billion Air Warfare Destroyer project has taken delivery of three main gun mounts of the Air Warfare Destroyers.

The gun mounts, manufactured by BAE Systems in the United States, are valued at $80 million and will be placed into a controlled storage facility in Adelaide until they are installed on HMA Ships Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney.

“The guns will be able to hit targets on land, air and at sea. They are capable of firing both Royal Australian Navy standard munitions and future extended range munitions,” Mr Clare said.

Similar gun mounts are installed on the Royal Australian Navy’s ANZAC Class frigates, the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke Class destroyers, the Spanish F-100 frigates and on ships within the South Korean, Japanese and Danish navies.

More than 1,000 people are currently working on the construction of the ships across three shipyards in Australia; at ASC in South Australia, Forgacs in New South Wales and BAE Systems in Victoria.

“This is an important project for the Australian Defence Force. These destroyers will be among the most advanced and capable warships in the world,” Mr Clare said.

Media contact: Tim Quadrio – (02) 9790 2466110727

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/07/27/minister-for-defence-materiel-air-warfare-destroyer-gun-mounts-have-arrived/

Milne Bay

29-07-11, 08:10 AM

Quick question for anyone that knows.
Will these guns have the same length barrel as those on the Anzacs, or are they a longer ranged and longer barrelled gun?

JimWH

29-07-11, 09:33 AM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=HOBART+CLASS+-+CHARACTERISTICS

Unicorn

29-07-11, 09:49 AM

:D

Evil bastard

.

Milne Bay

29-07-11, 10:11 AM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=HOBART+CLASS+-+CHARACTERISTICS

Very evil #@$*@&!

McFriday

29-07-11, 12:35 PM

Very evil #@$*@&!

With malice afukking forethought as well!!!

Mac

JimWH

29-07-11, 12:56 PM

Yeah, I'm a dick.

ADMk2

30-07-11, 07:08 AM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=HOBART+CLASS+-+CHARACTERISTICS

The good thing about the LMGTFY tool is that it actually does the Google search as well...

Milne Bay

30-07-11, 08:22 AM

The good thing about the LMGTFY tool is that it actually does the Google search as well...

You're still a dick!:razz

ADMk2

30-07-11, 08:25 AM

You're still a dick!:razz

Thanks, I'll be here all week...

:D

Unicorn

30-07-11, 11:00 AM

Yeah, I'm a dick.

Yes, but you're our dick.

.

Weasel

21-08-11, 03:58 AM

and a clever one to boot. So what is the proposed mitigation strategy for the AWD program gents (and ladies)?

Chunder

21-08-11, 04:29 AM

and a clever one to boot. So what is the proposed mitigation strategy for the AWD program gents (and ladies)?

Mitigation strategies aren't something we are good at here.

I don't think we've even considered the point of 3 if one has some sort of mission failure. lol

ADMk2

21-08-11, 12:54 PM

and a clever one to boot. So what is the proposed mitigation strategy for the AWD program gents (and ladies)?

I believe the only strategies put in place so far are the usual Australian Industry ones, under-bid to guarantee the work, under invest in the resources (human and technical) needed to perform the work, fail to perform on any reasonable metric, but most specifically come in over schedule and way above cost and then blame all and sundry for what went wrong, but take none yourselves...

And then bleat publicly about a lack of work, but most especially to members of Parliament in marginal seats about the "domestic capability" we have but don't use because all our defence spending "goes to primes overseas"...

McFriday

21-08-11, 01:56 PM

I believe the only strategies put in place so far are the usual Australian Industry ones, under-bid to guarantee the work, under invest in the resources (human and technical) needed to perform the work, fail to perform on any reasonable metric, but most specifically come in over schedule and way above cost and then blame all and sundry for what went wrong, but take none yourselves...

And then bleat publicly about a lack of work, but most especially to members of Parliament in marginal seats about the "domestic capability" we have but don't use because all our defence spending "goes to primes overseas"...

Great assessment AD, has a familiar ring to it though, where could we have learned it? Oh yes, the overseas primes, works for them...
Cheers,
Mac

Will

05-09-11, 10:43 AM

You know, I have had this funny feeling before (and its not because I'm totally biased. Australia would have done better going with the AB design -period).

Oh, right that's it. Its the same feeling I had before Hurricane Katrina made landfall.

Good luck! lol

cheers

w

Personally I would have liked to have seen Australia spend the money on LO missile boats instead. Or of they have to go with something of this tonnage then I would have preferred to see something like the Formidable or Valour class.

I can't help but think that these boats will be obsolete before they are launched.

ADMk2

05-09-11, 11:45 AM

Personally I would have liked to have seen Australia spend the money on LO missile boats instead. Or of they have to go with something of this tonnage then I would have preferred to see something like the Formidable or Valour class.

I can't help but think that these boats will be obsolete before they are launched.

When you look at the oceans and conditions our ships have to operate in, then any sort of missile boat is completely out of the question for our major surface combatant.

Ditto with the Formidable or Valour Class, both are ANZAC Class sized frigates (3600t more or less) with few real advantages over them as far as we're are concerned, other than that which being a slightly newer generation provides. They are not however an increase in combat capability of the magnitude that a 6000t + Destroyer brings and that's what the Air Warfare Destroyer is.

If you look at the operations and exercises we are geared towards then an AEGIS based solution is clearly the best option for us. As to it being obsolete soon, well the US Navy, Japanese Maritime self defence force, South Korean Navy, Norwegian Navy, the Spanish Armada and the Royal Australian Navy disagree with that sentiment...

That's some pretty heavy firepower there...

Will

05-09-11, 12:39 PM

When you look at the oceans and conditions our ships have to operate in, then any sort of missile boat is completely out of the question for our major surface combatant.

Ditto with the Formidable or Valour Class, both are ANZAC Class sized frigates (3600t more or less) with few real advantages over them as far as we're are concerned, other than that which being a slightly newer generation provides. They are not however an increase in combat capability of the magnitude that a 6000t + Destroyer brings and that's what the Air Warfare Destroyer is.

If you look at the operations and exercises we are geared towards then an AEGIS based solution is clearly the best option for us. As to it being obsolete soon, well the US Navy, Japanese Maritime self defence force, South Korean Navy, Norwegian Navy, the Spanish Armada and the Royal Australian Navy disagree with that sentiment...

That's some pretty heavy firepower there...

The point I was trying to make was that in my view the F100 is not low observable enough. The same rules apply as with aircraft.

At the end of the day if you can see it you can kill it with a very cheap missile.

ADMk2

05-09-11, 12:56 PM

The point I was trying to make was that in my view the F100 is not low observable enough. The same rules apply as with aircraft.

At the end of the day if you can see it you can kill it with a very cheap missile.

It meets the requirements RAN has for a destroyer including no doubt in LO and don't get too carried away by the idea about how easy it is to sink warships with ASM's. The AWD's will be one of the best protected warships in the world and it will feature many LO elements that aren't readily identifiable at a casual glance.

Things like the LO shield on the Mk 45 gun turrets and many other features add up...

Gubler, A.

06-09-11, 02:00 AM

The point I was trying to make was that in my view the F100 is not low observable enough.

For a very big ship it will look like a trawler on most radar screens. That’s not so bad. To make it disappear or significantly cut acquisition range (aka stealth) would mean it would have to be designed with an exotic hull form with a huge addition to cost and no real guarantee it would be stealthy.

To acquire small missile boat types would mean you sacrifice all sorts of capability and replace radar detectability with total vulnerability after detection. Radar isn’t the only way to detect things and a small, stealthy missile boat will not have an adequate air defence system and will be hugely vulnerable to air attack after visual detection. It certainly won’t be able to achieve the requirement of the AWD which is to provide air defence to other ships.

The same rules apply as with aircraft.

No they don’t. Ship stealth is very much harder to achieve than aircraft stealth because apart from ship’s being much bigger it is also much harder to control their attitude at all times. That is as a ship rolls in the water it changes the angular relationship between its surfaces and any search radar. Without control over this relationship you can’t have stealth. Which is why the handful of stealth ships built/designed (Sea Shadow and Zumwalt) all have exotic displacement systems to try and control their roll.

At the end of the day if you can see it you can kill it with a very cheap missile.

A gross simplification of warfare. The Hobart class AWD would be able to withstand an attack by a very large number of anti ship missiles. Around 10-20 sea skimmers fired simultaneously and more if they are staggered or high altitude. That is just by itself, as part of cooperative defensive arrangement with Wedgetail and SM-6 it will be able to do a lot more. Very much far from a sitting duck.

Weasel

06-09-11, 03:13 AM

For a very big ship it will look like a trawler on most radar screens. That’s not so bad. To make it disappear or significantly cut acquisition range (aka stealth) would mean it would have to be designed with an exotic hull form with a huge addition to cost and no real guarantee it would be stealthy...

Actually, you could make it VLO quite quickly, if you decided not to paint it. Fe2O3 aka "rust" is (like other oxides) quite a good radar absorbant material. That is why Russian trawler fleets are so hard to pick up with 3cm and 10cm :) .. and you think I am kidding, right?

cheers

w

Unicorn

19-09-11, 05:25 AM

Shipyard 'war' threatened 300 jobs
Cameron Stewart From: The Australian September 17, 2011 12:00AM

BITTER infighting has again erupted inside the nation's largest defence project, further delaying the construction of the navy's $8 billion air warfare destroyers and narrowly averting major job losses at a Melbourne shipyard.

The dispute, which threatened at least 300 manufacturing jobs at the Williamstown shipyard, was solved only late last week after the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare, requested an explanation from the warring parties.

Sources say the stand-off, which has dragged on behind the scenes for months, is likely to delay construction of the hull blocks for the second AWD by at least two months. This is in addition to a delay of at least 12 months in the project due to faulty keel construction.

The construction of the three complex 6500-tonne destroyers, which will be fitted with US-designed Aegis missile defences, is the country's largest and most ambitious defence project and is seen as a test for the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia. The dispute is understood to have arisen when the prime contractor, Adelaide-based AWD Alliance, refused to provide the data for the construction of keel blocks on the second destroyer to Melbourne shipbuilder BAE Systems.

There has been bad blood between BAE and the Alliance (comprising the Defence Materiel Organisation, the Australian Submarine Corporation and Raytheon Australia) since BAE botched work on a keel block for the first AWD earlier this year, delaying the project by at least a year. BAE blames that partly on poor data from the Alliance.

The Alliance said it did not want to give BAE the data packs for the second AWD because it did not want to overload the Williamstown shipyard, which was already busy building the keel blocks for the first AWD. "The focus of the Alliance was ensuring the delivery of Ship 1 blocks, which were still in work at that time," an Alliance representative said.

Sources said BAE strongly objected to the unexpected delay in the delivery of the data packs for Ship 2 because it left dozens of workers idle at Williamstown.

In frustration, BAE contacted Mr Clare directly, briefing him on the dispute and warning of job losses, in Williamstown, which is in Health Minister Nicola Roxon's seat of Gellibrand.

Mr Clare is understood to have then asked the Alliance to brief him further on the dispute, but on Friday the Alliance agreed to release the data packs to BAE this week, which it has done.

The steel hulls for the three destroyers are being built in separate blocks in Adelaide, Newcastle and Williamstown before being assembled by ASC in Adelaide.

In May, Defence Minister Stephen Smith announced a reallocation of work on the hull blocks between the shipyards to reduce the workload on BAE, which built the 200-tonne central keel block for the first ship to the wrong dimensions.

Sources say the latest dispute reflects a lack of confidence within the Alliance that BAE can carry out its AWD work properly.

BAE and Mr Clare declined to comment.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/shipyard-war-threatened-300-jobs/story-e6frg8yo-1226139337564

JimWH

19-09-11, 06:36 AM

ADMk2

19-09-11, 10:08 AM

Just think, if we'd gone with LO missile boats for our fleet air defence requirement, we wouldn't have had these problems! When will some visionary arm-chair-admiral save us from our collective hubris?
[I miss our latest nutter.]

Me too. He was fun...

Good to see BAE once again unable to fulfill it's contracts and once again, it's someone else's fault... What was that about a broken record again? Good to see they've got a hotline straight to the Minister's office though. What a completely above-board situation. Can't imagine anything going wrong with that arrangement...

Milne Bay

19-09-11, 10:48 AM

Me too. He was fun...

Good to see BAE once again unable to fulfill it's contracts and once again, it's someone else's fault... What was that about a broken record again? Good to see they've got a hotline straight to the Minister's office though. What a completely above-board situation. Can't imagine anything going wrong with that arrangement...

Why is defence persisting with this crowd?
There has to come a point where too much is at stake to entrust significant projects to these people.

tiddles

27-09-11, 03:39 AM

I agree with his view that that the AB would have been a better option ,cheaper & yes get them built overseas,however this has not always been my opinion.But the whole AWD & LHD thing is a done deal & the contracts & building already in place, what is the point in having a whinge now,it wont change anything,but OTOH we are all entitled to an opinion at any time we choose
Tiddles

No defence to warship blowout Hugh White
September 27, 2011

Opinion
FEW of us can say whether the ships and planes the government decides to build at such immense expense are what Australia needs, or whether they are being bought the right way. We must simply trust ministers and their advisers to act diligently and responsibly in the best interests of the country.

For a decade that trust has been misplaced. As Australia's strategic situation becomes more and more serious, Australian governments have become increasingly dysfunctional in providing for our defence.

To see just how dysfunctional take a look at how $8 billion is being spent on three new Air Warfare Destroyers. There are three problems with this project. We do not need these ships. If we did need them, we shouldn't be building them in Australia. If we must build them here, we shouldn't be managing the project the way it is being managed.

Advertisement: Story continues below Let's start with the last and least of these problems - management. Hull modules for the AWDs are taking shape in dockyards around Australia. Major arguments are already emerging between those involved. Melbourne's Williamstown dockyard, where some of the modules are being built, is in a dispute with project headquarters about who is responsible for defects in work already done.

These problems are the predictable result of the previous government's decision to run the project through a bureaucratic committee, rather than order the ships from a single prime contractor. No one knows who is responsible for what. Expect more muddle, delay and cost blowouts.

But this is only the first problem with a project that typifies what is wrong in Australia's defence organisation. We should not be building these ships in Australia at all, but buying them from overseas. The US would sell us comparable Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for about $1 billion each.

That is not much more than one-third of the price we are supposed to be paying to build our ships here. It will be much less than one-third of the eventual cost, if the project keeps going the way it has started. And if the Arleigh Burkes are good enough for the US Navy, presumably they would be good enough for us. In some critical respects they would be much better than the ships we are paying so much more to build. For example, they will carry two helicopters instead of one.

Of course, many people say we must build our own warships in Australia. Most of them are employed by the defence industry, or by state governments that want a share of the action. They are wrong. There is no compelling strategic justification to pay this kind of premium to build the ships here. We are wasting around $6 billion.

And don't let anyone tell you that it helps the wider economy. This kind of project actually harms the economy by diverting skilled workers from the mining and infrastructure sectors where they are desperately needed.

But it gets worse. The deep, sad truth about the AWD project is that we should not be buying ships like this at all. They are more capable and expensive than we need for low-level operations of the kind we have been doing recently around our neighbourhood, and they would have no useful role to play if Australia found itself in a major conflict.

To understand this, we have to consider some simple questions. What is Australia's naval strategy? What do we as a country need to be able to do at sea to defend ourselves and our interests, and how can we best do it? These questions become more pressing with every passing year, as China's rise overturns Asia's peaceful order. And yet the government has no answer to them.

One answer might be that Australia needs to be able to project power around Asia, sending our army on amphibious missions the way the Americans send in the marines. That seems to be the idea behind the big, new amphibious ships we are buying. In this vision of our naval strategy, the AWDs are supposed to defend the amphibious ships from hostile naval and air forces.

If there were any coherent rationale for the AWDs, this would be it. But it makes no strategic sense. The AWDs could never provide enough protection to justify sending amphibious forces to sea in the face of the kind of opposition they would face in a serious conflict against a major Asian power, or even a capable middle power.

Even the US is finding that in the Asian century, power projection by sea has become too risky to be realistic. For Australia, no matter how many AWDs we build, amphibious operations in a major conflict are not an option. And even if it were, how much strategic effect would 2000 Australian soldiers have in Asia, do we think?

In fact, the only credible strategy for Australia in any major conflict is to abandon any attempt to achieve the kind of sea control needed to send amphibious forces against an adversary, and instead do all we can to make sure that the adversary cannot send its amphibious forces against us. This approach - a sea denial strategy - is much simpler and cheaper than sea control, and is the only strategy we have any chance of being able to sustain independently.

So instead of wasting money on AWDs to implement a sea-control strategy that has no chance of working, we should invest instead in a large and capable submarine force, because they are the best way to achieve sea denial.

Can the navy be trusted to operate submarines effectively? Well, that's a whole different question, but the way to answer it is to transform the navy into an effective force that can do what we need them to do, not buy them ships we do not need.

Who is to blame for this slow-motion strategic train-smash? The Howard government is responsible for the original foolish decisions. Their Labor successors are equally responsible for failing to fix it since. The senior civilian and military advisers in Defence who have blandly assured ministers that all is for the best, must take a share of the blame.

But the rest of us - voters and taxpayers - must take a share, too. Our governments do defence policy so badly, because we make it so easy for them to get away with doing it badly.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/no-defence-to-warship-blowout-20110926-1ktgw.html#ixzz1Z71NU01f

Gubler, A.

27-09-11, 05:31 AM

Weasel

27-09-11, 06:54 AM

Well if you base your opinion on the nonsense in this article then you are just as misguided as the writer. The USN current cost of an Arleigh Burke is US$1.75 billion not $1 billion which is a giant ‘black hole’ in the import from overseas argument. Then this price does not include a range of support and training equipment which the RAN would have to buy as unlike the USN we are not an established user of these ships. So to buy three of them from the US would cost at least US$ 6 billion. Then during the life of the ship it would be far more costly for use to refit and sustain them because we would not have the benefit of the infrastructure, supply base and skills base established in the building program. This cost difference is likely to be at least another billion during the life of the ship. o now the cost is about the same $7 billion rather than $8 billion and that is assuming we can buy everything this year and not have to factor in another ten years inflation as the AWD program has.

Then of course there is the whole cost to government issue. If we buy from the USA that $6 billion for ships and equipment is transferred overseas to their federal bank in New York. Good bye money. If we spend $8 billion in Australia then a lot of this comes back to the Government via taxation. Because the majority of this cost is labour the tax windfall is going to be over $2 billion. So now the AWDs only cost the Government $6 billion. And most of that money is spent in Australia on Australian suppliers, services, wages and job creation. Growing our economy, offsetting social welfare costs and so on.

As long as we have the industrial capacity building domestically will always trump importing in total cost to government even if we have to pay twice as much. As for White’s strategic arguments they are extremely narrow and subsequently worthless.
Actually, the real reasonable target dollar figure is 600million (2002 USD) for each copy of the DDG-51. This was projected by Marconi (Financial) before they were bought out by BAE approx. 1999 (as I understand). So given this little tidbit, it is also reasonable to suggest one can negotiate a contract to deliver said product for said dollar value.

Big deal, right? What the above highlights is western procurement processes, spotty history in negotiating reasonable price. i.e. Failure to negotiate a reasonable price for the government in question is not just an Australian phenomenon.

examples are:

LCS
UK Carriers
Charles De Gaulle
Astute SSN
Virginia SSN
Typhoon Eurofighter
EFV
F-35
V-22

Not to mention various space projects like L-SAT

Why?

I've got some thoughts on that.

Anyway, if you take it as granted that you are going to get bled dry (regardless), then any intangibles that you can gain from the exercise (like those cited by Abe) make it more attractive to "build your own".

So, if intangibles are so highly prized, wouldn't it be best to actually look at intangibles that make money in their own right? You know, spinoffs. Which military industry investment creates the most spinoff industries? Is it shipping, aerospace or land forces?

I would put forward it is aerospace.

Without aerospace we wouldn't have things like barbie dolls, cocktail straws, computers, cell phones and hey, even the Internet (LOL).

cheers

w

buglerbilly

27-09-11, 07:13 AM

These are the costs accumulated by Ship Building History............I take these as being the bare hull costs minus hardware that is included but procured separately.......e.g. radar, VLS, guns etc etc so you add those costs in and the price per ship becomes much larger. These prices obviously reflect the 100+ series build and show a steady increase in unit price over the years.......we will, of course, be building a pimple on the ass of a mountain in comparison.

http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/statistics/costofddgs.htm

I assume the Installation of supplied equipment is included above, but NOT the Commissioning of the individual gear as this is most likely part of the Equipment contract as are Spares.

Costs of Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning of the warship as a whole is also probably/possibly a separated cost.

Weasel

27-09-11, 08:32 AM

Unicorn

27-09-11, 12:19 PM

I can attest that the US offered Australia 3 or 4 Arleigh Burke's straight off the production line for less than $1 billion a piece.

We would have received US hulls already ordered and the US would simply have added replacement hulls to the back of the order line. Basically the same deal as we had for the Adams and Perry classes.

Basically we would have received them at close to cost because the US considers Australia to be an exceptionally valued ally located in a strategic area of the world whose support is considered essential.

The US supplies billions of dollars a year in equipment to people like Egypt and get basically SFA back for it. Given that context Washington considered assisting the provision of Burke's to the RAN to be an exceptionally good idea.

As the RAN is one of the very few navies in the world able to interface with a US carrier group seamlessly and for all intents and purposes a RAN frigate is considered the equal of a USN combatant of similar capability in the group, the RAN operating Burke's was seen as a win / win.

Shame local defence industry politics got in the way, now we have to deal with the fiasco that is Australian major warship manufacturing.

Would probably have been better to get the Hobart class hulls built in Spain and fitted out here, as we are doing with the Canberra class and which has been proposed by Navantia for the Cantabria class replenishment ships as Success / Sirius replacements.

.

tiddles

27-09-11, 01:11 PM

Well if you base your opinion on the nonsense in this article then you are just as misguided as the writer. The USN current cost of an Arleigh Burke is US$1.75 billion not $1 billion which is a giant ‘black hole’ in the import from overseas argument. Then this price does not include a range of support and training equipment which the RAN would have to buy as unlike the USN we are not an established user of these ships. So to buy three of them from the US would cost at least US$ 6 billion. Then during the life of the ship it would be far more costly for use to refit and sustain them because we would not have the benefit of the infrastructure, supply base and skills base established in the building program. This cost difference is likely to be at least another billion during the life of the ship. o now the cost is about the same $7 billion rather than $8 billion and that is assuming we can buy everything this year and not have to factor in another ten years inflation as the AWD program has.

Then of course there is the whole cost to government issue. If we buy from the USA that $6 billion for ships and equipment is transferred overseas to their federal bank in New York. Good bye money. If we spend $8 billion in Australia then a lot of this comes back to the Government via taxation. Because the majority of this cost is labour the tax windfall is going to be over $2 billion. So now the AWDs only cost the Government $6 billion. And most of that money is spent in Australia on Australian suppliers, services, wages and job creation. Growing our economy, offsetting social welfare costs and so on.

As long as we have the industrial capacity building domestically will always trump importing in total cost to government even if we have to pay twice as much. As for White’s strategic arguments they are extremely narrow and subsequently worthless.
I suppose that having suggested that HW is leaving it a bit late to start whinging, I suppose i should not be either ,bbut, my view on buying the AB had been arrived at long before I read HWs article. The figure of $1billion for the AB [conviently round figure] had been mentioned on a number of occasions before, & IIRC it was by respected posters on several Forums , so it did play a part in my thoughts,however there were other reasons.I dont wish to restart the pros & cons of the various ships as it has been talked about at very very great length before.I also understand the other reasons you mentioned for local building & have promoted those ideas myself on occasions but in this case it does not change my mind.I just think we would have been better off in the long run to buy the AB & have it built in the US.This does not mean that I think that the F100 is a poor ship ,it will do, but i would have preferred the AB.
Tiddles

buglerbilly

27-09-11, 02:47 PM

AWD – Another Two Blocks Delivered

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Sept. 27, 2011)

Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that two more keel blocks had been delivered to Adelaide to construct Australia’s first Air Warfare Destroyer.

This follows the delivery of the first keel block last month. The blocks were constructed at the Williamstown shipyard in Melbourne. They were loaded on to barges last week and transported to Adelaide over the weekend.

Mr Clare said this was another step forward in the $8 billion project to construct three new warships for the Royal Australian Navy.

“This is Australia’s biggest shipbuilding project,” Mr Clare said. “90 separate blocks will be constructed to build the three most powerful warships the Royal Australian Navy has ever operated.

“About 70 blocks like this will be shipped to Adelaide over the next four years to be consolidated into Air Warfare Destroyers.

“These blocks weigh approximately 190 tonnes each. They are about 19 metres long, 17 metres wide and five metres high and will form part of the keel of the first warship – HMAS Hobart.”

The steel blocks are being built at shipyards in Adelaide (ASC), Melbourne (BAE Systems), Newcastle (Forgacs) and Ferrol, Spain (Navantia).

Three sonar blocks are being constructed in Spain and the United Kingdom.

The blocks will now be removed from the barge and transported by a large multi-wheeled vehicle to the pre-fit-out facility.

Further work on the blocks will then be completed including blast and paint, fitting pipes, installing communications and electrical cables and fitting internal walls.

Construction has begun on all main blocks for the first ship and work has also begun on blocks for the second ship, HMAS Brisbane.

Next year work will begin on blocks for the third ship, HMAS Sydney and the first ship will start to be consolidated in Adelaide.

Mr Clare thanked the more than 1,000 people currently working on the ships across the three Australian shipyards.

“The workers constructing these blocks are doing important work – building new warships for the Royal Australian Navy,” Mr Clare said. “They’re working hard and I thank them for their efforts.” (ends)

BAE Systems Ships More Blocks to Adelaide

(Source: BAE Systems; issued Sept. 27, 2011)

Two more keel blocks constructed by BAE Systems for the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) program have been shipped to the ASC facility in Osborne South Australia.

The blocks, 107 and 103, weigh approximately 190 tonnes each are approximately 19 metres long, 17 meters high and 5 metres wide left the BAE Systems Williamstown yard last Saturday by barge.

BAE Systems Director of Maritime, Harry Bradford, said following the successful transportation of the first block last month and now the delivery of these additional blocks, BAE Systems was pleased with the progress on the project.

“The blocks that BAE Systems are constructing for this program are the more complex part of the build.

“These blocks we have just delivered include part of the complex hull structure and major machinery spaces.

“Over the next six months a further four blocks will be sent from the BAE Systems Williamstown Yard to Osborne for assembly at ASC.”

Mr Bradford congratulated the staff at the Williamstown yard for achieving another milestone in this project.

“Around 350 people in the Williamstown yard would have at some stage worked on the blocks we have now sent to Osborne. We are continuing to invest in our people and the skills necessary to meet the challenges required to complete the task.”

The $8 billion AWD project comprises three ships and will provide the Royal Australian Navy with one of the world’s most capable multi-mission warships. The three blocks now delivered to ASC will form a large part of the keel of the first ship HMAS Hobart.

-ends-

Gubler, A.

28-09-11, 12:35 AM

I can attest that the US offered Australia 3 or 4 Arleigh Burke's straight off the production line for less than $1 billion a piece.

That was over ten years ago. The Govt. spending $4 billion plus (AUD was a lot weaker then) in 2001-2006 is very different to spending $8 billion in 2010-2020. The difference in inflation alone is over $2 billion...

Gubler, A.

28-09-11, 12:41 AM

I suppose that having suggested that HW is leaving it a bit late to start whinging, I suppose i should not be either ,bbut, my view on buying the AB had been arrived at long before I read HWs article. The figure of $1billion for the AB [conviently round figure] had been mentioned on a number of occasions before, & IIRC it was by respected posters on several Forums , so it did play a part in my thoughts,however there were other reasons.

As you can see in my last post a big element in the price difference is inflation. Now if you want to benchmark the difference between ordering three Arleigh Burkes from the USA in 2000 with ordering three AF100s from Australia in 2008 then you have to take into account the differential caused by inflation. Now if we had just ordered a license build of three Arleigh Burkes from Tenix in 2000/01 to dovetail into the end of the Anzac program the cost of these ships would be a lot less than $8 billion. That is the only reasonable benchmark comparison between the US offer to build Arleigh Burkes for a billion each. Which is in USD not AUD which was a lot lower in the early 2000s when we would have had to be paying money for lead items and build investment for the ships. Cost in AUD would be as high as $4.5 for three not to mention additional costs for equipment and services not contained in the USN’s per unit price.

Weasel

28-09-11, 01:23 AM

That was over ten years ago. The Govt. spending $4 billion plus (AUD was a lot weaker then) in 2001-2006 is very different to spending $8 billion in 2010-2020. The difference in inflation alone is over $2 billion...

OK, how do you get to that figure when the average US inflation rate over the last 50 years is 4%? Yes, inflation is a factor, but it is not as large as you suggest.

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

28-09-11, 05:11 AM

OK, how do you get to that figure when the average US inflation rate over the last 50 years is 4%? Yes, inflation is a factor, but it is not as large as you suggest.

4% compounded over 10 years (a reasonable mean to mean of spend time period) on $4 billion equals $6 billion…

Weasel

28-09-11, 05:44 AM

600 million compounded at 4% = approx 888 million. 4 x 888= 3.552 Billion

And Rem the 600 million was a conservative estimate as evidenced by Bug's little line graph.

So if you build 4 you get closer to 1.152 Billion in inflationary cost (4x 288)...

? Is the Australian media bombarding the public with Obama figures to such an extent that 1.152 billion is just rounded up to 2 billion, these days?

Or do you have several points you would like to make re Australian job/technology and Industry growth and were not so focused on the numbers?

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

28-09-11, 06:30 AM

600 million compounded at 4% = approx 888 million. 4 x 888= 3.552 Billion

Mate you may think with good reason that a DDG 51 can be built for $600m but at no point in time has one ever been offered at that price to the RAN. The 2000/01 offer for US built DDG 51s that Unicorn mentioned above was for a price tag per ship (not including necessary extras) of around $1 billion. If you want to compare that price to that of an Australian built where the build phase (and mean expenditure) is 10 years later then you have to factor in inflation. So suddenly $1 billion becomes $1.5 billion. And that is just using average CPI for inflation whereas the defence sector has faced a higher than that inflation because of higher cost increases in strategic materials, advanced components and the defence workforce. Which is why a DDG 51 built in the USA at the same time as the AWDs now cost $1.75 billion per hull.

Weasel

28-09-11, 06:56 AM

Mate you may think with good reason that a DDG 51 can be built for $600m but at no point in time has one ever been offered at that price to the RAN. The 2000/01 offer for US built DDG 51s that Unicorn mentioned above was for a price tag per ship (not including necessary extras) of around $1 billion. If you want to compare that price to that of an Australian built where the build phase (and mean expenditure) is 10 years later then you have to factor in inflation. So suddenly $1 billion becomes $1.5 billion. And that is just using average CPI for inflation whereas the defence sector has faced a higher than that inflation because of higher cost increases in strategic materials, advanced components and the defence workforce. Which is why a DDG 51 built in the USA at the same time as the AWDs now cost $1.75 billion per hull.

Right. That just comes around full circle to the issue; "Why are government customers so bad at negotiating reasonable price?" (Assuming - of course that it is possible to make a DDG-51 for 600Million USD.)

Regardless of whether you think it is possible or isn't, the question is still a valid one. Why? And I'm not asking to be a dick. I think people here have some measure of credibility and would be interested in thoughts on the matter.

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

28-09-11, 08:13 AM

Right. That just comes around full circle to the issue; "Why are government customers so bad at negotiating reasonable price?" (Assuming - of course that it is possible to make a DDG-51 for 600Million USD.)

Regardless of whether you think it is possible or isn't, the question is still a valid one. Why? And I'm not asking to be a dick. I think people here have some measure of credibility and would be interested in thoughts on the matter.

Yeah sure but apples for the apple cart not the orange cart. We are talking about the issue of domestic or overseas builds and basic accounting: like you can't compare a 2000 price with a 2010 price and wonder why you got a bad deal 10 years later... Not talking about productivity in defence, which as we all know is a fricken nightmare.

ARH v.3.1

28-09-11, 08:43 AM

Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that two more keel blocks had been delivered to Adelaide to construct Australia’s first Air Warfare Destroyer.

Do they fit together?

Gubler, A.

28-09-11, 09:43 AM

Do they fit together?

Only way to find out is weld them all together, build a ship out of them and then try and sail through the Bass Strait...

Weasel

28-09-11, 03:07 PM

Yeah sure but apples for the apple cart not the orange cart. We are talking about the issue of domestic or overseas builds and basic accounting: like you can't compare a 2000 price with a 2010 price and wonder why you got a bad deal 10 years later... Not talking about productivity in defence, which as we all know is a fricken nightmare.

No, It can be compared as you were the one who said "taking inflation into account" e.g. 600 ,million(2000 USD) = 888million (2010) dollars.

Forget all that, You are coming from one angle, and I the other. I am sure you are right.

But where in lies the wisdom to domestically manufacture a new ship from scratch, when you can achieve similar capability by buying MOTS? Is defense regarded as an appreciating asset in Australia, as it sounds like it is (today). But then when the contract is over it also sounds like you will dismantle that industry asset (which means defense is regarded as a depreciating asset).

For example: The USN go to great lengths to keep building at least one submarine in two separate yards. Why? Because they recognize that keeping a yard current pays off in the long run. Keeping two current is intended to stimulate competitive innovation.....not competitive pricing.

It is a big pain in the neck, but the industry is as lean as it can be, without losing that skill set.

cheers

w

Unicorn

04-10-11, 02:31 AM

Smith threat to shift more destroyer work
Brendan Nicholson: The Australian September 28, 2011 12:00AM

THE federal government will consider having more vessel sections built outside Victoria if there are any more problems with the Air Warfare Destroyer project, Defence Minister Stephen Smith has warned.

Mr Smith said the government was in discussions with the companies building the hi-tech vessels as part of the the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance.

The Australian revealed in May the consortium was having problems merging sections of the Spanish-designed warships because of difficulties interpreting plans.

The government confirmed that these issues were likely to cause the ships to be delivered two years late.

The three destroyers are being built in 90 sections, or blocks, in shipyards in Adelaide, Melbourne and Newcastle.

Mr Smith said in May the alliance had reallocated nine steel blocks from BAE Systems in Melbourne to the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle. That cut the anticipated delay from two years to 12 months, he said.

Mr Smith said he recently met BAE officials and left them in no doubt about the government's wish for a successful conclusion.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/smith-threat-to-shift-more-destroyer-work/story-e6frg8yo-1226148488218

.

buglerbilly

04-10-11, 02:57 AM

[B]...... the consortium was having problems merging sections of the Spanish-designed warships because of difficulties interpreting plans.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/smith-threat-to-shift-more-destroyer-work/story-e6frg8yo-1226148488218

.

:wtf

Milne Bay

04-10-11, 08:20 AM

Unicorn

05-10-11, 04:10 AM

They are reiterating the story (which the Australian broke) as part of the wider story context

.

buglerbilly

05-10-11, 02:22 PM

Kongsberg Awarded Simulator Contract for the New Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Program

(Source: Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace; issued Oct. 5, 2011)

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (Kongsberg) is pleased to announce the award of a Command Team Trainer Simulation Infrastructure contract in the order of 50 MNOK under which Kongsberg will support Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd (the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Combat System Systems Engineer) in the delivery of this central component of the Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers Command Team Trainer.

The Simulation Infrastructure is based on Kongsberg's PROTEUS Naval Training Technology and will provide the Hobart Class Command Team Trainer (CTT) with exercise control and a common synthetic environment for integration of the Aegis Weapon System and other Hobart class sensors and effectors. The Simulation Infrastructure also provides Link 11/16 and DIS interfaces for external joint collaborative training.

The contract is an extension of the Australian Tactical Interface (ATI) contract for the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) signed in June 2009 between Kongsberg and Raytheon Australia, on behalf of the AWD Alliance.

“This contract is the result of long and dedicated work with the PROTEUS Naval Training Technology in Command Team Trainers, starting from our contract for the Ula Class submarine CTT, continuing through the Fridtjof Nansen class Frigate CTT and now the Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers CTT in a close cooperation with the Royal Australian Navy”, says Executive Vice President Nils-Oddvar Hagen.

-ends-

Unicorn

18-10-11, 09:08 AM

More work and more jobs for The Hunter on new Australian warships

Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare and Member for Newcastle Sharon Grierson today announced more work and more jobs for the Hunter on the new Air Warfare Destroyers Project.

When the Air Warfare Destroyer project began in 2009, Hunter company Forgacs were contracted to build 29 steel blocks.

This has now increased to 40 blocks.

In February Forgacs were awarded nine more blocks.

Following a re-allocation of work announced in May this year, Forgacs has been awarded another two blocks.

This additional work is worth around $80 million and will create approximately 200 more jobs.

It has also meant opening an additional shipyard at Carrington.

Mr Clare and Ms Grierson made the announcement while visiting Forgac’s Tomago worksite today.

“This is terrific news for the Hunter and a tribute to the quality of work being done here at Forgacs,” Mr Clare said.

“Forgacs will now build about half of the first two Air Warfare Destroyers.

“They will build 14 of the 31 blocks that make up the first ship, HMAS Hobart and 13 of the 31 blocks that make up the second ship, HMAS Brisbane.

“They have started work on all of the 14 blocks for ship one and on two of the 13 blocks they will build for ship two.”

While at the Tomago facility, Mr Clare and Ms Grierson inspected a block that is currently undergoing its final stages of work, including the installation of mechanical and electrical equipment, electrical cabling and completion of pipework installation.

“There are now 50 workers working on the AWD project at Carrington and 450 workers working on the project at Tomago,” Ms Grierson said.

“At peak production 650 people are expected to be working on this project across both shipyards.”

ADMk2

18-10-11, 09:13 AM

This is like the joke about what you call a bunch of lawyers who jump off a cliff? A good start...

If they keep taking work off BAE who knows? We might even actually see an AWD one day...

Milne Bay

18-10-11, 09:39 AM

This is like the joke about what you call a bunch of lawyers who jump off a cliff? A good start...

If they keep taking work off BAE who knows? We might even actually see an AWD one day...

How many blocks have BAE been left with? None where the measurements actually matter I hope.

Weasel

18-10-11, 01:25 PM

How many blocks have BAE been left with? None where the measurements actually matter I hope.
LOL.... Don't be too hasty to go down the road of bashing BAE. After all, they are Australian workers, and if they can screw it up, all of the parties (Australian workers) can screw it up.

As I understand, even if BAE were to start a new build of the problem block (from scratch), they have 6 months of work to catch up on. Estimations have blown out to 3 years in the media.

Someone is either telling fibs, or people are getting carried away from the base reality.

cheers

w

buglerbilly

18-10-11, 02:21 PM

Construction Begins at Navantia of Five Blocks Second Royal Australian Navy Destroyer

(Source: Navantia; issued Oct. 18, 2011)

(Issued in Spanish only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

The Navantia-Ferrol Fene shipyard on 18 October began the construction of five blocks for the second Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) for the Royal Australian Navy.

This milestone was achieved on the premises of Aceros de Ferrol, when first steel was cut for block number 109.

The five blocks to be built will be the 109, 103 and 101, to be held in the premises of Ferrol, and 107 and 105, to be made in the Fene facilities. Previously, before the three AWD blocks, block 603, for the dome area of the ship, was also built at Fene.

It is expected that the contract for the execution of these five blocks, which was approved by the Australian Government last May, be signed shortly, once the scope of all technical requirements have been agreed. The realization of these blocks will be a generate a workload of 410,000 man-hours.

In 2007, Navantia won the contract to design and support three AWDs, based on the proposed F-105 Frigate of the Spanish Armada, as well as certain equipment and systems for these vessels.

-ends-

ADMk2

18-10-11, 03:00 PM

LOL.... Don't be too hasty to go down the road of bashing BAE. After all, they are Australian workers, and if they can screw it up, all of the parties (Australian workers) can screw it up.

That's part of the point. The only ones screwing it up at present is BAE which is why the work is being taken off them and given to Australian yards that are delivering as far as has been reported publicly, on time and on cost. BAE OTOH are continually screwing up. Not a one off, it's on multiple parts of their contract already and they haven't even got to the really difficult parts of the program yet (system integration).

On top of which they also have the LHD contract. The LHD hulls are to be carried out here and BAE are to build the superstructures and integrate all the systems onto them. To say that I'm a little pessimistic as to the chances of THAT program running on schedule and on budget, is the same as saying a little bit of water flows down the Amazon... BAE are struggling just doing AWD work. Our Government somehow believes they are going to be able to successfully manage doing LHD and AWD work at the same TIME...

This is not some personal vendetta I have against BAE. I'd say much the same thing about Australian Aerospace or Boeing too, if we were talking about some of their projects. My beef is that these companies keep getting work, they keep screwing up and ADF and the Australian taxpayer are the ones that end up copping it. Not the idiots in charge who come up with these harebrained schemes despite good advice to the contrary in a lot of cases and not the industry who continually fail to deliver what they promise.

There is a culture amongst these industries that ADF exists mainly to provide them with business, not to defend Australia, nor even wisely invest Australian tax payer dollars. The fact of the matter is that if Australian defence was truly the main reason for getting these ships, we'd have ordered 3 new ships built wholly by Navantia and we'd likely have at least 1 in-service by now (assuming the same contract signature date) and we'd be closing in a second. And it would have been far cheaper.

There's the argument about Government getting tax dollars back, but not spending that money in the first place is always a better economic decision than hoping for a tax return later...

As I understand, even if BAE were to start a new build of the problem block (from scratch), they have 6 months of work to catch up on. Estimations have blown out to 3 years in the media.

Someone is either telling fibs, or people are getting carried away from the base reality.

cheers

w

They are certainly behind that's the main thing. Our schedule's blowing out because of them, the cost is rising, our capability is reduced and they don't ever get penalised for these problems, except to lose work they bid for and won but are demonstrably not capable of delivering on in anything like the contract specifiies.

I can't feel the slightest bit sorry for the guys who aren't delivering. The skilled workers on the floor will always find work and the AWD work isn't disappearing anyway, it's going to companies that appear able to actually do it.

Milne Bay

18-10-11, 09:53 PM

Weasel

19-10-11, 03:46 AM

The assumption you are making is that BAE has no good reason for their error. If that is true, then why are they in the shipbuilding business? Meaning they have built ships before (Tenix), so why is this one so different?

I would suspect that there is a plausible reason that includes human error, but the truth falls somewhere in between BAE totally suck and couldn't build a floating bath tub and what the government believed when they rubber stamped their proposal giving them the build work in the first place.

The fact remains that the government chose them (BAE) based upon a series of erroneous assumptions that they (the CofA) where more then willing (in fact were eager) to accept, and to further exacerbate the problem, the AWD "consortium" doesn't appear to know the first thing about risk management and rapid development. Why? Because any competent shop wouldn't be delayed "3 years" by a 6 month build error by one of it's distributed build hubs. That is the reason why you distribute your build sites, so that you can absorb risk and compensate for delays, so as to make hiccups negligible to the final timeline or System Engineering Life Cycle (SELC) of the project.

The whole project smacks of the DMO being led by the nose with "faith" and "belief" not uncommon with the church of "Six Sigma" and it's black belt zealots. The problem with Six Sigma is that is based upon "the Toyota model" which in unto itself is a linear development model incapable of adaption to process if a module is found to be flawed, which in turn leads to a massive explosion in the program timeline, such as the "3 years" being ascribed to BAE's failure to deliver one module of many in the AWD program.

If you want to point the finger. Point it at the root cause. Yes BAE got "it" (a module) wrong (once, to date). But for that one mistake to be so catastrophic means people running the program are (to use Lloyds of London's oh so apt kiss-of-death) nothing more than "gifted amateurs".

cheers

w

That's part of the point. The only ones screwing it up at present is BAE which is why the work is being taken off them and given to Australian yards that are delivering as far as has been reported publicly, on time and on cost. BAE OTOH are continually screwing up. Not a one off, it's on multiple parts of their contract already and they haven't even got to the really difficult parts of the program yet (system integration).

On top of which they also have the LHD contract. The LHD hulls are to be carried out here and BAE are to build the superstructures and integrate all the systems onto them. To say that I'm a little pessimistic as to the chances of THAT program running on schedule and on budget, is the same as saying a little bit of water flows down the Amazon... BAE are struggling just doing AWD work. Our Government somehow believes they are going to be able to successfully manage doing LHD and AWD work at the same TIME...

This is not some personal vendetta I have against BAE. I'd say much the same thing about Australian Aerospace or Boeing too, if we were talking about some of their projects. My beef is that these companies keep getting work, they keep screwing up and ADF and the Australian taxpayer are the ones that end up copping it. Not the idiots in charge who come up with these harebrained schemes despite good advice to the contrary in a lot of cases and not the industry who continually fail to deliver what they promise.

There is a culture amongst these industries that ADF exists mainly to provide them with business, not to defend Australia, nor even wisely invest Australian tax payer dollars. The fact of the matter is that if Australian defence was truly the main reason for getting these ships, we'd have ordered 3 new ships built wholly by Navantia and we'd likely have at least 1 in-service by now (assuming the same contract signature date) and we'd be closing in a second. And it would have been far cheaper.

There's the argument about Government getting tax dollars back, but not spending that money in the first place is always a better economic decision than hoping for a tax return later...

They are certainly behind that's the main thing. Our schedule's blowing out because of them, the cost is rising, our capability is reduced and they don't ever get penalised for these problems, except to lose work they bid for and won but are demonstrably not capable of delivering on in anything like the contract specifiies.

I can't feel the slightest bit sorry for the guys who aren't delivering. The skilled workers on the floor will always find work and the AWD work isn't disappearing anyway, it's going to companies that appear able to actually do it.

buglerbilly

19-10-11, 05:48 AM

Were these blocks always going to be built by Navantia, or are they some of the work that was taken from BAE?
I thought that all AWD block work was to be done in Australia.

No they were always going to be built by Navantia..............let's leave off the paranoia about BAE ferkin the World please.

Milne Bay

19-10-11, 05:54 AM

No they were always going to be built by Navantia..............let's leave off the paranoia about BAE ferkin the World please.

It was a simple question.
If they were always going to be built by Navantia, then why this:
It is expected that the contract for the execution of these five blocks, which was approved by the Australian Government last May, be signed shortly, once the scope of all technical requirements have been agreed. The realization of these blocks will be a generate a workload of 410,000 man-hours.
Puzzled
MB

buglerbilly

19-10-11, 06:10 AM

Remain puzzled, I don't know nor do I care............sorry

Mercator

19-10-11, 06:48 AM

Old news:

Changes to Air Warfare Destroyer Construction Program

26 May 2011

The Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced the reallocation of construction work for the $8 billion Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Project.

Australia is constructing three AWDs based on a proven design from the Spanish Navy. The ships are due to be delivered from December 2014. When complete, the AWD will be one of the more capable types of warship of its size in the world.

The AWD Project is an important element of Force 2030. The Government and Defence have been actively working with Defence Industry and the AWD Alliance, which is managing the AWD project, to deliver the project. The AWD Alliance consists of ASC, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Raytheon.

Construction of the AWDs involves 90 separate steel blocks being built at three shipyards in Adelaide (ASC), Melbourne (BAE Systems) and Newcastle (Forgacs). Three additional sonar block assemblies are being built in Spain and the United Kingdom.

The Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard is also building 14 steel blocks for the superstructure of two new 27,500 tonne Landing Helicopter Dock ships (LHDs) due for delivery in 2014 and 2015.

Last year the project encountered difficulties in relation to engineering and construction of some of the first AWD hull blocks. To assist the AWD project schedule, earlier this year the AWD Alliance reallocated construction of nine steel blocks from BAE Systems in Melbourne to the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle.

The Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard remains stretched, working on two major projects at the same time – steel blocks for the Air Warfare Destroyers and the superstructure and integration of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships.

The Government, the AWD Alliance and BAE Systems take the schedule for both these important projects extremely seriously.

In February 2011, BAE Systems advised the AWD Alliance of potential schedule delays. Over the last few months, the AWD Alliance and BAE Systems have been working closely to develop options to improve the production program.

In March, the Minister for Defence met with Guy Griffiths, the Group Managing Director – International of BAE Systems UK, in London to discuss this project.

The Minister for Defence Materiel has also met with the CEO of BAE Australia, Jim McDowell, on a number of occasions about this project.

Earlier this month BAE Systems presented the AWD Alliance with a plan to adjust its workload on the AWD Project.

The advice of the AWD Alliance is that if no action is taken to relieve the pressure on the Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard the first ship would be two years late, approximately 25 per cent over schedule.

The AWD Alliance (with the support of BAE Systems) therefore proposes to take the following action:
•Up to 13 steel blocks will be reallocated among the three Australian shipyards in Adelaide, Melbourne and Newcastle – seven for advanced fit out and six for construction; and
•Up to five steel blocks will be reallocated to Navantia in Ferrol, Spain.

These changes involve the reallocation of blocks for the first two ships only and are subject in the usual way to satisfactory commercial arrangements with the shipyards.

BAE will complete the structural steel and initial outfitting work on the seven steel blocks it is currently working on, as well as all its work on the 14 blocks for the superstructure of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships and the integration work.

A decision on the reallocation of blocks, if any, on the third AWD will be made later in the project.

This action will reduce the schedule risk to both this project and to the LHD ships project.

The AWD Alliance has advised that this action will reduce the delay of the completion of Ship 1 by up to 12 months, and of all three AWDs by up to 12 months.

It will also reduce the pressure on BAE Systems to complete the construction of the superstructure and the integration of Australia’s two new LHD ships.

Defence will plan its comprehensive options to manage the transition from the current Adelaide Class frigates to the AWDs taking into account the agreed reallocation of blocks.

Milne Bay

19-10-11, 07:13 AM

Many thanks
MB

buglerbilly

28-11-11, 02:25 PM

Air Warfare Destroyer Update

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued November 28, 2011)

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today provided an update on the $8 billion Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) project.

Australia is constructing three AWDs based on a proven design from the Spanish Navy. When complete, the AWD will be one of the most capable warships of its size in the world.

The Government and Defence have been actively working with Defence Industry and the AWD Alliance, which is managing the AWD project, to deliver the project. The AWD Alliance consists of ASC, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Raytheon.

Construction of the AWDs involves the fabrication of 90 separate steel blocks, 30 for each ship, as well as three additional sonar blocks at a number of shipyards in Australia and overseas.

These blocks will be brought together by ASC at the South Australian Government’s Common User Facility in Adelaide where the ships are being assembled.

Across Australia 2,100 workers are currently working directly on the AWD project with that number expected to increase to 2,400 at the peak of the project next year.

All blocks for the first AWD, HMAS Hobart, are now under construction with some in advanced fit-out, and work has also commenced on 11 blocks for the second ship, HMAS Brisbane.

In May, Mr Smith and Mr Clare announced the reallocation of the construction of up to 18 blocks to assist the project’s schedule.

The AWD Alliance has now finalised the reallocation of these blocks:

• Forgacs (Newcastle) – four blocks;
• BAE Systems (Melbourne) – two blocks;
• ASC (Adelaide) – seven blocks; and
• Navantia (Spain) – five blocks.

This reallocation is expected to reduce forecast delays to the completion of the project by up to 12 months.

The AWD project has achieved a number of important milestones this year.

They include:

• New Blast and Paint facilities were commissioned at ASC and Forgacs;
• Forgacs expanded into a second Newcastle region shipyard;
• Most of the AWD Foreign Military Sales-sourced equipment for HMAS Hobart has been transported to Australia and received at the shipyard;
• Three shipsets of the Mk 45 gun mounts were delivered in July;
• Six Mk 25 Typhoon guns arrived in August – two for each ship;
• The first two shipsets of the Australian Tactical Interface were delivered in September;
• Vertical Launch System modules for HMAS Hobart have been delivered;
• Four of six planned builds of AWD Aegis software have been completed, representing approximately 98% of the AWD Aegis software adaptation effort by lines of code;
• Successful testing was conducted on how the Aegis combat system and Australian Tactical Interface work together;
• Work has begun on the sustainment strategy for the ships including the recruitment of staff and development of a sustainment plan;
• AWD’s internal communications equipment contract worth approximately $37 million was signed with Navantia’s divisional company, FABA Systems.; and
• All 17 contracts for the procurement of the Combat System have now been implemented.

In 2012 and 2013, the amount of work and the number of workers on this project is expected to increase:

• 36 more blocks are due to be constructed and delivered to ASC;
• The keel blocks of HMAS Hobart and the second ship HMAS Brisbane will be laid on the building berth in preparation for consolidation;
• Hull integration for HMAS Hobart begins next year and will be completed in 2013;
• Work will begin on the construction of blocks for the third ship, HMAS Sydney;
• Combat System Software will be formally delivered and demonstrated in early 2012;
• Gun weapons systems and radar will be received; and
• Trials crew training commences in 2013.

-ends-

buglerbilly

16-12-11, 02:22 PM

Navantia Signs Two Contracts in Australia

(Source: Navantia; issued Dec. 16, 2011)

(Issued in Spanish only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

Navantia has signed two contracts in Australia.

Nearly 30,000 manhours per landing craft is a Hell of a lot, I wouldn't have expected this many......:shrug

On Dec. 15, in Adelaide, it signed the contract for the construction of the five blocks for the second Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) for the Royal Australian Navy. On Dec. 16, in Canberra, it signed a contract for the construction of 12 LCM-1E fast landing craft, also for the Royal Australian Navy.

The five blocks for the destroyer will be n° 109, 103 and 101 that will be built in the Ferrol facility, while blocks n° 107 and 105 will be built in the Fene facility.

In addition, and under a previous contract for the three destroyers, Navantia will also build block n° 603, which will include the ship’s dome. Construction of these blocks will represent a workload of 410,000 man-hours.

The 12 landing craft, identical to those delivered to the Spanish Navy between 2007 and 2008, will be built entirely in Navantia, and will represent a substantial work-load for the Bay of Cadiz over coming years, estimated at about 350,000 man-hours.

-ends-

geof

16-12-11, 10:43 PM

Nearly 30,000 manhours per landing craft is a Hell of a lot, I wouldn't have expected this many......:shrug

... Includes siesta hours ... :-p

buglerbilly

03-02-12, 03:05 PM

Babcock Tests AWD Torpedo Launcher

(Source: Babcock International; issued Feb. 2, 2012)

Testing of the assembled Mk32 Mod 9 torpedo launchers for the Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers is underway at Babcock’s Techport Australia premises, representing an important phase in the project.

The contract, awarded to Babcock Pty Ltd by Raytheon Australia in late 2008 on behalf of the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance, involves the adaptation of the system concept originally designed for the US Navy, with some elements of new design, assembly and test of a weapons launching system for use with the MU90 torpedoes for the AWD.

Babcock’s international reach-back has been instrumental in facilitating supply, both in working with US government organisations to secure a licence in accordance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and through its links with industry in the US and UK to source some specialist key components from proven suppliers. Babcock’s local presence has seen some 80% of the work undertaken in Australia (a significant increase on the contracted 63% to be completed locally), including using its local supply chain for the manufacture, and undertaking testing at its Techport facility. All in-service support can be undertaken locally.

Two Mk32 Mod 9 torpedo launcher assemblies will be mounted in magazine compartments, port and starboard, on each of the three Hobart class AWDs. The system is made up of three main components; a launcher, an air charging panel and a torpedo loading tray. The air charging panel and loading tray have been designed by Babcock to meet the requirements of the AWD Alliance.

The ability of the Mk32 Mod9 torpedo launchers to fire a MU90 lightweight torpedo is now being proven in the current test phase, which is being carried out using a custom designed land-based test rig and measuring equipment and safe work procedures. Factory Acceptance Tests will follow soon afterwards.

“We have made strong progress on the launcher contract, and commencement of testing is a key milestone in this,” Babcock director Pat Donovan said. “As an Australian company our locally based and focused team, coupled with our international reach-back capability, has been key to the delivery of this project.”

-ends-