Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Delays continue for Australian FFG upgrade
AMTP10E    7/8/2005 6:18:17 AM
JANE'S NAVY INTERNATIONAL - JULY 01, 2005 Delays continue for Australian FFG upgrade Ian Bostock Additional issues with the upgrade of four Adelaide-class guided missile frigates (FFG) for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) have pushed the programme further back and caused the delay of sea trials planned for the first completed ship, HMAS Sydney. The A$1 billion (US$761 million) project is already around two and a half years behind schedule due to issues that prime contractor ADI Limited continues to address, mostly in the area of systems integration. ADI has been unable to integrate all elements of the Australian Distributed Architecture Combat System with other combat system-related, undersea warfare and fire-control software. There are also reports of ship stability issues in HMAS Sydney due to the installation of a below-deck vertical-launch system forward. The delays prompted the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) to negotiate a contract-change proposal with ADI to extend the project's completion date by another 24 months. As a result of internal changes to the DMO's processes and contracting practices, the Australian Department of Defence has accepted a share of the responsibility for the delays. Acceptance of HMAS Sydney back into RAN service is now not expected until 2006. Until the ship successfully meets the trials programme criteria and is accepted back into service, the RAN will not release another FFG for ADI to begin work on. Complicating the issue is the recent discovery of hull cracking in several of the FFGs. Because of the implications for sea worthiness, sea trials with HMAS Sydney cannot commence until repairs are made. As the cracking is not related to the upgrade work being carried out by ADI, the RAN will meet the costs associated with repairs. These will be undertaken by ADI at its Garden Island facility. ADI had earlier proposed to the DMO a provisional acceptance of HMAS Sydney in late August this year. However, it will now, by its own admission, not be able to meet this deadline, the director of ADI's naval business group Ali Baghaei told JNI in early June. It is understood that a revised timetable to resolve the remaining software issues and for contractor sea trials will be released around this time. *-*-*-*-* There is a real chance that SYDNEY will never re-enter front line service again.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
DropBear    RE:How did they get it so wrong?   7/11/2005 2:02:11 AM
You're not wrong. In my job, you go over budget by a few thousand $$$ and the boss wants to know why you should keep your job. In defence it seems you can blow out by half a billion $$$ on any one project and it is business as usual. I think we need to look at getting perhaps more non-defence business orientated people into defprocurement as the neddies in there now seem to be clueless. Maybe a Prescott (the late) or two. I bet if Hugh Morgan (Western Mining Co.) was running ADI or Tenix, it would be run just the way Ben Rich ran LM Skunkworks.
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:Delays continue for Australian FFG upgrade   7/11/2005 5:27:21 AM
>>>I'm wondering if we shouldn't just get rid of all our OHP FFG's as soon as possible. Could we build half a dozen new build stretched Anzacs?<<< Jesus drop you are crazy. more Anzac's? why? unless by stretched you mean with area defence capability, a complete set of radars and sensors, towed array, anything but a sprite in the hanger, CIWS, etc. But at that why not just design a new ship, one that can hendle the top weight for 2 quad harpoon launchers. It's clear you love things that fly, take that as a complement if you wish, but god, replace a FFG with a Anzac?, thats almost on par with your LCS for frigates proposition.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Delays continue for Australian FFG upgrade   7/11/2005 7:34:29 AM
What exactly is it that limits the LCS' blue water capability?
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:Delays continue for Australian FFG upgrade   7/11/2005 10:20:21 AM
Apparently SC knows something the senior staff in the USN doesn't!
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:Delays continue for Australian FFG upgrade   7/11/2005 10:22:43 AM
"It's clear you love things that fly, take that as a complement if you wish, but god, replace a FFG with a Anzac?, thats almost on par with your LCS for frigates proposition." Actually...F-14, F-15, JSF fly. I don't like any of them. I asked the question could an LCS do the roles that we currently undertake with frigates. A valid question. Perhaps you see a benefit in sending a $500M FFG to recue lone yachtsmen. I don't! :(
 
Quote    Reply

Cootamundra    RE:Delays continue for Australian FFG upgrade   7/11/2005 11:52:44 PM
So, I'm still wondering, how did the project get so off the rails? Is it as simple as Drop and I have suggested, i.e. do we just need to inject some 'busines realities' into ADI and DMO. Things like, stuff this project up and you lose your job....
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Where is GF   7/12/2005 12:07:27 AM
So, I'm still wondering, how did the project get so off the rails? Can't speak to your system, but whenever I've seen things go this far, it usually is bad project management. Each layer of management needs to be held accountable for the schedule and cost of what they own. Sometimes (often) managers are afraid to give bad news, but it is better to know you're in trouble early. Bad news starts at the bottom witht he guys doing the work, they know it's bad news within a few days of starting their task. MBWA (management by walking around) became popular in the 90s. Intel's big bosses don't have big offices, they have cubicles. And they spend a lot of time in the company cafeterias and walking around talking to people (the workers).
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Where is GF   7/12/2005 12:41:10 AM
"but whenever I've seen things go this far, it usually is bad project management. " I used to work for SMS Consulting, and they picked up a lot of ADF work. Most of the time we were picked up to do Project Recovery - and that was actually on my business card at one stage. PPPPPP.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Where is GF   7/12/2005 12:50:25 AM
Thanks. "Project Recovery", I like that. I was the CTS "Chief Troubleshooter" for a top 80 website, all 300 servers of it, with dynamic content. It's the ones that go bad that gets you going. Doing it from scratch gets kinda boring sometimes. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Where is GF   7/12/2005 1:03:23 AM
"Doing it from scratch gets kinda boring sometimes. ;)" greenfields stuff is ok if it's new concepts, but if it's not then it gets pretty ho-hum. the problem with lots of innovation on a greenfields project is that you skate the fine line between "bleeding edge" and "leading edge" - and invariably thats why they've also gone to custard. the other significant issue between military requirements and commercial vendors is the disconnect between what is regarded as acceptable slippage. that gets back to how sign-offs are being handled and the fact that any mods to a process should be treated as a new enitity - not as part of an existing sign-off. Both sides get it horribly wrong.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy