Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Defence bungles $400m torpedo project
Volkodav    5/22/2010 7:56:20 AM
IAN MCPHEDRAN From: The Advertiser May 21, 2010 12:01AM AFTER 12 years of delays and mismanagement and a $400 million outlay for new lightweight torpedoes, Defence has nothing to show for the money. In the latest damning report into Defence projects released yesterday, government auditors have revealed that the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) in 1998 signed up to spend $665 million of taxpayer funds on the European-made MU90 lightweight torpedo without conducting even basic checks. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) said that both organisations thought the torpedo was a straightforward "off-the-shelf" buy and that it was in service with other navies. "This was not the case," the report says. The auditors said the original capability will not be delivered, schedules will not be met and the project was only within budget because the airborne version was dumped in mid-2009. In March 1998 an order was placed under project JP 2070 for the weapon to be fitted to two classes of warships and three aircraft, the RAAF P3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft and the navy's Seahawk and Seasprite helicopters. The MU90 is 3m long, weighs 300kg and has a range of up to 10km. The auditors found that as of February this year $397.51 million had been spent on the project by the DMO. "Some 12 years after JP 2070 commenced, and nine years after Government approved Phase 2, which was to buy an initial batch of torpedoes and integrate the torpedo into five ADF platforms, the project is yet to deliver an operational capability," the report says. The auditors found several major shortcomings with the project including: A LACK of scrutiny on costings. INADEQUATE planning and management. LITTLE support for new alliance contracting. INSUFFICIENT understanding of the weapon. POOR risk mitigation. INADEQUATE testing. Defence Minister John Faulkner said the project was still in trouble. "The management of this project . . . has simply not been good enough," Senator Faulkner said. He said the Government had told Defence chiefs to report every two months on progress. The torpedo program is a partnership between Defence, Thales Australia, French defence manufacturer DCNS and Italian torpedo-maker Whitehead Alenia. It has been added to the Government's notorious "Projects of Concern" list that includes others such as Collins-class submarine maintenance, the Wedgetail early warning aircraft and Airbus KC-30 multi-role tanker planes. The audit office made three recommendations that were all agreed by Defence and the Government has ordered a follow-up audit in 2011.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust       5/22/2010 8:08:51 AM
why we even went for this POS is beyond me.  The damn thing wasn't even at a decent development stage when we got involved.  Once again we took vendors at face value.

the Mk54 would have been a far better choice and we could have pulled a stack of lessons learnt and tech from the Mk48 ADCAP/CBASS prog.

 The good thing is that the procurement and management processes have been changed in the last 2 years, so the ferkups that are left will be legacy ones such as this.

unfort there are a few more to come.  IIRC Collins is coming off the POC $hitlist fairly soon.  There's a bit more confidence on the changes they are about to make at the corporate and management level at ASC 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/22/2010 8:37:18 AM
IIRC Collins is coming off the POC $hitlist fairly soon.  There's a bit more confidence on the changes they are about to make at the corporate and management level at ASC 
 
Very impressed with the new bossman and his reorg.  Will soon get to see how good he is when a particular case of self defeating short sightedness by middle management is brought to his attention. 
 
It was suggested (tongue in cheek) that we should take the JP2070 ANAO report, redate it for 2020 and rejig it for our project, a bit of a flash forward to what will happen if certain people don't take their blinkers off and start looking to final objective rather than just the short term.
 
The assumption that because something is perceived to be "off the shelf" we don't need to put in as much engineering and T&E effort is extremely dangerous and will result in letting the customer down.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/22/2010 8:39:16 AM
IIRC Collins is coming off the POC $hitlist fairly soon.  There's a bit more confidence on the changes they are about to make at the corporate and management level at ASC 
 
Very impressed with the new bossman and his reorg.  Will soon get to see how good he is when a particular case of self defeating short sightedness by middle management is brought to his attention. 
 
It was suggested (tongue in cheek) that we should take the JP2070 ANAO report, redate it for 2020 and rejig it for our project, a bit of a flash forward to what will happen if certain people don't take their blinkers off and start looking to final objective rather than just the short term.
 
The assumption that because something is perceived to be "off the shelf" we don't need to put in as much engineering and T&E effort is extremely dangerous and will result in letting the customer down.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/22/2010 11:47:37 PM
In the latest damning report into Defence projects released yesterday, government auditors have revealed that the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) in 1998 signed up to spend $665 million of taxpayer funds on the European-made MU90 lightweight torpedo without conducting even basic checks.
Australia's contribution to the European bailout package  ... http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emangel.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/23/2010 9:25:30 AM
Just an observation but few (if any) European programs seem to be as far along the development curve as they are advertised as being.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/23/2010 3:20:43 PM

Just an observation but few (if any) European programs seem to be as far along the development curve as they are advertised as being.

EADS and Thales have made far more c0ckups than Boeing. They're due for a hosing.  Both the Tiger and 90 have been a headache - no matter what the media spin has been.  Dealing with french or french main partner euro companies is like herding cats.  
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       5/24/2010 1:16:51 AM
Here's my little "projects of concern" list (in no particular order, just started with the thread topic in a vain attempt to remain on topic...):
 
MU-90 - late, DoD lied to by contractor about development risk and capability. Final result -  reduced capability over that promised for full expenditure of funds, in-service delays providing operational risk for DoD due to obsolete in-service capability not being replaced. 
 
Tiger - late, DoD lied to by contractor about development risk AND support costs. Final result - capability delivered late, support costs increased, DoD exposed to operational risk due to delays with no capability in-service at present to cover for these delays. Tiger airframe also unsuited in present state to maritime operations leading to capability deficiency for planned LHD operations (ie: no aerial fire support capability). 
 
MRH-90 - late, DoD lied to about capability of platform and development risk. Final result - capability delivered late, capability less than promised by contractor, DoD exposed to operational risk throughout the lifespan of the capability, significant expenditure on maintaining in-service capability due to delays in MRH-90 program. These funds obviously not factored into cost of capability.
 
KC-30A - late, DoD lied to about development risk of capability. Final result - capability delivered late, operational risk for DoD due to "refuelling gap". Costs of hiring refuelling contractor support (Omega) during delays not factored into original costs. DoD exposed to operational risk due to lack of air to air refuelling capability during delays.
 
Auto-grenade launchers - late, over budget. Expenditure of funds during assessment stages has meant that reduced overall systems being purchased (down to about 60x now from the planned 90-100 systems) as no budget increase for project authorised. Operational risk for DoD, given that the reduced number of systems will provide a "deployment and training" capability only, with little to no employment in wider force. Also means that even regular units will only have a pool to draw upon and will not be issued individual systems. Armoured Corps likely to miss out on weapons all together...  
 
There are others, but that will do for the time being. The problems seem to be always the same rubbish though. Very depressing...
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/24/2010 7:23:47 AM
I just had a look at the DMO website to find out where the AGL is supposed to come from and noticed that every project page that I looked at hadn't been updated since the middle of last year. It doesn't surprise me, they obviously don't want to provide an update that highlights the delays. Useless f*cks.
The thing that upsets me the most off the list that AD put up is the tanker delay. It basically means that we can't independently provide an escorted strike into the region with our remaining clapped out F-111's so our doctrine of having an offensive deterrent is basically null and void at the moment. Its a friggin disgrace.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       5/25/2010 1:09:57 AM

I just had a look at the DMO website to find out where the AGL is supposed to come from and noticed that every project page that I looked at hadn't been updated since the middle of last year. It doesn't surprise me, they obviously don't want to provide an update that highlights the delays. Useless f*cks.


The thing that upsets me the most off the list that AD put up is the tanker delay. It basically means that we can't independently provide an escorted strike into the region with our remaining clapped out F-111's so our doctrine of having an offensive deterrent is basically null and void at the moment. Its a friggin disgrace.


The RAAF actually dropped a tidbit the other week stating that a buddy tanker equipped Super Hornet can drag another Super as far as an F-111 can go on internal fuel alone. 
 
Now, IOC for the Supers is December this year, so presumably that means the buddy tanking capability will be available, which should provide some relief until the KC-30A's are online. I'm annoyed with this project, surely ADF could have got a few C-130's modified with refuelling pods to "tie us over" until the KC-30A's are ready, but other than this there aren't a lot of other options available. 
 
Boeing and it's KC-767's for Japan and Italy have done no better than Airbus and in fact probably worse...
 
The good news I suppose is that once KC-30A's ARE in-service, RAAF should have a pretty robust refuelling capability given the Supers with buddy tanking as an additional capability...
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       5/25/2010 3:42:11 AM
I wonder how much the type of contract used affects the outcome.
 
Cost plus contracts reward the contractor for delays and scope creep.
 
Fixed price encourage short cuts and scrimping on quality, as do bonus arrangements for early delivery.
 
Alliance, with shared pain and gain for the customer and contractor, appears to be the way to go but only time will see.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics