Navy a 'basket case': Opposition

[Road_Warrior]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...24/3147794.htm

The Federal Opposition has labelled the Navy a "basket case" after further details emerged about problems with one of its ships.

A Senate estimates committee has heard that in September last year HMAS Kanimbla's engines stopped working and the ship drifted towards rocks near Sydney Harbour.

A $90 million Tiger helicopter was on board at the time.

Opposition Defence spokesman David Johnston quizzed Defence officials about the incident in a hearing yesterday.

"I put it to them they were 20 metres from North Head, drifting until they could get the motor going, and nobody denied that, that's what I've heard," he said.

He says it is a serious incident and it is lucky no one died.

"There's a lot of problems with Navy, in fact I'd say Navy is currently a basket case," he said.

"It's going to require an awful lot of money and an awful lot of time and some considerable expertise to get our Royal Australian Navy back on track."

Defence Force Chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston has defended the Navy's handling of its fleet, which has been plagued by seaworthiness problems.

HMAS Tobruk is being repaired, HMAS Kanimbla is out of action for 18 months, and HMAS Manoora is being decommissioned.

Last week, Defence Minister Stephen Smith lashed out at the Navy, condemning its "make do" culture.

The Defence Force has justified spending up to $28 million to repair HMAS Kanimbla.

Defence officials recently decided to decommission HMAS Manoora because they said the $20 million repair bill was not cost effective.

But they have explained the decision, saying HMAS Manoora would only have been operational for nine months.

Air Chief Marshal Houston defended the Navy's handling of its fleet during his Senate estimates appearance.

"It's just unacceptable to me that we would operate a ship that wasn't seaworthy, now in my view the decision to invoke the operational pause was absolutely essential," he said.

"The consequences of having a major breakdown at a critical time could result in our people being imperilled.

"We always knew that the last couple of years of operating these ships was going to be challenging, after all they are very old, so I totally support the decision that was made for the operational pause and I totally support the decision to decommission Manoora."

Pussers, past and present (or not) discuss. Do we have a serious capability gap here or is the media trying to make something out of nothing?

[calais]

I can't speak for the members of the ADF, but as a member of a sister service, the RAN does appear to have it's fair share of issues.

Thats not to discount the very same issues the Army or RAAF are currently dealing with. (Hercules and Blackhawk replacement for example..... oh lets not forget recruitment) The last defence white paper made it almost impossible for any future growth or re-investment in real terms to occur across any of the three services. The Navy is perhaps becoming the best example of how the "less is more" financial approach just doesn't work.

It stands to reason, that when you have a fleet that is knocking on the knackers yard door and just about to become a divers paradise, and you then remove any funding that could have possibly gone towards a viable solution, that the Navy will become the said "basket case".

I dont blame the Navy though........ The fault lies squarely at the feet of our federal government. They squandered the Sea-King replacement, costing the tax payers millions for no return. They have known the fleet is ageing and done nothing, they have engaged in what I would call dubious tactics in the way that civilian agencies are contracted to maintain naval systems and infrastructure, which moves the coal face just that little bit further away (by means of red tape) from the people who could actually put pen to paper and fix the issue.

A little food for thought....

[Jim Goose]

What the article fails to also mention is how under the previous government most of the projects they started fail and wasted billions of tax payer money... bit hypocritical for the opposition to say the navy is a basket case when a lot of the current issues where their fault!

The whole of defence is a basket case... and before people mouth off and say what would i know, ill just say this, until you have seen it with your own eyes and know some of absolute waste of money, the stupid decisions and the total "public service mantality", then you can be critical and understand.

And this isnt defence bashing or anti military..... its bashing how its badly its run.

[tolzero]

I am an ex serving member 1998-2006 and i saw a lot of bad decisions in my time. Yes I was only a general entry recruit with absolutely no input to the decisions made by the heirachy but even as a very young man I could see the writing on the wall. When the australian government spends millions purchasing and then integrating the Collins type submarine what were they thinking. Buy a submarine of one company and then try and shoehorn in another companies engine, and they wonder why they sat in Adelaide's docks trying to pass sea trials. What good is a supposedly quiet submarine that makes more noise than the surface fleet it is supposed to protect. How much money was wasted during this period.
Then they buy the Manoora and Kanimbla and they barely make it back to Australia after there purchase from the US. I think the US were getting rid of them for a reason, again they sat in Garden Island dockyard being prepared for seaworthy. I had friends on there and they were removing large parts of the hull and replacing them in dry dock as the rust problems were that bad. My best friend at the time considered it his best posting ever, pay rates as if if he was at sea and they don't go anywhere for near on 18 months.
When I left in 96 the exit rate was more than what the RAN was recruiting, Don't get me wrong I loved the Navy it made me the man I am today, but what the servicemen of today need is current equipment in current ships, not was is cheapest and might work on paper. Our servicemen need to be equipped with the best that is going around not just for their pride but more importantly for their and Australia's safety.
The Australian government needs to stop wasting money and invest in Australia's future and fix this problem.
And here is the old man in me speaking, but we need to elevate the public opinion of the work the serviceman do for this country and get the youth to be so proud of this country that joining any service and doing that little bit for Australia starts getting those recruiting numbers up.

[calais]

Originally Posted by tolzero

I am an ex serving member 1998-2006 and i saw a lot of bad decisions in my time. Yes I was only a general entry recruit with absolutely no input to the decisions made by the heirachy but even as a very young man I could see the writing on the wall. When the australian government spends millions purchasing and then integrating the Collins type submarine what were they thinking. Buy a submarine of one company and then try and shoehorn in another companies engine, and they wonder why they sat in Adelaide's docks trying to pass sea trials. What good is a supposedly quiet submarine that makes more noise than the surface fleet it is supposed to protect. How much money was wasted during this period.
Then they buy the Manoora and Kanimbla and they barely make it back to Australia after there purchase from the US. I think the US were getting rid of them for a reason, again they sat in Garden Island dockyard being prepared for seaworthy. I had friends on there and they were removing large parts of the hull and replacing them in dry dock as the rust problems were that bad. My best friend at the time considered it his best posting ever, pay rates as if if he was at sea and they don't go anywhere for near on 18 months.
When I left in 96 the exit rate was more than what the RAN was recruiting, Don't get me wrong I loved the Navy it made me the man I am today, but what the servicemen of today need is current equipment in current ships, not was is cheapest and might work on paper. Our servicemen need to be equipped with the best that is going around not just for their pride but more importantly for their and Australia's safety.
The Australian government needs to stop wasting money and invest in Australia's future and fix this problem.
And here is the old man in me speaking, but we need to elevate the public opinion of the work the serviceman do for this country and get the youth to be so proud of this country that joining any service and doing that little bit for Australia starts getting those recruiting numbers up.

You touched on a very prevalent culture within the ADF, and that is the rampant "Australianisation" of kit that seems to come hand in hand with any supposedly new purchases.

A fantastic example where buying off the shelf (so to speak) made a weapon platform acquisition easy and trouble free, was the C-17A Globemaster Cargo Aircraft.

The C-17 was acquired in the exact same specification that the USAF currently operate, and took less than two years from the initial purchase to the delivery of the operational airframe.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Kanimbla and Manoora.... Thats a can of worms. One we as a nation should have known better than to open. The United States have a poor reputation in the global military community in the way that they "dispose" of "serviceable" military assets, and the through life support that is provided as part of the sale process (read; none).

I have held an open as to the way that the Military is funded and the way that the funds are expended and accounted for, however I am of the understanding that if you were to run any arm of the Military as a business, you would have shut up shop years ago.

Sadly the Australian governments have not had a harsh enough shock to force a rethink as to the economic governance of the ADF. For example, the United States have had September 11, and the ongoing oil supply interests which their Military protects. This alone is enough to justify the astronomical budgets that the US Military work with. The ADF on the other hand, appear defensive and meek by comparison, with nothing significant happening in our region which would warrant the additional expenditure.

[XESP351]

It's no secret that the MANOORA and KANIMBLA as well as TOBRUK are well past their use by date, TOBRUK is even nicknamed TOBROKEN as a result of constantly requiring repairs. Unfortunately the Navy has had to 'make do' for years, however there are positive news; the new AWD's, the two new LHD's (essentially replacing KANIMBLA and MANOORA) and the fact that Navy now can actually achieve (and even exceed) their recruitment targets as well as improve retention.

Yes there has been a few screw ups, Super Seasprites is a major one, and I agree with the comment above about 'waste of money, stupid decisions and typical public service mentality' and some of those things are still an issue but it's no different than many other Government departments.

The Navy is far from a basket case, it just seems that the media loves to rubbish the Navy every chance they get.

[MO]

Ex RAAF,1966 to 1972 even back then things weren't the best.
IMO the main problem is the bean counters take them away and spend what is needed now and for the future. The old she'll be right pass some more gaffer tape and fencing wire days should've been stopped 30/40 years ago.

[Jim Goose]

The old she'll be right pass some more gaffer tape and fencing wire days should've been stopped 30/40 years ago.

Nope, unfortunately they just keep throwing good money after bad at things without ever fixing the problem.
A good saying is that they "spend millions to save a dollar"

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald last yr told of a Lieutenent who was involved in a major contract to buy new combat clothing equipment. He awarded the contract to a company which didnt meet the requirements and couldnt deliver on time. He then approached the 2nd best bidder and gave them secret in confidence files and tried to get them to sub-contract to the winning company.
Anyhoo the jist was he shoulda been charged... but instead was "councilled" and promoted!

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by calais

The fault lies squarely at the feet of our federal government. .

Collins Submarines, nuff said

why do they buy this expensive but useless equipment for our defence forces?

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

Collins Submarines, nuff said

why do they buy this expensive but useless equipment for our defence forces?

So do you know what is actually wrong with the COLLINS subs?

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by XESP351

So do you know what is actually wrong with the COLLINS subs?

Other then being just about the most advanced conventional submarines in the world? The only comparable sub's are the big ones owned by the Japanese.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

Collins Submarines, nuff said

why do they buy this expensive but useless equipment for our defence forces?

What you need to know is that a chnage of government makes NO difference to ANY public service.
Defence is simply an over grown public service and a sacred cash cow.

The Collins was a massive debarcle which went on for a decade... but how about the SeaSprite Helicopters? $800MILLIOn dollars wasted on buying some 2nd hand (some as old as 25yrs old!) helicopters in which they tried to intergrate a new weapons system, radar and autopilot.
Instead of buying off the shelf some "expert" said it could be done no worries...
The previous government pumped millions into the project despite the fact it was severley over budget and what 3 or 4yrs behind schedule?
Any sane person wouldve cancelled the whole thing, but instead the contractor still manged to lie and say we need more money, give us more time.... and the government just kept handing the money out.
In the end the whole thing eventually was cancelled and the choppers are now all but useless and are still for sale as far as i know.

Once the idea gets out that nothing happens to you because you didnt perform correctly or that you can cry for more money because you cant meet contract arrangments, then EVERY SINGLE CONTRACTOR out there does the same thing in order to make even more money and string the government along.

The other problem is that those who make the contracts or come up with the specifications for whatever new item/project they want DONT KNOW how to do it or dont research enough into what spec they need.


As another example, why wasnt there a senate inquiry into the selection of the F-35?
In laymans terms back in the 1990s a requirement was drawn up for the replacement of the F-18. Expressions of interest were sought from military aircraft manufacturers... eventually the list was down to 4 aircraft.
The Russian (ukranian) Su-30 series (which included an offer to set up a FACTORY and build them here under licence), the French Rafale, The Euro Typoon (EFA) and i believe a newer version of the F-15 Strike Eagle.

The F-35 WAS NEVER offered to Australia, it wasnt even built and it was just an idea on a computer.
Suddenly around 2001/2002 the Australian Governemnt announces that its cancelling the tender process!!!! And announces we are "buying" into the F-35 program and forking over some $200MILLION to BUY INTO the program.
This money is NON-REFUNDABLE and is NOT a deposit. We became a low lever partner!
The F-35 is now 4yrs behind and the price has DOUBLED....

This breaks ALL the rules for Federal Government Complex Procurements.
The process which led Australia down this path shouldve meant jail time for those involved, yet a blind eye was turned and we are now locked into a program for an aircraft which DOES NOT meet Australia's environment.

The F-35 is not even a front line fighter, but considered a bomb truck or CAS support aircraft.

Or we can now look at the current government and how it blew $800MILLION on a COMPUTER PROGRAM WHICH DOESNT WORK!!!!
This load of rubbish program is a total failure and was also 2yrs behind schedule and well over budget. Yet there has been a media black out on it.
It doesnt work as advertised and the simplest of transactions can not be done.
Yet defence accepted it saying that it was the bees kness and how wonderful it is! Nearly 7 months later and a 1000 errors reported but they still pump money into it....

Remember, no matter which government is in power it DOESNT change.
The public service men and the "bosses" dont change when a government is removed. And each new government is too lazy, too stupid or too scared to do anything about it.

There are good people in defence who leave simply because they cant stand the stupidity of what they see.... The frustration met by all levels of ranks is apparent in a lot of areas.

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Other then being just about the most advanced conventional submarines in the world? The only comparable sub's are the big ones owned by the Japanese.

Exactly! Yes there were teething issues here and there with the subs but they are that quiet and advanced they have, and do, creep up on large naval warship convoys (Aussie and otherwise) without being detected and can cause some serious damage should they desire so.

Only problem with the subs is manning.

[Kingsley]

The Navy has been a basket case for many years. The revolving door at recruiting can't get them in fast enough to replace the disgruntled who are fed up with poor equipment and facilities and governments with no interest in Defence.

The RAAF is heading down the same path. Poor practices which have affected the health of personnel (Reseal/Deseal). Badly maintained facilities that have been shut down by COMCARE investigations. The contractor mentality of governments that ends up costing the taxpayer more than needed.

No government for decades has invested enough in Defence. In fact every succesive government has cut huge chunks out of the Defence budget. Most of Defence is running on the smell of an oily rag then passing it on. The problem now is to bring the three services to an effeicent and compliant level will cost the taxpayer billions. Imagine the cry from left set if they had to do that?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by XESP351

Exactly! Yes there were teething issues here and there with the subs but they are that quiet and advanced they have, and do, creep up on large naval warship convoys (Aussie and otherwise) without being detected and can cause some serious damage should they desire so.

Only problem with the subs is manning.

Maybe some research on the subject will tell you the answer as to why the collins was and is a farce... hundreds of millions over budget, decade or so behind because its weapons system was unable to fire its torpedos.
This issue has been around for a long time.
What good is a sub if it couldnt fire its torpedos?
The manning issue was also a problem in that i think the navy could only supply enough crews for 3 subs?

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

What you need to know is that a chnage of government makes NO difference to ANY public service.
Defence is simply an over grown public service and a sacred cash cow.

The Collins was a massive debarcle which went on for a decade... but how about the SeaSprite Helicopters? $800MILLIOn dollars wasted on buying some 2nd hand (some as old as 25yrs old!) helicopters in which they tried to intergrate a new weapons system, radar and autopilot.
Instead of buying off the shelf some "expert" said it could be done no worries...
The previous government pumped millions into the project despite the fact it was severley over budget and what 3 or 4yrs behind schedule?
Any sane person wouldve cancelled the whole thing, but instead the contractor still manged to lie and say we need more money, give us more time.... and the government just kept handing the money out.
In the end the whole thing eventually was cancelled and the choppers are now all but useless and are still for sale as far as i know.

Once the idea gets out that nothing happens to you because you didnt perform correctly or that you can cry for more money because you cant meet contract arrangments, then EVERY SINGLE CONTRACTOR out there does the same thing in order to make even more money and string the government along.

The other problem is that those who make the contracts or come up with the specifications for whatever new item/project they want DONT KNOW how to do it or dont research enough into what spec they need.


As another example, why wasnt there a senate inquiry into the selection of the F-35?
In laymans terms back in the 1990s a requirement was drawn up for the replacement of the F-18. Expressions of interest were sought from military aircraft manufacturers... eventually the list was down to 4 aircraft.
The Russian (ukranian) Su-30 series (which included an offer to set up a FACTORY and build them here under licence), the French Rafale, The Euro Typoon (EFA) and i believe a newer version of the F-15 Strike Eagle.

The F-35 WAS NEVER offered to Australia, it wasnt even built and it was just an idea on a computer.
Suddenly around 2001/2002 the Australian Governemnt announces that its cancelling the tender process!!!! And announces we are "buying" into the F-35 program and forking over some $200MILLION to BUY INTO the program.
This money is NON-REFUNDABLE and is NOT a deposit. We became a low lever partner!
The F-35 is now 4yrs behind and the price has DOUBLED....

This breaks ALL the rules for Federal Government Complex Procurements.
The process which led Australia down this path shouldve meant jail time for those involved, yet a blind eye was turned and we are now locked into a program for an aircraft which DOES NOT meet Australia's environment.

The F-35 is not even a front line fighter, but considered a bomb truck or CAS support aircraft.

Or we can now look at the current government and how it blew $800MILLION on a COMPUTER PROGRAM WHICH DOESNT WORK!!!!
This load of rubbish program is a total failure and was also 2yrs behind schedule and well over budget. Yet there has been a media black out on it.
It doesnt work as advertised and the simplest of transactions can not be done.
Yet defence accepted it saying that it was the bees kness and how wonderful it is! Nearly 7 months later and a 1000 errors reported but they still pump money into it....

Remember, no matter which government is in power it DOESNT change.
The public service men and the "bosses" dont change when a government is removed. And each new government is too lazy, too stupid or too scared to do anything about it.

There are good people in defence who leave simply because they cant stand the stupidity of what they see.... The frustration met by all levels of ranks is apparent in a lot of areas.

Wasn't the initial F-35 contract signed by Howard on September 12 2001?

What was even more bizarre was when we couldn't get the F-35 in time to bridge the capability gap we got FA18's. (Andrew Peacock being the man who sold it to us)

Strange things happen during the procurement stages.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Wasn't the initial F-35 contract signed by Howard on September 12 2001?

What was even more bizarre was when we couldn't get the F-35 in time to bridge the capability gap we got FA18's. (Andrew Peacock being the man who sold it to us)

Strange things happen during the procurement stages.

The only contract we signed was to buy into the program.
($200MILLION non-refundable)
We only have just recently signed a contract to buy I think 20???
the final number of how many we buy isnt set in concrete.

The orginal requirement was just to replace the F-18, this all changed just months before the whole tender process was canned. And it was then decided ONE aircraft type replace both F-18 and F-111.
This is a dangerous idea.

They are still deciding on weather to keep the Super Hornet and operate the F-35 as well, so we have 2 aircraft types. Simply because the F-35 price is climbing all the time and falling behind.

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Maybe some research on the subject will tell you the answer as to why the collins was and is a farce... hundreds of millions over budget, decade or so behind because its weapons system was unable to fire its torpedos.
This issue has been around for a long time.
What good is a sub if it couldnt fire its torpedos?
The manning issue was also a problem in that i think the navy could only supply enough crews for 3 subs?

Maybe you should do some research on the subject and that will tell you that, like many others, you believed the media rubbish about the subs. Yes there were problems but not nearly as catastrphic as the media of the day made it sound.

So much for 'hundreds of millions over budget'

From Wikipedia:


Several newspaper articles and commentators have incorrectly claimed that the project ran significantly over the contract cost.[126] As of the launch of the first submarine, the project cost had increased from AU$3.892 billion in 1986 dollars to AU$4.989 billion in 1993 dollars, which corresponded to the rate of inflation during that period.[127] By 2006, AU$5.071 billion had been spent to build the submarines (excluding the fast track program); after taking inflation into account, the project had run less than AU$40 million over contract.
The Collins class submarines experienced a wide range of problems during their construction and early service life. Many of these were attributed to the submarines being a new, untested design, and were successfully addressed as they were discovered.[65] Most systems and features worked with few or no problems, while the boats' maximum speed, manoeuvrability, and low-speed submerged endurance were found to exceed specifications.[66] The ship control system, which during development had been marked as a major potential problem, functioned beyond positive expectation: for example, the autopilot (which aboard Collins was nicknamed 'Sven') was found to be better at maintaining depth during snorting than most helmsmen.[67]

Then this, also from Wikipedia;

Problems with the combat system, excessive noise, and engine breakdowns were recurring and appeared across the entire class.[68] These and other shortcomings were often made harder to solve by disagreements between Kockums, ASC, Rockwell, the RAN, and the Australian Government over the nature of problems, their causes, and who was responsible for solving them.[69] Media reporting of the problems during the mid-1990s was often negative and regularly exaggerated, creating a poor public perception for the class.[70] This perception was often aided by politicians, who used the shortcomings to politically attack the Labor Party and Kim Beazley, particularly after Labor was defeated by the Liberal-National Coalition in the 1996 federal election, and Beazley became Leader of the Opposition.[71][72] During the mid-1990s, it was recommended on several occasions that the submarine project be abandoned, and the completed submarines and incomplete hulls be broken up for scrap.[73]

The major problem with the subs was the Combat system, mainly due to the blame being shifted from one company to another, and ownership of the Rockwell system transferred from one corporation to another due to company buy-outs.

If the subs could not fire Torpedos then how did FARNCOMB do this to TORRENS:



And how did this happen:

From Wikipedia:

Mark 48 torpedoes were upgraded to the Mod 7 Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS) version, which was jointly developed with the United States Navy (USN).[136] Waller was the first vessel of either navy to fire an armed Mod 7, sinking the decommissioned Spruance class destroyer USS Fletcher on 16 July 1998

And lastly your info about the manning is old:

These problems have been compounded by the inability of the RAN to retain sufficient personnel to operate the submarines — by 2008, only three could be manned, and for periods during 2009 and 2010, only one was fully operational. The resulting negative press has led to a poor public perception of the Collins class.

So i strongly recommend you don't believe everything you read/hear/see in the media about the Navy.

[Jim Goose]

If they are such a success why are they seeking to replace it NOW?

You say dont believe the media so you use Wikipedia for your info???

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225789068076

THE navy's $6 billion Collins-class submarines face serious operational restrictions after being hit by a run of crippling mechanical problems and troubling maintenance issues.

Some senior engineering experts now contend that the Swedish-supplied Hedemora diesel engines may have to be replaced - a major design and engineering job that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to complete.

So serious are the problems that the Defence Materiel Organisation has put the Collins boats at the top of its list of "projects of concern" - the key equipment issues troubling Australia's Defence leaders.

The Australian understands that in recent times only a single Collins-class boat has been available for operational duties but it is unclear whether this involves more than extended training missions.

Senior Defence leaders are also vitally concerned about the productivity and efficiency of ASC, the Adelaide-based wholly government-owned builder and maintainer of the Collins class.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

One senior Defence source characterises the level of concern in senior government ranks about the availability of the Collins submarines as "extreme".

In the recent defence white paper, Kevin Rudd announced that the government would double the size of the RAN's submarine fleet from six to 12 when it came to replacing the Collins-class boats from 2025.

"If you can't do this right, how do you do the next one," observed one senior Defence source last night.

"We spend a lot of money on this core defence capability and they aren't working properly."

Defence Minister John Faulkner and Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet have now demanded monthly updates from the navy and Defence about the operational state of the Collins-class vessels.

ASC, the Adelaide-based builder and maintainer of the Collins class, is now working through a range of mechanical issues affecting the performance of the six submarines with the state of the diesel engines a fundamental concern.

The trouble-plagued diesel engines are expected to last at least another 15 to 20 years before they are progressively replaced by the planned next-generation submarine from 2025.

While ASC believes they can still last the expected life-of-type and has called in a Swiss consultant to advise on a long-term remediation plan, other external experts believe there may be no option but to start planning for their eventual replacement.

The Hedemora diesel engines have never functioned well from the start and there are now real doubts that they are robust enough to see out the life of the Collins boats.

Other mechanical issues include the performance of the electric motors, batteries and generators but ASC sources are confident that these glitches are being satisfactorily resolved.

HMAS Collins is undergoing repairs on its diesel engines and there are temporary restrictions on two other boats while the bands on their electric motors are fixed.

But ASC remains confident that four "operational" boats will be available to the navy early in 2010 while HMAS Rankin and HMAS Sheean enter ASC's Adelaide yard to undergo a "full-cycle docking" - a major refit and overhaul.

ASC has the maintenance contract for the Collins boats worth nearly $200 million and this year is budgeted to spend $330m on maintaining and upgrading the submarines, including the combat system.

But Defence leaders are concerned about the company's ability to efficiently manage the regular full-cycle dockings (FCD) and other lengthy maintenance periods that the Collins boats require. Defence wants to cut the average time taken for a FCD from three to two years, saving at least $60-70m a year, which would be ploughed back into supporting the Collins capability.

ASC has a $3bn long-term through-life support contract for the Collins boats with the DMO which is due to be renegotiated by next March.

Senior Defence sources say there will be three key performance indicators that they expect from the new contract with ASC including an increased availability of boats for operations and a reduced cost of ownership to the commonwealth. "We are concerned with the amount of availability of the boats and the cost of doing the maintenance as well as some of the technical outcomes being achieved," DMO chief Stephen Gumley told The Australian.

"We are working with the company to improve in each of those areas. We hope to have a new through-life support contract for the Collins by Easter next year, which would commence in the financial year starting on July 1, 2010," Dr Gumley said.

"Like any complex asset, there is a series of technical challenges.

"We are working with ASC and external consultants to evaluate some of the challenges that wehave."

A recent external consultant's study of workforce productivity on the Collins boats at ASC's Adelaide yard suggests room for significant improvement.

According to documents obtained by The Australian, the study showed that some mechanical tradesmen working on the Collins boats were idle for much of their time on the shop floor.

One electrical tradesman was present for the entire day but his only role was to insert and remove the fuses for a pressure test. This test took 10 minutes and was held mid-afternoon.

Another electrical tradesman was clocked to have spent three hours and 12 minutes of productive work in a day. "The average efficiency observed (using generous definitions of productive work) was 30 per cent. Over 15 days of tradesperson time across multiple disciplines was observed, and nobody has suggested that theperiod of time we studied was not representative," the consultant report found.

"We believe that an efficiency of 80 per cent should be considered world-class in this environment. This would be a 167 per cent increase in the work output of the current workforce or opportunity for a dramatic cost reduction," the report said.

Ever since they were launched, the Collins boats have been plagued by mechanical problems.

As early as June 1999, a report to the Howard government found a range of serious technical defects in the Collins boats, three of which had been delivered to the navy by that time. These included problems with the diesel engines as well as noise propagation and the performance of propellers, periscopes, masts and the combat system. By far the most expensive fix was the the combat system. The original system never worked and was eventually replaced at a cost of close to $1 billion.
More Story Content

[Jim Goose]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/reput...0210-nsd0.html

Reputation of Collins class subs takes a further dive
Dan Oakes DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT
February 11, 2010


TWO of Australia's six trouble-wracked Collins class submarines will not return to sea until they have been of action for a total of at least nine years.

The revelation is another blow to the reputation of Australia's multi-billion dollar submarine fleet, which has been dogged by problems since HMAS Collins was launched in 1996.

It was also revealed yesterday that the federal government is demanding $5 million in compensation from the Australian Submarine Corporation over defects that have kept HMAS Collins incapacitated.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Under the contract with the government, which is worth $170 million a year to the corporation, that is the maximum compensation payable, a senate estimates committee heard.

Questioned by the Coalition defence spokesman, David Johnston, the Chief of Navy, Russ Crane, admitted that HMAS Rankin had been inoperable for two years and would be for another three years. Similarly, the sister ship HMAS Sheean had been laid up for two years and would not put to sea for another two years, Vice-Admiral Crane said.

HMAS Farncomb was recalled to port last week after a generator failure, while HMAS Collins is on restricted operations because of problems with its diesel engine.

Of the remaining two submarines, HMAS Dechaineux is undergoing maintenance and is supposed to be operational next month, while HMAS Waller is the only operational submarine, and will set sail tomorrow from the HMAS Sterling naval base in Western Australia.

Vice-Admiral Crane said the navy hoped to have three operational submarines in the water by mid-year, with HMAS Collins slated to set sail with HMAS Farncomb's crew in May.

[Jim Goose]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s328290.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT


Broadcast: 12/07/2001
Collins Class submarine war

Reporter: Simon Royal

COMPERE: First, Australia's Collins Class submarines. From day one, they have been a costly embarrassment to the navy and to the Government. Routed as state-of-the art undersea technology, the subs leaked and couldn't even run silently with some comparing them to a noisy rock band.

With United States (US) help, those problems have now been fixed, all except for the submarine's troublesome combat system. Both American and European companies lobbied fiercely for the contract before a navy task force gave the nod to a system from a German/British group, STN Atlas.

But earlier this week, Defence Minister Peter Reith overturned that by announcing Australia would seek closer ties with the US Navy.

While the outcome is not being questioned, there's significant disquiet about the process, so much so that STN Atlas is threatening to sue the Government for damages.

In a moment I'll be speaking to Peter Reith but first this report from Simon Royal.

SIMON ROYAL: For almost a year, two defence companies - one American, the other German - have been battling over Australia's Collins Class submarines.

The prize, a $400 million contract to fit a new combat system to the troubled subs. According to defence analyst and publisher Greg Ferguson, the German company, STN Atlas, thought it was a shoe-in. After all, that was the recommendation of the navy's own task force.

GREG FERGUSON, DEFENCE ANALYST/PUBLISHER: If we went to war with the German combat system our submarines would still be among the best in the world. There's no doubt about that and, certainly, in the region, undoubtedly, by a country mile the best in the region.

SIMON ROYAL: But two days ago, Defence Minister Peter Reith scrapped the tender process. Instead, the Minister announced a new, closer relationship would be forged with the US Navy. STN Atlas believes this means the Americans have won and reportedly threatened to sue for compensation.

The company has now told the 7:30 Report that's on hold while it pursues amicable discussions with the Government. Neither STN Atlas nor its US competitor, Raytheon, will talk publicly.

GREG FERGUSON: It means that Raytheon and STN Atlas, who both spent a fair bit of money preparing bids to win this contract have been left dangling to an extent. The Government has decided, really, not to make a decision.

SIMON ROYAL: But former defence minister John Moore believes a clear-cut decision on the combat system has been made and Australia will now buy the American version.

JOHN MOORE, FORMER DEFENCE MINISTER: Our role will clearly be within the Pacific and maybe the Indian Ocean and because of those reasons alone, cooperation with the Americans is absolutely vital.

I go beyond that to say that the whole strategic interest of the Australian Navy is tied up with the Americans, not with the Europeans. Therefore, this decision is very important.

GREG FERGUSON: I think it in strategic terms if the Government wants to align itself with the US Navy in submarine technology and operations, yes, it's a wise decision, it's a justifiable decision.

SIMON ROYAL: There's no argument over the need to replace the combat system. In 1999, the Macintosh-Prescott report into the submarines revealed a litany of woes.

The diesel engines were unreliable and the submarines made a racket, hardly desirable characteristics in a weapon, which relies upon stealth. With help from the US Navy, those problems have now been solved. All that remains is the combat system.

JOHN MOORE: The combat system was the major problem. I was surprised it hadn't been addressed when I came to the job, but now the right decision has been made, and I think this leads to a very good submarine.

SIMON ROYAL: There's no questioning either in defence circles the wisdom of consolidating Australia's strategic ties with the United States. It's the way this has been done that's generating controversy.

KIM BEAZLEY, OPPOSITION LEADER: The treatment of the Germans, given that they had arrived at these conclusions -- this Government had arrived at these conclusions month and months ago -- has been nothing short of outrageous.

GREG FERGUSON: Yes, I think there's a strong national interest case for doing what they've done. What they've also done, of course, is undermined the reputation for independence and integrity of the Australian defence acquisition process.

SIMON ROYAL: Neither Peter Reith nor John Moore accept that argument. In his time as defence minister, John Moore passionately believed the US offered a better solution, and he worked towards that.

JOHN MOORE: In this particular case, the national interest is the hallmark. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government acted in the national interest rather than the commercial interest.

SIMON ROYAL: Was this an outcome that you worked towards when you were defence minister?

JOHN MOORE: I certainly was -- it would be wrong for me not to say that I was very clearly a strong proponent of development of the submarines and their long-term association with the Americans.

SIMON ROYAL: This is not the first time European ambition for the Collins Class have been left high and dry. A year ago, the German submarine builder HDW offered to buy into the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide. At John Moore's urging, the proposal was blocked.

JOHN MOORE: My view has always been that the Americans should be brought into the Submarine Corporation itself so we have ongoing technology transfer and also the development of this over time.

We have certain areas in submarines where we're ahead of the Americans and they appreciate this and are looking very much forward to great cooperation.

SIMON ROYAL: But South Australian Opposition leader Mike Rann fears the Federal Government's pattern of decisions could hurt his state. European-based defence industries are a major employer in Adelaide.

MIKE RANN, SA OPPOSITION LEADER: Ultimately, we hope that there'll be a good finale to this saga, but it doesn't help our international image when we've got multimillion-dollar law suits when reputable firms in Europe are being treat this way.

SIMON ROYAL: Whether the US ends up buying part of the Submarine Corporation remains to be seen. Despite the closer ties to the American Navy, the Europeans aren't quite out of the picture yet.

They were involved in the early design of the Collins Class and they still hold design rights. Who owns what still needs to be sorted out.

GREG FERGUSON: It's a very murky area and it's one of those things, which could turn round and bite the Government on the back of the neck.

Should I go on?

[XESP351]

And the media rubbishing continues......Now you are just proving my point...

So give me one reason why i should believe the media over wikipedia....

By the way, how old is that article?? John Faulkner as Defence Minister??

[XESP351]

I can sit here and show you in detail why every article you put up is irrelevant, exaggerated or just old news but i have better things to do.

You believe what you want to believe but i ask that you don't try and enforce it on others here who do not know much about the issue...

[Jim Goose]

So what if the article is old???
This shows that there is a CONSTANT history of issues with the submarines since day one they havent worked as advertised and have cost BILLIONS to fix the issues.

Do you have shares in ASC?

The problem with WikiPedia is that ANYONE can put up the info on there and any member of ASC or Defence can change the info on there to dress down the problems of the past 12 or so yrs...
Blowing up a ship which was sitting still in the middle of the ocean??
wow that takes a lot of computing and maneouvering doesnt it!

The fact remains that defence is largely run as a public service and Billions are wasted on a yearly basis... if you dont understand this point then im sorry but there is no point in arguing with you.

Other ex service personnel have posted on here and confirm whats being said... nothing changes.

[Franco Cozzo]

Why do they sink old ships? Why not recycle them for materials or convert it for other purposes like a floating military museum or something.

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

So what if the article is old???
This shows that there is a CONSTANT history of issues with the submarines since day one they havent worked as advertised and have cost BILLIONS to fix the issues.

Do you have shares in ASC?

The problem with WikiPedia is that ANYONE can put up the info on there and any member of ASC or Defence can change the info on there to dress down the problems of the past 12 or so yrs...
Blowing up a ship which was sitting still in the middle of the ocean??
wow that takes a lot of computing and maneouvering doesnt it!

The fact remains that defence is largely run as a public service and Billions are wasted on a yearly basis... if you dont understand this point then im sorry but there is no point in arguing with you.

Other ex service personnel have posted on here and confirm whats being said... nothing changes.

Hey Goose, maybe you need to actually read my posts, i did agree with the money wasting and the public service attitude, so not sure who you are arguing with, maybe yourself since you love an argument.

About the subs, all you are doing is repeating what the media keeps saying about the subs being useless but you have no actual real life info or experience with them do you? Have you actually served in the Navy at any time since 1996? My guess is No, all your info is based on media hype, no operational knowledge.

Now to the torpedo issue, please do not pretend that you know about combat systems and torpedo firing, you're embarrassing yourself!

BTW im a current serving member in the RAN and get really ****ed when people like yourself rubbish the Navy based on info they get out of newspapers.

EDIT: One more thing Goose, since you know so much about the Navy you'll know that ASC are building the new AWD's (again since you know so much you will know what that stands for but i guess it's not hard to look up), so you thing they will be basket cases too?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

What you need to know is that a chnage of government makes NO difference to ANY public service.

I'm in the public service and I can assure you that going from a Labor government to a Liberal-National government has made a huge difference to us

[calais]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I'm in the public service and I can assure you that going from a Labor government to a Liberal-National government has made a huge difference to us

The defence white paper and the effects of the SRP have been felt right down the most junior of enlisted men, the quality of the equipment they are given to fight with, and the morale which this equipment has a role in keeping.

[glavas]

only people to blame is federal government they need to up the adf budget. and stop waseting money on school halls and websites.

[shedcoupe]

Dunno much about the Collins subs but at the time I wonder why we purchased subs from Ikea when the other choice was a German sub.
I seem to recall my dad mentioning that the Chermans had built one or two previously and that he'd been a bit scared of them for some reason .......

And you guys don't understand about the bureaucracy.
It is there to serve the bureaucracy, not the people.
Any queries from their employers (ie. the taxpayers) regarding productivity is the signal to authorise an enquiry, which generates a report, which is then reviewed, and forgotten.
And this has gone on since the first Egyptian dynasty thousands of years ago. Sir Humphrey and all that.

I work in the 'public service' and if the government sold hamburgers, they'd take six months for delivery, be expensive, and inedible.
The guilty are promoted, the innocent punished, and mediocrity and conformity are rewarded.
Occasionally there's a ray of light like Cosgrove who can actually do a day's work and has commonsense.
In the meantime there's plenty of money for incompetent managers to do 'special projects' so that awkward questions about their previous performance are avoided.
And no money for the people who actually produce the product that's supposed to be produced.
Not forgetting all the great people at all levels who manage to make it work somehow, regardless of the personnel with frizzy orange hair, gloves and enormous shoes, and pom-poms down the front of their shirts.
Twelvety billion more pages to follow.