A Spanish-designed F100 air warfare destroyer outside Sydney heads in 2007.
Picture: AFP
Source: The Australian
Posted on 10/25/2010 8:20:47 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
$8bn navy flagship founders after construction bungle
EXCLUSIVE: Cameron Stewart
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
A Spanish-designed F100 air warfare destroyer outside Sydney heads in 2007.
Picture: AFP
Source: The Australian
Folks have been working at this problem of ship design and construction for tens of thousands of years ~ you’d think by now the part about laying the keel was FIXED.
At least the title wasn’t;
“$8bn navy flagship flounders after construction bungle (Australia)”
HUH? They outsourced the design of their warship to SPAIN? Uh, Spanish Armada anyone? What’s the matter, they couldn’t afford the best in the world (namely the USA)?
interesting that modern destroyers have so few actual guns.
Are you kidding me?
Mike
Bungle in the jungle...
Spain and other European nations have had more success in exporting new warships than the US in recent years.
That's because we've been too busy exporting jobs, technology, and in some cases entire factories overseas, in a wide variety of industrial categories. We've regulated ourselves out of business in many cases.
BTW, just what is an "air warfare destroyer"? It seems an odd term or classification.
Spain is a competitive shipbuilding nation unlike the US.
US ships are produced with outsized labor costs.
...US ships are also generally larger with heavier manning requirements which few nations are able to match or even need.
Compare the size of a Wasp/America class LPH to that of the new amphibious assault ships being built by the same Spanish company for Australia.
The term "destroyer" was originally short for "torpedo-boat destroyer"; a small, nimble gunship designed to protect battleships and cruisers from attacks by "motor torpedo boats". The destroyer was large enough to sail with the fleet, but small enough to effectively engage small boats. Its mission was adapted, through the XX Century to include fleet defense against submarines and aircraft. Some modern destroyers are primarily ASW ships, other are primarily SAM platforms, others try to handle both missions competently.
AWD means primarily designed for an air-defense role using the AEGIS system.
Thanks for the info.
Most excellent response..thanks for the cogent info and analysis...Personally, I’d like to resurrect the term “pocket battleship” for some of these new craft...BTW..are the terms frigates and DEs still relevant..
It’s very simple, the closest we have in size to what Australia wants is the Arleigh Burke class which is way too much for them, cost wise and requirement wise. Compared to the RAN ships, the Burkes have almost twice as many vertical launch tubes, weighs a few hundred tons more, have 100 more crewman, etc.
The Spanish Navy is smaller and they designed a ship that fits their requirements. The RAN has similar requirements so they purchased the specs from them.
Lower technical risk. US equipment tends to be designed to be operated by a superpower. It's OK it it can be used "as is", but adapting it to the needs of another nation takes time and money, and may not work.
Given that the Australian Defence Forces have been burned twice in the past decade SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite Helicopter , 737 Wedgetail ~~~
It's not the money - it's the time that can't be afforded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.