The new guardian class naval ships Australia have to the pacific nations now have design flaws. Does the defence department in Australia manage any procurement effectively and without issue ?

The new guardian class naval ships Australia have to the pacific nations now have design flaws. Does the defence department in Australia manage any procurement effectively and without issue ?

Why is it the Department of Defence that is to blame?

Austal designed the ships with the flaws. In some cases they were the same flaws at the Armidale class and the Cape class. Austal have never delivered everything they have promised. The ships are never fully equipped on delivery.

But the government have to place an order with an Australian company and there is enormous political pressure to support companies in particular states.

As I understand it, the Arafura class offshore patrol vessel design was selected because it was the smallest ship that ASC in Adelaide could build at a profit, regardless of what the Navy wanted. But ASC only built the first two, the others being built at Henderson in WA.

If the government had encouraged Holden, Ford and Toyota to keep building cars, they wouldn't have had to find work for the hundreds of people made redundant when they closed.

I have one of the last Australian built Toyotas and it is the best car I have owned to date.

The difference is that Ford , Toyota and Holden had to build products that the public would buy.
Austal and ASC can build whatever they want and the Australian Taxpayer has to pay for it, no matter how bad it might be.

One particular problem with the Armidale, Cape and Guardian classes is that there is not a continuous strength deck right through the length of these ships. There is a break amidships. This is to give a low rear deck to make lowering rigid hull inflatable boats into the sea, while at the forward end the deck is higher to allow cabins below that deck. This results in a serious structural weakness more or less amidships. Many of the Armidale class had to be removed from service at about half their planned life due to structural failure.

But Austal keep getting new orders for the same failed design.

And this isn't because the Navy wants them.

Peter

I am privy to one continuing failure in some Austal vessels. A permanent solution to the problem is one of the simplest changes one could ever make but, for reasons that totally escape me and others, it is just isn't done.  The refusal to make this change ensures that the equipment's supplier (for whom I worked for 30 years) has good repeat and/or spare parts business, so I guess some good comes out of it.

'... I have one of the last Australian built Toyotas and it is the best car I have owned to date. ...'
Me too.

Many years ago the Head Office of a well known government railway was known as the 'Gum Tree' because it was 'full of Galahs'.

Perhaps Defence could be labelled the 'Lemon Tree' for producing an endless supply of lemons!

The new guardian class naval ships Australia have to the pacific nations now have design flaws. Does the defence department in Australia manage any procurement effectively and without issue ?

Arrrh, military contracts, you actually expect them to get it perfect?

Issues
1) Political, govt wants a Aircraft carrier with the budget of a tinnie
2) Change of govt, change of agenda, contractors know this, hence they charge more.
3) Trying to use technology that is difficult to go open tender or have complexity of technology available for enough eyes to review
4) Using latest or in some cases yet to be proven technology
5) Short production runs
6) Limited supply options
7) Politics on who you can buy from
8) Changing technology of the people your designing your boat to shoot at during construction.
9) Not proven hardware
10) Combining different systems where suppliers have all signed NDA's so information sharing is SFA based in minimum need to know basis.
11) Security vetting of personal allowed to work on the boat
12) ....

Anyway, look at the USA long list of FU's in govt military projects going obscenly over budget if you are worried about Australia, ie USS Enterprise CVN-65, F-22, B-2......Space Shuttle Program cost and time over run was also driven by the requirements of the USAF, who then rarely used it.

Stupidly the USA outsourced South Pacific security to Australia now they are reopening their embassies and going back to doing it properly themselves.

Stupidly the USA outsourced South Pacific security to Australia now they are reopening their embassies and going back to doing it properly themselves.

Which means the USA no longer trusts us.

Say good-bye to this new submarine project in the future, back to the French?

Arrrh, military contracts, you actually expect them to get it perfect?

Issues

1) Political, govt wants a Aircraft carrier with the budget of a tinnie

2) Change of govt, change of agenda, contractors know this, hence they charge more.

3) Trying to use technology that is difficult to go open tender or have complexity of technology available for enough eyes to review

4) Using latest or in some cases yet to be proven technology

5) Short production runs

6) Limited supply options

7) Politics on who you can buy from

8) Changing technology of the people your designing your boat to shoot at during construction.

9) Not proven hardware

10) Combining different systems where suppliers have all signed NDA's so information sharing is SFA based in minimum need to know basis.

11) Security vetting of personal allowed to work on the boat

12) ....

An interesting list of "excuses". In the case which I mentioned earlier, not one of these excuses will do. It is not new technology, rather it is a piece of basic equipment, well proven over many decades. The way to fix the problem is equally well known and proven. I can't elaborate, because it could pinpoint the supplier which I am not prepared to do.

An interesting list of "excuses". In the case which I mentioned earlier, not one of these excuses will do. It is not new technology, rather it is a piece of basic equipment, well proven over many decades. The way to fix the problem is equally well known and proven. I can't elaborate, because it could pinpoint the supplier which I am not prepared to do.

Agree, but its a list that plagues the world's military, in one form or another.

If you want or need a warship don't just buy a 'civilian' design vessel and paint it grey.

so here is one of the stories about the issues.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/300626745/australianbuilt-23-billion-guardianclass-patrol-boats-for-pacific-island-nations-have-major-flaws

Major  take away is  "The ship maker has accepted the three issues are design problems, not manufacturing issues, and will bear the cost of repairs."

so just seems to be a warranty  job.

So this is the sort of "assistance" we offer to Pacific nations.

Impossible to see why some of them might think it's worth giving China a chance instead.

What did the Morrison government do about the South Pacific when he was in government. Answer is nothing.

What did the Morrison government do about the South Pacific when he was in government. Answer is nothing.

What have the Romans  done  for us!   Nothing!

Seem to recall a lot of assistance to a South Pacific Nation that experienced a volcanic eruption in their  vicinity.   You might have seen it in the news.   If you look you can find other examples of Australian assistance and support to  the South Pacific.

'... Seem to recall a lot of assistance to a South Pacific Nation that experienced a volcanic eruption in their  vicinity.   You might have seen it in the news. ... '
We sent them a Covid infected broken down 'warship' (HMAS Adelaide) to assist.