Each Oz sub just sailed 97 days in 2006/2007.
Or 1.6 Oz sub ,on average ,sailed in any day 2006/2007.
Is it a standard shall be achieved by a First World country?
I dunt want to talk this sailing days or operational
readiness
any more.There is more important lesson to be learnt.
2.Aussie
industry query on the structure of AWD Alliance
I am think thinking hard who will be the over all in Charge of
the Alliance
or the Project.It looks like Oz DMO is the leader.
But this Oz article seem telling me
more.The Alliance is a profit or loss sharing partners.
So who will calls the shot?Besides,there is no fixed cost of the
contract,
at least at this moment!!
The burning question is the overall experience of Oz ship
yards
in builing naval surface combatant ship!!
In Collins Sub,the first sub was built in /www.kockums.se
Oz ASC got a example to follow.Kockums is the one to deliver
the final product.
In AWD,the losing party Gibbs and Cox,who designed the
Evolved
version,was contracted to help the winning party Navantia's
in the project of Existing version!!How funny it is.
3.Aegis combat
system--Engineer chosen before the sys selected
Why did Oz do this? Aegis combat system is sold
by
Lockheed Martin!!Aegis is the brain of
overall combat sys.
But the Combat System - Systems Engineer is
Raytheon Australia!!
I dunt follow the rationale.
Can experts here,Like Sg Ty,tell me more.
http://www.ausawd.com/overview.html
''In April 2005 the Australian Government selected Raytheon
Australia Pty Ltd as the Combat System - Systems Engineer, and in
May 2005 selected ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd as the
Shipbuilder.''
http://www.militaryglobal.com/forum/index.php/topic,1342.0.html
Targeting the armada
Australia is about to spend $8 billion on three new warships. The
navy wants the biggest ship. John Howard wants the US model. But
the winner should be a cheaper and proven performer from Spain,
writes Patrick Walters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2007
Targeting the armada
Australia is about to spend $8 billion on three new warships. The
navy wants the biggest ship. John Howard wants the US model. But
the winner should be a cheaper and proven performer from Spain,
writes Patrick Walters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2007
In addition the DMO(lion note:governement [email protected]@@)
has moved
away from traditional prime contracts involving fixed-price
agreements and embraced a wholly novel
alliance contract model in which it becomes one of three core
partners. ...
Defence industry experts cite the DMO's alliance contract model
and the combat system integration challenge as the two biggest
long-term risks facing the project. The AWD Alliance partnership
remains an uneasy embrace with no one player driving the
multi-billion-dollar project.
In the past this would have been the shipbuilder acting as the
prime contractor.
"It's an absolute shemozzle," says one of Australia's defence
industry leaders of the alliance contract arrangements. "Nobody
calls the shots. You can't run a contract like this with three or
four parties acting as if it's a knitting club. ASC should be put
in charge."
Under the alliance system the partners agree on profit margins and overheads, and
jointly bear any losses. There are differences of opinion about the
capacity of the DMO to bring together all the parties in a
harmonious, wholly transparent arrangement. Some industry players
also continue to question the wisdom of having Raytheon as an
alliance partner, especially when it has to work so closely with
arch-rival and Aegis system manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Among the many risks is that ASC
has never built a surface warship.
4.i am sure u will learn a lot,good or bad,from this
project
from first hand news.I suggest u monitor the progress at least
monthly.
Dunt rely on history.
