BAEs responsible for the maintenance and they've just won the DDG contract too. I know I'm one of those overly fussy ex submarine people but seriously the amount of money wasted because of faulty, or even dangerously deferred maintenance suggests that being fussy and doing it right and when or before its critical, is probably more cost efficient.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The new CH-53K's have a HUMS (Health and Monitoring system) installed meant to monitor the componants in the aircraft (If I understand it all properly) and allow for preventative maintenance to take place or defer what would have been standard maintenance if it isn't needed. Would such a system work for ships? Yes they are a hell of a lot larger so there would be that to overcome, and Im not so sure how easy it would be to install on an existing ship but if it is possible we really should consider something like that for all future builds.
On the subject of companies putting profit before all else ...
HISTORIC MILESTONE FOR AUSTRALIA'S SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
Austal has cut first steel for the Pacific Patrol Boat program.
I wonder what Austal thinks of building boats out of good old fashioned steel rather than recycled coke cans?
t68
Well-Known Member
Profit is a double edged sword, a company has to be profitable to enable it to last more than one project. But like the banks there is profit and there is profit. The problem last years profit margin is not good enough for the shareholders this year.
Short term profit seems to work in defence as companies with the long view get caned in the media and by politicians, no matter how well they look after the customer, while others who aim to make money over all else are loved by the political classes and seen by the media and uninformed public as successful. Cost, schedule and sexy press releases (also intensive lobbying) result in better press and more business thank quality and competency.
Obviously a company must return a profit long term - it's more when a company beats their own drum, bragging about the capability of their products, whilst simultaneously underachieving on things like schedule, performance and reliability but charges a fortune to do so in a monopoly market.
No one really minds paying a reasonable amount of money for a project that delivers.
Huh, I saw people on another forum (The Fifth Column...) blaming Thales... but looking over the 'net you're right that the maintenance contract is with BAe. Wonder if it's just a bunch of blow hard gibbering idiotically, or if there is something actually behind it (BAe subcontracting out specific sections of work?)...
I'm not sure that I'd put too much credence to that source - this "rumour" has been all over the net for a week now, Frequently this sort of thing starts with a group of uninformed comments on a mainstream press story including some comedian speculating on the silliest causes he could imagine - then that being repeated by others until we get the wisdom of the internet - a place where everyone's opinion counts equally, whether they know anything or not
I think I'll wait for an official source.
oldsig
Flexson
Active Member
Definitely wait for an official source! Wish I could elaborate but that would probably be bad for my career. Media is up to their typical tricks, they have no solid information and are further twisting what they think they MIGHT know.
t68
Well-Known Member
Saw that the RAN has taken delivery of there new Cape Class,ADV Cape Fourcroy.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/australias-fourcroy424824
I notice she's not commissioned as HMA but ADV and painted blue, another destined for customs later on at the expence of Navy?
Being an ADV does that carry the same weight when it come to military and Martime law or does she have to comply to civil standards?
https://www.marinelink.com/news/australias-fourcroy424824
I notice she's not commissioned as HMA but ADV and painted blue, another destined for customs later on at the expence of Navy?
Being an ADV does that carry the same weight when it come to military and Martime law or does she have to comply to civil standards?
Back filling for the loss of HMAS Bundaberg and the continuing issues with that entire class. Never intended to be RAN; the role will be taken over by the OPVs as they arrive so commissioning new boats for just a couple of years makes little sense.
There's no expense to the Navy, this is in effect a loan.
oldsig
I can't see that it's all that hard. The ship is in effect a loan from Customs to Navy. I wouldn't repaint my car if I loaned it to you for a couple of years either
:oldsig
I can't see that it's all that hard. The ship is in effect a loan from Customs to Navy. I wouldn't repaint my car if I loaned it to you for a couple of years either
oldsig
Quite a sensible precaution IMHO. If they were haze grey and underway they would end up permanent with a consequent reduction in OPV numbers......or that would be a politicians reasoning I suspect.
I can't see that it's all that hard. The ship is in effect a loan from Customs to Navy. I wouldn't repaint my car if I loaned it to you for a couple of years either
oldsig
Actually I don't think customs owns these boats. I think they were built specifically for they navy. They are actually being chartered by the government so I don't know who actually owns them ... probably Austal.
I don't know how long they will serve with the navy but it wouldn't surprised if they kept them well into the next decade.
Trackmaster
Member
I seem to recall it is someone like National Australia Bank ...and they have leased them to the Government.
- Status