http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35432341

So my bro in law is an officer on the dauntless

As I understand it the costs of this are way higher than admitted in the BBC article

Hes been on the ship a couple of years but its been towed back to harbour after virtually every outing.
Some major components were built completely wrong, and BAE seem get contract after contract, all that government subsidy and still they can’t deliver.

On the plus side my niece has been able to see a lot more of her dad as his ship is constantly in dock rather than patrolling the other side of the world

These are the guys building the Trident replacement, !?!!!?

My dad very briefly worked in the defence industry. Amongst other things, his company was selling radar sets to the middle east. They had signed up to penalty clauses they weren’t used to with the British govenrnment, and as I understand it his company were giving the first few radar sets away for free.
It was by all accounts a bit of a culture shock.

As I understand it the costs of this are way higher than admitted in the BBC article

Does the article even mention the costs of the replacement programme? Sounds like Rolls-Royce haven’t delivered the goods tbh.If it was an STWer it would be a SOGA issue rather than mis-management.

These are the guys building the Trident replacement, !?!!!?

They (BAE but not the same division as the surface ships) also built Astute, Vanguard, Trafalgar, Swiftsure, etc not really sure I get the point

philjunior – Member

My dad very briefly worked in the defence industry. Amongst other things, his company was selling radar sets to the middle east. They had signed up to penalty clauses they weren’t used to with the British govenrnment, and as I understand it his company were giving the first few radar sets away for free.
It was by all accounts a bit of a culture shock.

LDs are common throughout defence contracts

When I got a tour of a sub in the 1990s – the crew told us they used the domestic off the shelf “pretending to be a fishing boat” radar most if they were ever surfaced as the fancy one was always broken.

I did a couple of projects at MOD Whitehall. Their arrogance belies their incompetence.

I knew someone whose dad stole £18 million from the MOD got banged up for a few years but his son started dealing in some very nice cars.

can they not just get some oars?

Legend – it’s mismanagement if you repeatedly buy from the same supplier who keeps getting it wrong and over-budget.

And I wouldn’t use Astute as an example of good practice.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty

Probs Thatchers fault then, there isn’t another supplier available (keep Sovereign technology in the UK, etc)

Surely it’d be better to just sell them for scrap, then we don’t have to pay to keep them up, run them or anything else?

BAE are the worst kind of aresholes to have ever existed!
You wouldn’t believe their working practises even if you were involved personally – it beggars belief 😯

Surely it’d be better to just sell them for scrap, then we don’t have to pay to keep them up, run them or anything else?

If you’re happy with us playing as much a part in shaping the world stage as (say) Burkina Faso, then that sounds like a great idea.

Most of the budget for the subs goes on the materials for the welders/fabricators sidelines. My cousing danbob had a good one in barbeques but there were also gun/security cabinets, fencing, roofing for sheds etc, whole sheds, boats…..

My first instinct when reading that article this morning was “surely this is BAE’s problem to fix and not the MoD’s”, I know ships are different to cars but if my new cars engine kept breaking down it would be up to Ford to fix it and not me.

Yep, but as they’re a a monopoly they can turn round and tell the tax payer to go **** himself

My uncle was a senior engineer on foxhunter/project blue circle and my mum’s first job was looking at paperwork for buccaneers and going “wtf”, nothing new here tbh and it’s not limited to bae. Expensive and not fit for purpose because we have delusions of grandeur and need to do everything our way, which in turn cripples exports because nobody but us would buy ’em

If you knew the real reason Ark was scrapped you’d cry.
As the the new QE carriers…. lets just say BAE have better lawyers and contract writers than the MoD do.

hammyuk – Member

If you knew the real reason Ark was scrapped you’d cry.
As the the new QE carriers…. lets just say BAE have better lawyers and contract writers than the MoD do.

oh you tease.

Well yeah, given that they had to form the Aircraft Carrier Alliance just to get the things built the MOD was always going to be over a barrel, and that was before they started changing the requirements again and again

I understand that BAe got very sniffy about the prospects of catapults being fitted to the two new carriers, as this would present two cheaper alternatives to the MoD than the F35C (of which BAe have a large stake), namely the F-18E and Dassault Rafale.

The cost of converting the carriers suddenly escalated and deadlines slipped, so the government had little choice but to leave the carriers as built and order the uber-expensive but not terribly good F-35B STOVL variant.

As much as I’d advocate a “buy British” approach, the government should have awarded the conversion contract to General Dynamics and snubbed BAe until they get their act together.

On the subject of the Ark, please do tell…

Pretty close PJM!
Ark was two finger to BAE after getting stiffed over the carriers. She was due in for a massive refit to see out her last years but after finding out they had to have the second carrier (or pay for it anyway) the MoD went on a cull, cutting out 10’s millions of service stock from BAE.
BAE kept putting up the costs – nothing to do with the MoD for once and their contracts were so clever that the MoD had no choice but to order the second one as they would have to pay for it regardless due to contract clauses put in by BAE.
The catapult fiasco was known about several years ago – the first bow section hadn’t left Portsmouth when it was being discussed here. Everyone knew about it – BAE knew but kept quiet as their contracts had the MoD over a barrel.
Stupid thing is they could’ve had two President Class carriers for less ready to go in the time its taken for one QE to be in the water – let alone handed over!
Muppets want it to be “UK built” – which is fine assuming you can keep control of an entity like BAE who pull the strings how they like to serve themselves.
The “closure of shipbuilding” in Portsmouth was something they did to get back at the MoD after Ark was canned.
They binned over 300 contractors who all mysteriously failed surprise audits.
Some with scores that were impossible to have got.(i.e to have been let in the gate you would’ve needed to score more, let alone work for 9+yrs there)
Strange that they now all of a sudden have new maintenance contracts opening up building there again…..
Although they are now getting flack because many of the specialist contractors they binned are needed to maintain certain equipment in the base but because they failed audits their own system won’t allow them to undertake the work!!
You couldn’t make it up 😯

Stupid thing is they could’ve had two President Class carriers for less ready to go in the time its taken for one QE to be in the water – let alone handed over!

You mean a Gerald R Ford class? Of which there are currently none in service? Never heard of a President class, and the Fords cost a lot more than what we’re building

While I suspect BAE aren’t great, complex engineering projects when new usually find problems it is part of the learning, and is typically described by the bathtub curve.

BAE called them the President Class internally – couldn’t say the official name.
It was well known in the base how much of a piss take the QE build was/is.
They’re really good at pushing contracts between internal companies too to stop any comeback.
The amount of times our CC had a different title or the invoices needed to be sent with a different company name on top was a total PITA.
Hive down’s on a massive scale.

One of the problems with the turbines is that the are only 12 of them in the world. Two on each T45!

I can’t quite remember the specifics but back at the design phase, The UK, France and the US decided to design and build a new gas turbine to be used in Naval ships. They were a very clever design and much better than current offerings. Then the US pulled out and then France. The UK was left carrying the can with a ship designed to use a particular engine that no one wanted. If all had gone to plan there would have been hundreds of these engines in use and any flaws would have been ironed out quickly and much cheaper.

Due to the small installed base, maintenance and spares are expensive and if one goes totally POP, we’re doomed!

The only sensible thing for the RN to do is rip them all out and replace them with something more supportable and off the shelf.

much as I’d advocate a “buy British” approach, the government should have awarded the conversion contract to General Dynamics and snubbed BAe until they get their act together

BAE Systems isn’t even that British. They and the House of Saud were able to get Tony Blair to shut down the bribery investigation though. Does Tony Blair do any consulting for influential Saudis since he left office, I wonder?

#itmakesyouthink

In defence of BAE systems and other subcontractors to the prime, this often isnt a case of shoddy engineering and design, but shoddy requirements capture at the start of the program.

Astute’s costly mid-build redesign for exmaple was caused by changing political circumstances. The rusting on the boat is caused by cost cutting and the assumption that paint can be used as an alternative to corrosion resistant materials.

The failure of Astute gearbox isn’t BAE’s fault, that would be DB and Alstom.

In the same way that the electrical faults could either be caused by a poorly designed and built system, or one that is (now) being asked to do more than was originally specified. It’s unclear.

I suspect, don’t know, that BAE built it to the spec that was in the contract. MoD is staffed by civil servants. Although the expertise on design is contracted out.

) being asked to do more than was originally specified. It’s unclear

is often the case for failure and delay. Services are often the problem in changing their minds and in some cases gold platting the solution.

However if yo want the best at the edge of what’s possible technology wise these things happen, its not a perfect world.

My experience on large contracts with people like BAE is very good, they often do more than asked and provide very good solutions which often founder on the rocks of the civil service.

See what I did there, nautical pun……

My first ship was a steam turbine Leander, never broke down and was the finest grey painted Mediterranean/Baltic booze cruising jolly boat you could clap your salt stung eyes on 😉

I suspect, don’t know, that BAE built it to the spec that was in the contract. MoD is staffed by civil servants. Although the expertise on design is contracted out.

So if the design is contracted out why the pop at “civil servants”

Remind me how many people that 2,500t Leander needed to keep it not breaking down 😉

My understanding is that BAE? forgot to add the capliaries that allow oil to lubricate the drive shafts on the Dauntless, so they had to take the engine out and drill them in but it never quite worked right after

I wonder if the MOD need a hire boat at the moment.
Get our bigger canoe going with four of you in, and the speed is impressive. 8)

My three ‘engines’ run on hot choccy and bacon butties.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/yh6n2Q]Loch Achray[/url] by Matt Robinson, on Flickr

I think the BBC article is a bit misleading (not surprising for the BBC) and certainly makes a lot of assumptions out of not very much knowledge.

I’ve been working with T45 for the last 9 years, my company supplied quite a lot of kit to each ship, and we’re still heavily involved.

T45 is powered by 2 x Rolls Royce WR21 Gas turbines – which are close coupled to huge alternators and 2 x Wartsila diesel generators.
In order to go to sea, the ship must have 3 ‘Prime movers’ available.

As far as i’m aware the RR WR21’s are not being replaced (they are horrendously unreliable though) however they are being modified in order to try and improve reliability.

I ‘think’ a 5th ‘prime mover’ is being fitted to each vessel – this will allow more redundancy, and theoretically enable them to sail with two dead gas turbines.

This is a huge job, as quite a few other pieces of kit need to be moved in order to fit it in (including some of ours)

It is also worth noting that while the WR21s are fragile and probably not entirely suitable for the task, the standard of operator/maintainers on board varies wildly, and from what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t trust some of them to service my bike.

The Navy have been directly responsible for trashing a few of those Engines, purely through incompetence.

My understanding is that BAE? forgot to add the capliaries that allow oil to lubricate the drive shafts on the Dauntless, so they had to take the engine out and drill them in but it never quite worked right after

Err… as far as I was aware, this problem was due to someone repeatedly turning the oil supply off..?

The “closure of shipbuilding” in Portsmouth was something they did to get back at the MoD after Ark was canned.

So nothing to do with a recent project for a middle Eastern customer which was a fiasco from start to finish and went hundreds of millions over budget then??

Remind me how many people that 2,500t Leander needed to keep it not breaking down

About fifty lower deck stokers if I recall, everyone one of them was a piss can 😉

So if the design is contracted out why the pop at “civil servants”

The client needs to communicate exactly what it is they want designed. Then it needs not to forget important parts or change it’s mind half way through. It also needs to ensure it’s not signing up to a heavily slanted contract.
Last of all, they are responsible for spending public money, the onus is on them to get VFM. These aren’t even the usual hapless clients, this is their core business. So damn right they should get the lions share of the blame.

The client needs to communicate exactly what it is they want designed. Then it needs not to forget important parts or change it’s mind half way through. It also needs to ensure it’s not signing up to a heavily slanted contract.

BAE Systems are the vessel design authority for T45.
However the whole thing is a communal effort from start to finish with the end user (Royal Navy) the customer (DE&S/MOD) and the shipbuilder working together to agree everything.
Every aspect of the design process with be overseen by a JPT with embedded MOD/RN people.

Client = Navy
Navy tell procurement what they want, procurement puts out tender, tender is evaluated, winning bid is awarded to builder, builder builds ship and delivers it to Navy.

Massively simplified of course but of course lets blame the civil servants for getting the design wrong, for changing their minds on how much can be spent political purse holders and a hundred other things.

I am sure Joe Bloggs who works in the MOD procurement who has 2 kids and drives a 5 year old Astra and has a secret crush on Julie in Facilities one day decided to change the spec on a whim and cuase the engines to be rubbish or decide not to put a catapult on a carrier because ha ha that will really screw things up.

It is always easy to blame the civil servants

It is always easy to blame the civil servants

And it’s always easy to defend them too. There are Joe Bloggs in the navy, and working for contractors too. Doesn’t mean anything, it’s just emotive speak.
I’ll blame MOD procurement for a lot, but mostly for existing. Each service could have a procurement department made up of military personnel.

Client = Navy
Navy tell procurement what they want, procurement puts out tender, procurement start joint work with France and Italy, procurement cant agree on joint spec with other partner nations, procurement cant agree workshare, procurement decide to go solo, tender is evaluated, winning bid is awarded to builder, builder starts cutting steel, customer changes spec, builder builds a bit, customer wants a newly developed technology, builder builds more, customer adds new requirement, builder builds, new Def-Stan introduced, requirement removed, new requirement added, etc, etc, etc, builder finishes ship, ship passes sea trials, builder delivers it to Navy.

Still not as faffy as the truth.

I am sure Joe Bloggs who works in the MOD procurement who has 2 kids and drives a 5 year old Astra and has a secret crush on Julie in Facilities one day decided to change the spec on a whim and cuase the engines to be rubbish or decide not to put a catapult on a carrier because ha ha that will really screw things up.

A Navy officer shrunk the Faslane shiplift to save money, now some jobs need doing when back in the water as it’s too small to allow all tasks to be carried out

Each service could have a procurement department made up of military personnel.

Good luck with that one 😆 if the grunts I see wandering around the little town I live in are anything to go by*

* a massive generalisation just you like saying all civil servants are useless