I dunno. Doesn't sound quite as bad as the DD-1000 Zumwalt's cost issues:





News

U.K. Parliamentarians Voice Sinking Feeling About Type 45 Destroyer


Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Jun 23 , 2009 , p. 12
Douglas Barrie



LONDON — The Royal Navy’s latest combat ship, the Type 45 destroyer, has provided a painful — if potentially valuable — contracting experience for the U.K. Defense Ministry, according to a parliamentary report.

The Public Accounts Committee report on the Type 45, published in the U.K. June 23, is highly critical of elements of the multibillion dollar program, particularly the early stages of the project.

“Project management arrangements on the Type 45 were poor and allowed the culture of over-optimism to persist for too long,” the report notes. Following contract renegotiation in 2007, there was an improvement in management of the program, with “no further cost increases and delays.”

The navy originally intended to procure 12 Type 45 anti-air warfare destroyers to replace its Type 42s. Revised requirements and budgetary pressures have seen this number cut first to eight, and later to six ships.

The committee says that the first of class will enter service “two years late” and that the original budget has been exceeded by £1.5 billion ($2.45 billion).

The committee is also critical that the ship will enter service in 2009, it says, “without a PAAMS (Principal Anti-Air Missile System) missile having been fired from any Type 45 Destroyer.”

The PAAMS system — to be known in navy service as the Sea Viper — already has been test fired from a trials barge, and the committee recognizes that the Defense Ministry “had always planned to adopt this approach.”

The Type 45, according to the report, will not reach a full operational capability until July 2011. The delays in the program have meant extending the lives of some Type 42s, which the report says “are increasingly expensive to maintain, provide a more limited capability…and are more vulnerable to the most up-to-date threats.”

The committee claims “many of the problems on the Type 45 result from commercial arrangements the Department (Defense Ministry) put in place.” It adds: “Inappropriate commercial structures are a major cause of slippage and cost growth in the early part of the lifecycle of large projects.”

The report says that the ministry “is confident that it will avoid making the same mistakes in the project management arrangements it agrees [to]” for its two new aircraft carriers. “Agreeing [to] a fixed price too early and not pricing all the requirements at the time of the contract meant the Type 45 was at risk of cost growth. The [ministry] believes it will not fall unto the same trap on the Carriers,” the committee notes.

I dont know, we have been procuring naval warships for over 500 years now, and we still dont seem to have quite got it right.

Stu,

The challenge encountered on new kit projects is that development times of new/emerging systems that have been commited to are best estimates. The MoD preferred options when choosing which items to use, very often still have some development, and therefore unknowns, within their development program.

The MoD pay well but require contractors to accept very tight contracts that include swinging penalty clauses for delvery date defaults. However, most contractors are smart enough not to risk commiting to programs if there is a chance they cannot fulfill. But, if during development engineers discover that for a little extra time they can add more or higher levels of functionality, what should you do?

The mitigation is to keep the people who ultimatly pay, up to speed with any delays, coupled with valid explanations. Over optimistic forcasts can lead to dissapointment and recrimination, but alternativly, estimates that are too pessimistic may result in projects not starting or being binned.

Cheers

The difference is you didn't have a MoD back then.

We had Henry VIII. Did you see what he did to the poor Mary Rose?

BD, I hear what you are saying I hope I didnt appear overly critical. In fact I think the Type45, the Astute and the new armoured vehicles being adopted show a remarkable degree of surefootedness that would have been unknown in the MOD of 20 years ago. The fact that the British army has an Apache that in some of its specs appears superior to the US one is proof of that.

Lets face it, the procurement system for all its flaws has to be better than the one we had in Pepys day, when a group of Admiralty old farts sat round a table studying a model of the next warship, and hummed and hahed about whether it was worth the cost. Considerably less entertaining though I would imagine.

The only negative is that I would like to see more procurement of equipment in the UK, as opposed to buying abroad. I can understand why it has to be done in order to achieve timescales and cost issues. On the other hand in the middle of a recession thought ought to be given to buying more here. I note one of the new armoured utilities is armoured in the UK, but the Chassis is bought in from abroad. We are probably the only people in Europe who would show that ability to shun our own manufacturers, and Im not entirely convinced its always the advantage its proported to be.

Hopefully you have better luck with FRES than we had with FCS.

The current crop of armoured vehicles are a direct response to the vulnerability of troops using Landrovers. They are "off the shelf" vehicles and probably one offs that will not be re-ordered. Therefore no need to, and it would be uneconomical to set up assembly in UK.

Where there is a long term need for a war fighting vehicle such as FRES it will be manufactured in the UK. FRES utility is a foreign developed basic chassis and layout with UK armour and troop compartment and other stuff( ) and it was planned to manufacture the vehicles in the UK. Last summer there was a recruitment drive across the UK for engineers to carry this out and we were taking bets on where the plant was likely to be.

Unfortunately as you know this has now been put off for a while to make the money stretch ( ) although FRES recce is still on track.

Rob

There's more of it about than you might imagine. Even as nationalistic a country as France not longer makes any small-arms ammunition - they buy in what they need. At least Radway Green is getting some investment (at last).

Even the USA no longer bothers with some things, such as developing machine guns - they buy the designs from Belgium, and have done for decades.

The SM-6 appears that it will be in service before the "Sea Viper"

Fair comment. Though look what happens when they try to buy Helicopters and Air Tankers.

Rob, Im glad to hear FRES is still on track. I think if that goes down it would be the land equivilent of the TSR2 debacle.

Aster-15 and -30 (AKA Sea Viper) are both operational on French and Italian warships (Charles de Gaulle with Aster-15, Horizon class with Aster-15 and -30) as well as on the Saudi Arabian and Singaporean (Al Riyadh / F3000S Sawari II class with Aster-15, Formidable class with Aster-15 and even Aster-30?) frigates.