Download - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Changing technology hinders the achievement of effective commonality. In general, commonality appears to be more easily achieved between classes progressively utilising the same basic technology than between classes where a significant change in technology has occurred. Given the rate of change of technology in some areas, such as communications, and the rate at which we acquire new RAN ships, commonality in these areas is hard to achieve. Nevertheless, for areas where technology change is slow, such as internal combustion engines, effective commonality between classes should be relatively easy to achieve. Large Changes in Requirements Large scale changes in requirements encourage significant changes from the current system and equipment solution, often associated with technology change. With the recent changes in international circumstances we are observing a review of our defence requirements that may result in significant changes to the systems and equipment we operate. Achieving effective commonality in these circumstances is problematic. How Could Increased Commonality Be Achieved? The circumstances most likely to result in significant commonality between future naval platforms involve teaming with a single ship design and build team over multiple projects, especially where the ship designer already incorporates significant commonality between classes. This approach would require the DMO to seriously change its acquisition management arrangements. Long term arrangements with some technology sectors and suppliers for various capability would also increase the level of effective commonality between classes. This initiative could be pursued independent of or in conjunction with the use of a common ship design and build team. The development of the ANZAC propulsion plant was an example of this type of approach. The formation of the DMO has lead to a focus on the total cost of ownership of a platform, with life cycle costs having a significant influence on the acquisition decision. Recognising the financial benefits of commonality within this modelling would encourage increases in commonality where appropriate. The current Defence Capability Plan (DCP) identifies the intended acquisition of 8 major surface platforms (2xAOR, 3xLPD/H, 3xAWD) in the next 10- 15 years with the selection of the designs mostly completed in the period 2004-2007. This program presents a significant opportunity to realise effective commonality between elements of the surface fleet. Taking the Good without the Bad As stated previously, ensuring that commonality strategies actually increase capability and decrease costs is a major challenge. The research for the Future Ship’s Commonality report found the only way to make commonality work effectively is to be rigorous and detailed in system design analysis. For example, the German Navy required that the MCR of the F-123 be common with that of the F-122. That sounded like a good idea, as the F-123 could use the F-122 training system, logistic support data, and inventory. However in the intervening 13 years between the design of these ships (1979 – 1992) much had happened in engine management control, computer technology, and the education system. Consequently it was more expensive to acquire the MCR systems and equipment NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003 as the F-122 system was long out of production, and more expense to train because the 1990s recruits had to be given a computer history lesson before they could understand the 1970s era computers. Of course the F-123 also missed out on all the efficiency advances in the interim. In the end some sort of sense prevailed and the MCR on the F-123 was ripped out and replaced by a modern system. To successfully leverage the advantages of commonality it is necessary to understand where resources are currently being consumed and why, where the inefficiencies are, and what the lessons of history are. Along these lines the DMO has just completed a study on the effect of the lack of commonality between the Australian Frigate and the ANZAC Frigate on the ANZAC production costs 1. It is estimated that 5-10% was added to the acquisition costs of the ANZAC (averaged across the entire program) because of lack of commonality in design philosophy with the Australian Frigate. If the ANZAC Frigate was less than 10% cheaper than an equivalent offering that was common to an FFG, then from an acquisition perspective, the FFG based option may represent money well spent. What hasn’t been sufficiently studied is the effect of lack of commonality on through life support. Given that crew size, fuel usage, and hull maintenance are among the biggest contributors to through life cost, it is not hard to see that commonality could easily restrict access to substantial cost savings due to the limited common design solutions available for any particular problem. However this needs to be weighed against inefficiencies such as: • Class specific courses that could have been common but for the change in design philosophy 47
48 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003 About the author: Simon Sykes Joined RAN in 1985 Graduated from UNSW with a BE(Mech) in 1988 Served on 1 DE (Torrens), 2 FFGs (Canberra and Sydney) and 1 AOR MEO HMAS SYDNEY 1997-98 (lots of fun) Resigned from RAN 1998 (for a peaceful life) 1999-Current: various positions in DAO/DMO (ANZAC Ship project, FFG upgrade and AOR replacement project) Currently married with a mortgage and three cats and has never been to Portsmouth. • On the job training that could have been done ashore if economies of scale allowed • One off equipment that is poorly supported • The need for additional staff to deal with the uncommon class. • Increased inventory to support As stated above, the analysis needs to be rigorous if unexpected cost increases are to be avoided. For example, moving ‘on the job’ training ashore will involve an increase in costs. If that isn’t offset by an increase in capability availability or a reduction in the SOC, then commonality has been negative. Conclusion Increased commonality is certainly achievable between future ship classes, with associated financial benefits also achievable. Teaming with a single ship design and build team over multiple acquisitions projects and the incorporation of life cycle cost models that recognise the benefits of commonality into the acquisition management processes appear to be the keys to achieving this objective. In order to justify pursuing significantly increased commonality between future classes, the cost benefit of the approach must be quantified. One of the major difficulties associated with quantifying the cost benefit of increased commonality is that to achieve the increases in commonality sought may require a move away from open competition in the acquisition process toward long term arrangements with technology sectors and suppliers over multiple acquisition projects. These changes in acquisition management present a whole new series of cost benefit issues. 1 The Australian Frigate Project delivered FFGs MELBOURNE and NEWCASTLE. These were built at Williamtown dockyard, where the ANZAC Frigates are currently being built.
Page 1 and 2: NAVY ENGINEERING ISSUE 5 SEPTEMBER
Page 3 and 4: 2 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMB
Page 11 and 12: 10 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEM
Page 47: 46 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEM
Page 77: 76 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEM

Download - Royal Australian Navy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?