Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Push to axe Collins subs now, buy European
Aussiegunneragain    10/7/2010 12:44:07 AM
A RADICAL plan is being pushed by a group of senior Australian submariners. It is to retire two Collins-class submarines immediately and fast-track the purchase of four ready-made submarines from Europe. The proposal, which has been sent to both the federal government and the opposition, reflects growing concern among some former senior naval officers that the government's plan to build 12 of the world's most sophisticated conventional submarines is flawed and unrealistic. The proposal comes after Treasury last week urged the federal government to buy more off-the-shelf weaponry. The former submariners say that Australia cannot afford to wait until 2025 for the new submarines and must take urgent action to buy off-the-shelf submarines from Europe to progressively replace the under-performing Collins-class fleet. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage No-show by subs slammed The Australian, 5 Aug 2010 It's up to us, says Collins sub boss The Australian, 4 Jul 2010 We all lose if we buy subs off the shelf The Australian, 4 Jul 2010 Torpedo a $400m embarrassment Adelaide Now, 20 May 2010 SA chases submarine billions Adelaide Now, 31 Jan 2010 End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. "Australia should rapidly acquire four locally built military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) submarines to address the submarine availability issue and address the growing capability gap between the Collins-class submarines and the modern submarines proliferating throughout the region," said Rex Patrick, a former submariner who assists the navy in undersea warfare training and who has authored the proposal. "The Collins-class submarine program has been an unmitigated failure and two of the submarines should be decommissioned immediately (the HMAS Rankin and HMAS Collins) -- they are not available anyway, there are no crews for them and maintaining them is placing an ever increasing burden on the navy's budget." The Rudd government's defence white paper committed to building 12 large, sophisticated submarines in Australia to replace the six Collins-class boats from the mid-2020s. The plan to build 12 large homegrown submarines has been costed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute at more than $36 billion, making it the nation's largest ever military project. The government says it is still committed to the controversial plan, but there is growing debate in the defence community about whether such a large, complex and time-consuming project makes strategic and economic sense. Mr Patrick argues it would be cheaper and easier for Australia to purchase proven off-the-shelf submarines from Europe, such as the German Type 214 or French Scorpenes, rather than try to build a new generation of unique, homegrown submarines like the Collins. He said a military off-the-shelf submarine would meet Australia's strategic needs at a fraction of the cost of building a new class of Australian submarine. Under his plan, the first boat of an initial batch of four MOTS submarines would be operational for the navy within five years and the remaining three in under eight years. The first batch would be supplemented by two more batches of similar, but perhaps modified, design in the years ahead.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
gf0012-aust       10/19/2010 12:06:49 AM

I distinctly remember you talking about visiting an arms conference in the Middle East a number of years ago where the Germans stood around laughing at the weld quality on the examples that were bought over. I also remember discussion about how they fitted a braking system that wasn't strong enough to stop the vehicle. It might have got there eventually but only at extra expense and I repeat, the bloody thing is only an armoured SUV.


The only vehicles that we sold in the ME were Taipans - and they were demonstraters, not full armoured vehicles because JRA baulked at the cost of shipping fully weighted IFV's - it was a penny pinching issue.  As it was we ended up selling 27 of them as "police cars" to avoid having "armoured vehicles" appearing on the manifests and alerting some of the feral pacifists that were active at the time.

The armour welding issue was against the Leo1 upgrades - not Bushmaster.  Tenix screwed the deal through what I regard as deceptive conduct.
 
The Germans also came out to assist in the welding of new compound armour for Taipan, but there were no problems there.
The braking system problem was with respect to Tenix modifying the stretched M113's and not upgrading the brakes - even though it had a more powerful engine.  that was just plain dumb
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/19/2010 2:39:41 AM




Sending money overseas has limited benefits for the economy... Spending locally returns a whole lot more that just the investment in a dozen new boats... there is wages--->income tax collected. those wages are then spent in Australia, fuelling the economy...







Plus, remove the project from the local shores and you loose any ability to in the future easily kick off a domestic project of a similar nature...








Against that you have consider:



 



1. what the extra money that is spent on stuff ups by Australin industry would have been doing otherwise. Ideally it would be left in the hands of Australian taxpayers to spend privately, contributing to efficient economic growth.



 



2. that requiring production in Australia reduces the incentives for Australian companies to produce a product that can compete overseas. Take the Bushmaster, it is supposedly one of the best vehicles in its class, in a class of vehicles that should be in high demand all over the World, but we have only managed to sell 110 of them to overseas customers. I wonder if the builder's executives didn't have a guaranteed pay check from the Australian government whether they might try a bit harder?



 



3. finally and most importantly, the priority needs to be on making sure that the ADF gets equipped in an acceptable and timely manner. Look at how many projects have left the ADF with a capability gap because they were stuffed up by Aussie companies, or overseas companies hired to come up with a unique solution for and in Australia. Sea Sprites, Auststyer, Collins Class, Wedgetail, MRTT ... the list goes on.



 



We are too small to be doing anything but buying proven off the shelf technology. Mabye if we were spending 3% of GDP on defence with much greater redundancy it might be worth trying to customise and to favour local industry, but at the moment it isn't.






Agree on #3... somewhat, excuse my naivity but what special requirement did Australia have that makes the AustSteyr a unique solution?


With regard to #2, I'm not saying it should be a requirement to buy Australian made, however been Australian made should hold a lot more sway when making procurement decisions... Incentives should be leveraged based on obtained Exports of the gear, or off shore licensed production... but keep what ever Brains Trust you can incountry.

 

As for #1, Stuff ups happen no matter if there are Australian companies involved or not - it's a reality...



"F88 Austeyr: The Australian Army's modified version of the Steyr AUG A1. Changes for the Australian version include a bayonet lug, a 1:7 in rifling pitch as found in the M16A2 rifle, optimized for the heavier 62-grain NATO-standard SS109/M855 round and an "automatic lockout" selector that can physically disable the fully automatic position of the 2-stage trigger mechanism found on the standard AUG."
 
If an Australian company is already getting exports then what is the benefit in favouring it for Australian purchases? Clearly they can compete on their merits, so they should. Yes, stuff ups do happen irrispective of where things are made, but they can be minimised by buying proven kit. If Aussie companies can come up with proven kit then they can have the order, otherwise go with overseas gear I say.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/19/2010 3:25:03 AM

The only vehicles that we sold in the ME were Taipans - and they were demonstraters, not full armoured vehicles because JRA baulked at the cost of shipping fully weighted IFV's - it was a penny pinching issue.  

I didn't make this clear.enough - bad sentence structure.

The vehicle that went to Kuwait for evaluation was a thin skin.  that was done to reduce the cost of shipping and was intended as a TCD/demonstrater

The subsequent sale of 27 vehicles were as fully armoured IFV's id'd on the manifest as police cars. .

the germans were involved with the sale of RHA armour for those which did involve the development of new welding techniques and with which the germans assisted by flying out the specialised gear needed to conduct the welding as well as the training teams.  They never had a problem dealing with JRA as JRA was a straight shooter throughout the entire deal.  They soon established a relationship with a smaller australian company which is highly regarded, highly competent and well regarded internationally.  My own contacts vowed at the time that they would never deal with Tenix in any shape or form whilst any member of the executive from the time of that deal stayed on the board.  They were quite justifiably offended IMO and were well within their rights to pull up stumps and tell Tenix to naff off.

they didn't think much of the original export Taipan demonstrater as it was a thin skin, and that was due to a mistaken belief that it was the final product.

It was Tenix who almost ferked up our relationship with the germans, and was probably one of the reasons why the Leo2 option never got up a real head of steam.  I still bump into colleagues from germany who remember how badly Tenix engaged with them on the RHA tests.

ironically BAE took over JRA and ended up with Tenix as well.  As soon as Tenix was killed off the heat came off the previous problems.  IMO a clear example of amateurs pretending to be a big player and not understanding that not only were they only surviving because of Govt protection of australian industry, but clearly a company that didn't know its own competency limits.


 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/19/2010 6:19:16 AM
Tenix still lives in spirit in Williamstown, the arrogance and incompetence are both alive and well.  I fear for the projects they have sunk their claws into.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/25/2010 5:38:25 PM

Tenix still lives in spirit in Williamstown, the arrogance and incompetence are both alive and well.  I fear for the projects they have sunk their claws into.


I see they've covered themselves in glory again - todays Canb Times.  They're trying to blame the Spanish for shonky drawings but don't seem to get the picture that ASC and Forgacs aren't having a problem at all....
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/26/2010 7:04:00 AM
Three companies fabricating blocks.
One aiming to do the very best job they possibly can, right down to the most junior apprentice on the shop floor, by engaging perhaps the worlds best warship builder as a capability partner, investing very heavily in training and mentoring and engaging classification societies to help ensure worlds best practice.
One aiming to prove themselves and win more work on merit by proactively improving their processes and actively seeking advice where they can.
Lastly one considers themselves the be our pre-eminent shipbuilder and not in need of any guidance or assistance from anyone or anything and questions the need for any oversight.
 
Guess which one is failing to deliver?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/26/2010 3:19:01 PM


Guess which one is failing to deliver?


guess which one has failed in the dimension planning process..... :-)
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics