Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. Does anyone have access to the full article?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Sea Platforms
Australian senate report slams 'politicised' nature of Future Submarine programme

Julian Kerr, Sydney - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
02 July 2015

Japan's involvement in the acquisition process to determine the designer and constructor of Australia's Future Submarine is based on political imperatives rather than merit and the current approach should be scrapped, an Australian parliamentary inquiry has found.

In a majority finding in a report on naval shipbuilding handed down by the Senate Economics References Committee on 30 June, the committee said that the competitive evaluation process selected by government fell short of a "truly rigorous procurement".

"Evidence given during budget estimates in June confirmed that the competitive evaluation process was not designed to deliver three competitive contract options; would not produce accurate costs and build schedules; nor would the resulting designs be of a 'mature' nature," the report said.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well, my own personal feeling is, that if the Japanese end up helping with the design in any major way...it will most certainly be a mature design, and apt to be one of the best designs the Australians could possibly attain in my opinion.

Whether it meets the political imperatives in Australia is another thing altogether, and I have a hunch that the Senate's report is more about the political realities than it is about the technical aspects of the design.

But this forum is not about the politics, so we should leave that out if it.
 
Last edited:

Lethe

Captain
Of course the submarine acquisition is a political stitch-up. Just like JSF and almost every other acquisition program of note. Australia is one of the worst nations in the world in terms of making responsible, effective and efficient procurement choices.
 

SouthernSky

Junior Member
Of course the submarine acquisition is a political stitch-up. Just like JSF and almost every other acquisition program of note. Australia is one of the worst nations in the world in terms of making responsible, effective and efficient procurement choices.

And yet the ADF has some of the best kit in the world. C-17, F/A-18F/G and MH-60R would all counter your argument.
 

Lethe

Captain
And yet the ADF has some of the best kit in the world. C-17, F/A-18F/G and MH-60R would all counter your argument.

The Arab states have some of the best equipment in the world too. Doesn't mean anyone takes them seriously. They know it themselves: the reason the Saudis are so worried about Iran despite out-spending them 10:1 and having far better equipment is because they know that shiny toys don't make for effective armed forces.

As for your examples, C-17 serves missions we shouldn't be engaged in (Afghanistan, Iraq) while Super Hornet only exists because it was the path of least resistance after the ill-advised JSF commitment predictably ran into trouble. As for MH-60R, while a sensible choice in itself it is also part of the story of the ADF's total failure to realise its (very sensible) objective of consolidating the nation's rotary craft.
 
Last edited:

SouthernSky

Junior Member
The Arab states have some of the best equipment in the world too. Doesn't mean anyone takes them seriously. They know it themselves: the reason the Saudis are so worried about Iran despite out-spending them 10:1 and having far better equipment is because they know that shiny toys don't make for effective armed forces.

As for your examples, C-17 serves missions we shouldn't be engaged in (Afghanistan, Iraq) while Super Hornet only exists because it was the path of least resistance after the ill-advised JSF commitment predictably ran into trouble. As for MH-60R, while a sensible choice in itself it is also part of the story of the ADF's total failure to realise its (very sensible) objective of consolidating the nation's rotary craft.

It would not matter what was procured and how it was achieved to the likes of your type Lethe. You will seek negativity at all costs.

Tell the Japanese that RAAF C-17 airlift capability was a waste of time after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. I'm sure those in Vanuatu that suffered after TC Pam would be interested in your thoughts also.

I could go on but why bother. Airline tickets are cheap and visas easy to obtain. What's stopping you?
 

Lethe

Captain
It would not matter what was procured and how it was achieved to the likes of your type Lethe. You will seek negativity at all costs.

Not at all. When sensible decisions are made, such as the recently announced acquisition of an additional two A330 MRTTs, I have no trouble saying so. Of course it does rather beg the question of why those airframes weren't part of the original package (where they could likely have been negotiated at more favourable prices) but we wouldn't want to be negative, would we?

Other sensible acquisitions include the E-7 Wedgetail, C-27J, UH-60M, CH-47F...

Of course the most common criticism of even laudable acquisitions such as those mentioned above is insufficient numbers to constitute a credible and resilient capability. But then it is difficult to keep the cupboard stocked with boring essentials when you are throwing most of the budget away on vanity and/or politically-motivated acquisitions like JSF, C-17, LHDs, etc.

Tell the Japanese that RAAF C-17 airlift capability was a waste of time after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. I'm sure those in Vanuatu that suffered after TC Pam would be interested in your thoughts also.

And here I thought the ADF was here to defend Australia and to contribute elsewhere as appropriate. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
SD is not a political discourse forum.

Please read the rules and take the political posturing and arguments elsewhere. There are plenty of places for that.

If you have specific issues regarding the technical details of the defense systems, or news in that regard that is absent of such political posturing...then by all means.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
like JSF and almost every other acquisition program of note. Australia is one of the worst nations in the world in terms of making responsible, effective and efficient procurement choices.
All politics aside, and despite whatever shortcomings you may ascribe to them, the JSF, the Hobarts, the Canberras, the C-17s, and ultimately these submarines, are all going to be top notch systems that are very capable od defending Australia.

In the end that is their function, and if they fulfill that role, then according to their highest call they will be successful.

It is natural in all nations for people on either side to want such acquisitions to perhaps go differently, to be funded differently. etc., etc.

But SD is more about the defense requirements and specifications. We try and focus on that rather than the political (as my just posted moderation makes clear). Let's try and stay focused on that part and safe the political squabbling for other places.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top