Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Brumby said:

What process are you exactly talking about? You seem to be alluding to a process that three different PM's had followed.

Click to expand...

I am -- the 'process' of Prime Ministerial thought bubbles or executive whim. The process of pulling ideas out of their ass.

Lethe said:

I am -- the 'process' of Prime Ministerial thought bubbles or executive whim. The process of pulling ideas out of their ass.

Click to expand...

I guess you are entitled to your political views. Should you get to become PM you are entitled to pull from your own - whatever that happens to be. LOL.

Brumby said:

I guess you are entitled to your political views. Should you get to become PM you are entitled to pull from your own - whatever that happens to be. LOL.

Click to expand...

If you happen to think that JSF, 12 submarines, F-35B, Soryu-from-Japan, and plenty of other ideas and acquisitions over the last 15 years were actually responsible ones, responsibly arrived at ... well, I guess you could classify that as a political view. I'd just call it insane.

Lethe said:

If you happen to think that JSF, 12 submarines, F-35B, Soryu-from-Japan, and plenty of other ideas and acquisitions over the last 15 years were actually responsible ones, responsibly arrived at ... well, I guess you could classify that as a political view. I'd just call it insane.

Click to expand...

You are making assertions that each of the programs were irresponsibly managed. Basic etiquette would expect that you lay out your case to support your assertions.

JSF: So late and over-budget that we have had to acquire an entirely different platform in the interim -- originally on a temporary basis, now permanent.

12 submarines: entirely unaffordable, esp. from an operational/personnel cost perspective. Not to mention this idea was floated at a time when Australian couldn't even crew the submarines it had, and just before the government started cutting the defence budget!

F-35B: unnecessary, unaffordable, inadequate (to do anything we couldn't do without them) ego-aggrandisement project.

Soryu-from-Japan: throwing away hard-won and strategically valuable domestic industrial expertise to save a few bucks. The ultimate in short-sighted, non-strategic thinking.

Lethe said:

JSF: So late and over-budget that we have had to acquire an entirely different platform in the interim -- originally on a temporary basis, now permanent.

12 submarines: entirely unaffordable, esp. from an operational/personnel cost perspective. Not to mention this idea was floated at a time when Australian couldn't even crew the submarines it had, and just before the government started cutting the defence budget!

F-35B: unnecessary, unaffordable, inadequate (to do anything we couldn't do without them) ego-aggrandisement project.

Soryu-from-Japan: throwing away hard-won and strategically valuable domestic industrial expertise to save a few bucks. The ultimate in short-sighted, non-strategic thinking.

Click to expand...

We can do this the easy or the hard way. The easy way is that you can simply retract your statements and I can pretend you never made them. The hard way is that we go through the motion of actually debating the reasonableness of your assertions as to what may actually constitute irresponsible behaviour. I suggest you actually think through before you decide. Making accusations of irresponsble behaviour is almost impossible to prove. The brief statements that you have made on each of the case demonstrates that you have no idea what constitute a cogent argument..

I am not interested in conforming to your arbitrary standards as to what constitutes proper discussion. Respond as you will, or do not. I am unconcerned either way.

Tony Abbott pledges open tender for submarines to win over SA Liberals
PM reportedly seeks support from South Australian Liberal MPs in leadership spill by promising that Adelaide firm would be able to tender for the multibillion dollar project, which previously looked to be going to Japanese shipbuilders


The Collins class submarine is due for retirement in 2026. South Australian based MPs are under pressure to deliver the contract for its replacement to the Adelaide based shipbuilder, ASC. Photograph: Torsten Blackwood/AFP/Getty Images
, political correspondent


Sunday 8 February 2015 04.28 EST

• Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• Share via Email
• Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Shares
131

One of the biggest defence acquisitions in Australian history appears to have become a pawn in the federal leadership contest, with bowing to months of pressure to allow a competitive tender.

The prime minister, who faces a spill motion in the party room on Monday, had previously resisted calls to proceed with an open tender for the future submarine project amid strong signs that the government was inclined to reach a deal with Japan.

The issue was particularly sensitive in South Australia because of the prospect of government-owned shipbuilder ASC missing out on the chance to build 12 new submarines.

News Corp’s that the prime minister had sought to shore up support from South Australian Liberals by promising ASC would be able to tender for the job, worth between $20bn and $40bn.

Guardian Australia has independently confirmed this from two government sources. It is understood the prime minister is now offering his support for a competitive process for the future submarine project.

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said the decision was a sign that policy making “under this chaotic Liberal government” was “a complete shambles”.

In an interview with the ABC on Sunday, Abbott said it was reasonable to expect the government to try to secure the best value and the best product and “to give Australian suppliers a fair go”.

He insisted he had “always intended to have a competitive evaluation process” – despite past comments by the treasurer that there was no time to do so.

The treasurer, , previously strongly rejected calls for an open tender, saying the nation did “not have time” for such a process to replace the Collins class fleet and needed to focus on making the right decision on submarine construction.

“There are very limited suppliers, and there are very limited number of suppliers that can actually deliver a submarine to Australia at a time when the Collins class are being decommissioned,” Hockey .

“It usually takes 10 to 15 years to build a submarine from development stage to outcome in the water. Labor knew that. The first Collins class sub is decommissioned in 2026, so we’ve run out of time in a sense and we need to make decisions now. We don’t have time to go through a speculation process. We do not have time for people to suggest that they can build something that hasn’t been built.”

Before Abbott’s change of heart, the South Australian Liberal senator Sean Edwards warned that he might not support Abbott in the spill unless the government shifted its stance on the submarine project.

Edwards subsequently told News Corp the prime minister rang him on Sunday “with this very good news” committing the government to a full and open tender. “This should lead to hat throwing, to punching the air,” Edwards said.

“I now call on the management of the ASC and the unions to come together like they never have before and prove that the faith I’ve had in them through the period from 14 October when I commenced my lobbing of the PM that they can be the world class, competitive builder of submarines that they say they can be.”

Labor and unions had also been applying pressure on the government over the submarine issue. Before he was dumped as defence minister in December, David Johnston, came under fire for saying he would not trust ASC to build a canoe.

Lethe said:

JSF: So late and over-budget that we have had to acquire an entirely different platform in the interim -- originally on a temporary basis, now permanent.

Click to expand...

Pentagon is playing the obsolescence card with LM now.

12 submarines: entirely unaffordable, esp. from an operational/personnel cost perspective. Not to mention this idea was floated at a time when Australian couldn't even crew the submarines it had, and just before the government started cutting the defence budget!

Click to expand...

You can do what India is doing and buy 6 for now, keep 6 more as options. It should take a decade to build the first 6, so you should have more money the next decade. Any advancements made until then could be introduced in the next 6.

F-35B: unnecessary, unaffordable, inadequate (to do anything we couldn't do without them) ego-aggrandisement project.

Click to expand...

Does Australia have a F-35B requirement? I personally think it will be a major downgrade over the F-35A.

F-35 news from Reuters:
UPDATE 2-BAE Systems, TAE to handle F-35 maintenance in Australia

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

has picked Britain's BAE Systems to carry out heavy maintenance of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet in Australia from 2018 and Tasman Aviation Enterprises (TAE) to service its engines, its defence minister said on Tuesday.

Sources in the United States familiar with the decision, who were not authorised to speak publicly, had confirmed the deal to Reuters on Monday.

In December, the Pentagon announced that Australia would handle heavy maintenance for the jets and their engines in the southern Pacific, while Japan would handle that work in the northern Pacific. Heavy maintenance involves repairs that involve the structure of the airplanes or engines.

Australian Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said the deal demonstrated another economic benefit of the country's participation in the stealth fighter program.

"The F-35 is the most advanced fighter aircraft in development or production anywhere in the world and securing this work in Australia is a great outcome for these companies," Andrews said in a statement.

"The assignment of regional maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade responsibility to BAE and TAE will enable them to demonstrate the capability and capacity of Australian industry to support this leading edge capability."

The companies were not named in December, but BAE was seen as the likely winner as it owns the depot where heavy maintenance of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

F/A-18 Hornets is performed.

Andrews described Tasman Aviation Corporation, which is located at an Australian Air Force base in Queensland state, as "a leading aerospace engine maintenance service provider", working on both military and commercial aviation projects.

Details of the expected revenues for the companies were not contained in the announcement, but former Australian Defense Minister David Johnston in December said Australia's defense industry could win more than $1.5 billion in F-35-related production and support work over the life of the program.

Click to expand...