Makes you wonder how together the whole concept is. Im sure the germans will push this aspect.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the effort Australia has put into submarine development with some pretty decent results albeit with some early on problems I am frankly surprised any political party would ditch such a big investment. Then again, the pollies can be pretty dim more often than not.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Really bizarre not to turn up at all. What ever has gone on in the background between the governments it's seem odd not to have any presence. A slap in the face perhaps? But for whom?
Also I just read the article in Australian Warship comparing RAN to RCN. It would make you cry, John. When it's all laid out on a few pages it looks awful for the RCN. Lucky in Oz there is broader agreement across the parties and in the general populace for a higher defence spending. According to the article its Australian defence spending is about 10 billion plus dollars higher per annum than Canadian.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Indeed the support issue is what makes the difference. Short of massive Russian aggression in eastern Europe or in the Arctic region, I don't foresee any improvement in support.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
You could always put a bit of reverse spin on an article like that, why attend when you already know who the winner is going to be!
There was this paragraph in the article too:
Anyway, time will tell!!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Didn't think of that and it could be the case but it could rub some decision makers in the direction towards let's build the bloody things ourselves if that's their attitude.
I get worried about the geniuses that negotiated the deal. Was it just Abe and Tony sitting in a room?
I dunno, for a $20-$50 billion deal, I would imagine most australians would like to know what exactly is up.
Oh drunk Australian Sailor gets US medal.
Maui, Australian drunken sailor behaving badly ends up awarded US medal
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There's always a tale when booze is involved. You have to like the USMC general's perspective on this event.
meatshield
Active Member
Funniest thing I have read in a while!! That marine general is a glass half full
Sort of guy!
The thing that worries me about the submarine project is it seems to have some of the hallmarks of earlier decisions where political dealing had precedence over service needs and professional advice. Many of those most able to assess what is on offer and provide advice, not only on which design to pursue but, on risks and how to mitigate them, appear to be completely in the dark on what is happening.
I fear we could end up with yet another very expensive, much delayed, acquisition because those making the decisions are not experts and they are not even consulting people who do have the knowledge, Japans' sub builders appearing to be out of the loop is a very bad sign as it suggests everything is being run by bureaucrats, or worse political staffers, on both sides on the deal.
I fear we could end up with yet another very expensive, much delayed, acquisition because those making the decisions are not experts and they are not even consulting people who do have the knowledge, Japans' sub builders appearing to be out of the loop is a very bad sign as it suggests everything is being run by bureaucrats, or worse political staffers, on both sides on the deal.
I try to avoid public commentary on the politics of defence acquisitions because its usually an even field to share the blame on.... but FMD if Shorten thinks that Lab's credentials are better then we are in deep schitt. Defence have paid the price for his predecessors decision to save costs even though they made a personal commitment to the Chief not to impact on operational matters. Subs and Specials are on constant operations - they are the only 2 capabilities which are always deemed to be "on"
If Shorten gets in we'll lose another 4 years due to further political manouvre - and we don't need that dill Conroy on the job - he is an absolute Woftam of the highest order. For all the criticism levelled at Fitzgibbon he at least had his heart in it even if he had bad advice within his immediate ministerial staff.
I wish that both sides would pull their heads in and recognise that they have both contributed to the appalling public perception of subs (which is the opposite to other navies views) and stop naffing around and get on with the job
its about the capability before its about the politics
quite frankly some of the union sponsored stuff re japanese subs is absolute nonsense - and its apparent that senators like xenophon are being manouvred by local politics over capability substance discussions.
some of the broader commentary re why we should build what where is just trite nonsense. and they are taking advantage of the gullibility of some senators when they "further" some of the arguments.
SA could have prosecuted a case without all this media generated morris dancing
Shorten is yet another professional politician saying what he thinks swinging bogans want to hear. I don't even want to think about Conroy and fear he would be worse than Smith. I saw first hand how Smith worked, stretching the schedule on AWD but no increase in funding to cover the additional costs of doing so meaning a lot of good, expensively trained, people were made redundant as there was no longer the budget for them, then, because those left were unable to keep up with the work load, the project slips more and Raytheon inserts their people into ASC and DMO jobs, causing more delays.
t68
Well-Known Member
Defence is the one area I think the politicians should stay the effin out of, all goverment should do is say what the budget is you have x amount of dollars go find the best options that fit within the budget. It's just like the AWD deal Navy wanted the Gibbs and Cox and look what we end up with just let the people who know what they are doing do there bloody job.
It's the politicians job to pass legislation get their picture taken with a sound bite. ADF have to go I to harms way to do there job give them the equipment they ask for, it's not rocket science
It's the politicians job to pass legislation get their picture taken with a sound bite. ADF have to go I to harms way to do there job give them the equipment they ask for, it's not rocket science
What makes me laugh (cry) is politicians bypass, skip, or simply ignore their own procurement processes (because they are apparently so convoluted, time consuming and inflexible) and then when things go pear shaped they blame the processes (not to mention the previous government whether they had any input or not) and then add additional layers of bureaucracy and compliance on top of the existing processes making it even more convoluted, time consuming and inflexible.
I should explicitly say both major parties do this, just look at Smiths love affair with big orange / red North Sea support ships.
This is how we got from a successful tender and build for the ANZACs to the fiasco we currently have with the AWD. There was actually quite a good article on just this in APDR last year.
Defence policy is the responsibility of any government, they set the strategic direction and objectives which will determine capability. The Defence Force is not a stand apart organization it is responsible to and accounts to government in everything it does.
A totally independent military could lead to many unhealthy situations up to and including dictatorship/juntas which do and have predominated in certain jurisdictions throughout history
I suspect your grief is over capability procurement which should be left correctly to the professionals who are employed to do just that within the plan and budget allocated.
Unfortunately, as you condemn, politicians seek to make political gain by interfering with that process, Labor to use defence as an industrial employment tool and Liberal to support their pet theme of the term (economy, diplomacy etc)
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree with what you are saying, defence is always an instrument of policy and the goverment sets the stratigic needs, it then left to the professionals to get the best capabilty to meet the stragic guidance of goverment.
But I would imagine even in defence circles their would be robust discussion between platforms as in the case off the Hobarts they most likely meet our stratigic needs in the present but what about 20 years from now
Unfortunately Labor went one (or more) worse in their last stint as they didn't even use defence to prop up industry, they instead used money defence and industry desperately needed to support their failed attempt to reach surplus.
The long term vandalism for short term gain (that wasn't even realised) was absolutely criminal. They were more the Whitlamesk Labor than Hawke / Keating (or even the old school Curtain / Chiefly) in that they were so tied up in their own cleverness and their special little pet projects that defence was damaged and industry was destroyed. Yes Abbott told porkies at the last election but everyone with a brain knew he couldn't / wouldn't keep all his promises but the simple fact is if (and I am finding it very difficult not to use obscenities as adjectives here) Gillard, Swan and Smith (Wong too) had actually ordered some ####### ships the new government would not have been able to send the work off shore.
peterAustralia
Member
A while back someone on this forum said the main capability loss through the retirement of the Melbourne was not the loss of the skyhawks, but the loss of the trackers.
Today I stumbled upon this anti submarine drone by ADCOM united, a company fro the UAE. Has an endurance of 100 hours (not bad), and uses sonabuoys and torpedos. Quite a useful peice of kit. I wonder if something similar might fit on Canberra class? (link below). A similar drone could be configured for an unmanned awacs system, with an endurance of 100 hours, quite a useful capability. Obviously Hawkeyes are too big for Canberra class and there is no catapult to launch them. I wonder if the wingspan of 17m is too large for the Canberra class and maybe an 80 percent scaled version would fit better. A smaller version would have lower endurance but should still be respectable
I kinda wonder, maybe ADCOM borrowed layout from me. I have a website for outrigger canoes, and drew up a doodle for a AEW UAV. I drew up mine about 7 or 8 years ago, and now I see this.
adcom link
ADCOM Systems unveiled the first fixed wing UAV for anti-submarine warfare at Dubai Airshow
my doodle
tacking-outrigger.com radarplane
is it me being paranoid or is it simply a case of form follows function. I think its more likely form follows function because I dont rate myself that highly (sigh)
Today I stumbled upon this anti submarine drone by ADCOM united, a company fro the UAE. Has an endurance of 100 hours (not bad), and uses sonabuoys and torpedos. Quite a useful peice of kit. I wonder if something similar might fit on Canberra class? (link below). A similar drone could be configured for an unmanned awacs system, with an endurance of 100 hours, quite a useful capability. Obviously Hawkeyes are too big for Canberra class and there is no catapult to launch them. I wonder if the wingspan of 17m is too large for the Canberra class and maybe an 80 percent scaled version would fit better. A smaller version would have lower endurance but should still be respectable
I kinda wonder, maybe ADCOM borrowed layout from me. I have a website for outrigger canoes, and drew up a doodle for a AEW UAV. I drew up mine about 7 or 8 years ago, and now I see this.
adcom link
ADCOM Systems unveiled the first fixed wing UAV for anti-submarine warfare at Dubai Airshow
my doodle
tacking-outrigger.com radarplane
is it me being paranoid or is it simply a case of form follows function. I think its more likely form follows function because I dont rate myself that highly (sigh)
I listened to the Defence Minister Kevin Andrews deliver this speech to the ASPI Surface Ship Conference in Canberra this am.
If all the words transformed into action it bodes well for the Australian shipbuilding industry and for the RAN. The so called "valley of death" can not be avoided but there does seem to be a commitment to lessen the effect by intimating that the government will announce the construction of a number of OPV's (that's my take on it) I hope they follow the plan of an 80 mtr/2,000 tonne ship which would give substance to filling the shipbuilding void.
In a reply to Andrews, ALP's David Feney also endorsed a "continuous build" philosophy but his emphasis seemed to be on other agency vessels, research, Antarctic, Customs etc. in lieu of war-fighting ships although he did support a future frigate. If Labor wins the next election I only hope this man becomes our Minister rather than the Conroy train wreck.
Minister for Defence – ASPI Australia’s Future Surface Fleet Conference « ForeignAffairs.co.nz
If all the words transformed into action it bodes well for the Australian shipbuilding industry and for the RAN. The so called "valley of death" can not be avoided but there does seem to be a commitment to lessen the effect by intimating that the government will announce the construction of a number of OPV's (that's my take on it) I hope they follow the plan of an 80 mtr/2,000 tonne ship which would give substance to filling the shipbuilding void.
In a reply to Andrews, ALP's David Feney also endorsed a "continuous build" philosophy but his emphasis seemed to be on other agency vessels, research, Antarctic, Customs etc. in lieu of war-fighting ships although he did support a future frigate. If Labor wins the next election I only hope this man becomes our Minister rather than the Conroy train wreck.
Minister for Defence – ASPI Australia’s Future Surface Fleet Conference « ForeignAffairs.co.nz
Joe Black
Active Member
Another "interesting" view on why we even need submarines or if we do want them, the need to build them at home.
Naval gazing in an era of lethal missiles
Naval gazing in an era of lethal missiles
- Status