Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure what scares me more.
Being locked into a Australia / Japan / USA alliance or the monetary / political cost of going our own way. I honestly don't have the answer.
But I do know we no longer beg the question. I didn't realize that when the Australian Prime minister all those years ago said we no longer looked to Britain for security but we now look to the U.S.A that such a policy was open ended and didn't have a use by date. WW2 finished and many other conflicts have come and gone that Australia has stood shoulder to shoulder with the USA. They have been a good friend and trust will continue to be into the future but on what terms. What is the true price that we pay for a US combat system for our subs. What is the true price we pay for a Japanese Soryu sub........................The answer is a gamble on perceived security.
Time will tell if we backed the correct horse.
If you're only just discovering we have a close alliance with the US I'd like to know what rock you've been living under.
ANZUS and the Five Eyes community are the core, and most valuable, of Australia's international relationships. We get far more from this relationship then they do. Whether we have 6 or 12 submarines doesn't mean s**t when we have the US Navy on our side.
I'd be more than happy to debate your, and rockritten's, apparent scorn for our alliance with like-minded Western democratic nations but that is straying into politics.
I would say this largely comes down to the unions but not in the way it's usually presented.
The "problem" is that the union movement in Australia is not a neutral force just looking after the interests of its members. It is the primary source of political power for Labor. While that remains the case the perceived union-dominated manufacturing industry will be targeted.
The Coalition needs to weaken the union-heavy manufacturing sector if it wants to weaken Labor. Labor is aided by a disruptive union/company relationship to build political momentum and demonstrate they are for the workers. The manufacturing industry ends up getting it from both sides.
Ironically, the loss of the union-heavy car manufacturing industry may be the turn-around point for Australian high-tech manufacturing. It might take 10 or 20 years but a continuous-build schedule could allow for the sort of efficiencies to develop that our partners now enjoy.
I gathered that mate, Honestly just had to laugh at it... Oh well, Such as life.
Probably right, In the Manufacturing sector the Automotive region was the unions main area of penetration, other area's they only have partial to no penetration. Nothing against unions until the idiot's start to want want want and not give especially when the industry is at it's worst and most vulnerable. In the US when the GFC hit US auto unions took a massive pay cut, Here the unions took a pay rise..
..........
In regards to successful Aussie program's Volk deffintly the Collins class should be included, Really what fault's had there been? Poor engines, water flow issues causing cavitation (Apologies if I've buggered that part up) and the combat system.. Nothing in the actual production phase for which we were responsible for had any issues except for the section made in Sweden that even they were shocked at how bad it was.
What we stuffed up with the Collins class and really every ship project is that once we had something we just sat around doing nothing, We didn't automatically jump into looking at the future replacements as we should have. Hopefully future government's can fix that, Not just have continuous production but continuous R&D
Off the top of my head, from the 1970s we lost VW, Leyland,, Chrysler and Nissan before the current death spiral. Chrysler Australia had also manufactured and assembled a large range of unique marques in multiple plants such as Dodge (Pheonix police cars and limousines), Humber, Hillman and Simca cars, all from the Rootes group they had taken over, interestingly they were bought out by Mitsubishi, who never intended to manufacture cars in Australia and had intended to shut down manufacturing and sell off the acquired assets and land at the earliest opportunity, however production was so profitable they stayed for three decades longer than planned.
The industry we have today is the sustainable, rationalised industry that resulted from the "Button" plan, which should have continued going well but for a very unusual set of circumstances. Basically in the middle of the largest resources boom we have ever seen, which drove the Australian dollar to and sustained it at the highest levels we have ever seen the Australian government decided to unilaterally further reduce all forms of industry protection as well as begin to implement a series of free trade agreements with nations that had and continued to protect, large automotive manufacturing sectors. Our FTA with the US specifically excluded Australian manufactured vehicles while granting free access for US produced cars, the agreement with Thailand saw free access provided to Australia while the Thái industry was protected by a new sales tax that circumvented the FTA.
When the GFC hit and almost the entire global automotive industry hit the wall most nations provided massive direct and indirect support to their manufacturers, just look at what the US government did for their industry. Other nations subsidised industry and increased protection as we reduced ours, the parent companies of our manufacturers rationalised, cutting investment, even closing plants and selling subsidiaries around the world. Our rationalised, sustainable industry survived this but it was hard as the Aussie dollar stayed at record levels and protection had all but been removed. Then the multitude of subsidised, tariff free cars began to hit the market from Thailand (most of which could easily and economically have been built here but for the FTA) and the US, cheap nasty cars from China, better and better cars from South Korea, cheaper cars from Europe.
The local industry still didn't give up, new deals were successfully negotiated with workers, some freezing wages and reducing conditions, and co-investment was promised by the government to permit new models to be developed to replace those about to enter production. The exception was Ford, that had changed plans to build the Focus in Australia, building it in Thailand instead and also building the Australian designed Ranger there as well, a direct result of the DFAT designed FTA. Then a change of government and the proposed co-investment was reneged on, GM pulled the plug. It was then that Toyota requested the EBA be cancelled so they could operate more efficiently but what is not advertised is that they also demanded that redundancy conditions be wound back, that was the sticking point, if you knew your employer was probably going to make you redundant, would you agree to reduce the amount of money they had to pay you with no guarantee of ongoing employment in return?
The irony is the global economy has stabilised, the dollar has dropped, our exports are now more competitive and imports are more expensive. New car factories are being built around the world but it is too late for the Australian industry, it has been demonstrated the government does not support it, that they actually don't want a manufacturing sector. The greatest evidence of this, even more than the UNproductivity Commission, is the anti manufacturing and technology FTAs we continue to negotiate.
We are a country led by unproductive individuals who don't actually believe in making anything, they want to buy and sell, finance, mine and farm, they, despite claims to the contrary don't even really give a stuff about tourism, education or high technology, there probably aren't enough donations from those sectors to warrant concern. IMO unless things change very soon the future will be worse not better, I'm not referring to a change of government, I'm referring to a change in culture for both major parties, a realisation that if your manufacturing sector is not strong the economy as a whole is weak.
Well actually it does. Just because we have an agreement with the US and a long relationship doesn't mean we can sell off the ADF and not meet our obligations.
I disagree with this. Toyota was actually profitable. Holden and ford were too when they had effective management. It was one of the few high tech manufacturing that Australia had and technology and management practices pioneered in Auto manufacturing were copied through Australia's manufacturing sector.
While I think the unions are certainly complicating labor, I don't think the solution is just get rid of manufacturing sector. Wouldn't the solution be make it more effective. Unions had declining power in the manufacturing sector anyway, with offshoring and automation they actually had very little leverage. This isn't the 1970's.
The irony is the unions are not as strong in the automotive industry as everyone seems to think. I worked in the industry for fifteen years before moving to defence and but for a short period (three years I think) I was not a union member. I actually left the union when I and my colleges were being bullied and threatened by an abusive alcoholic manager who would rock up drunk physically threaten staff and the union did nothing. That aside, in many manufacturers union membership is not compulsory, more is it as common as the public believe, where you tend to find it is just about everywhere else.
Labor need to separate from the unions because they are holding them back and have undue influence over the party, in particular policy and pre selections. Ironically I believe it would be less of a problem if membership was as wide spread as it once was as unions are democratic and have to do as their members instruct them through votes. If more normal people were members then the movement would be more in touch, it is not, therefore it should not have the authority it does in a party that is meant to support all Australians.
Add to that the build of HMS Ocean where they stuffed up module construction to the point where marriage of two modules was out by 50mm. A 50mm step that remains on that lower deck floor today.
As for Tiger ARH, it is a highly capable armed recon helo being let down by supply chain and through-life support issues. When it is remembered that the A129 Mangusta was once considered the ideal Air 87 solution, Tiger was not a bad outcome. The French and Spanish followed the example set by Australia's Tiger version.
Army's new EF88 is a very nice weapon developed, tested and produced largely in a little country town (Lithgow) and good enough that Defence considered it not worthwhile to take the requirement for a new assault rifle to open tender. A great case of Defence actually supporting local industry.
Hawkei is highly likely to be a successful product also, although word is that the expected order for up to 1,300 vehicles could be cut in half.
My own experience of Australian defence industry project managers involved in numerous procurement projects has been that they are the equal of their OS counterparts. In fact, my opinion of project managers/program directors from Germany (aerospace, AFVs), France (aerospace, AFVs), UK (ships, AFVs) and US (weapons, AFV) is less than complimentary overall.
We do it well here, but lack the bi-partisan and long-term political backing than many nations' defence industries enjoy.
Consistently the biggest issue I have had has been contracts, procurement, administration and facilities "experts" brought in from outside to show all the dumb defence and technical people how things should be done. Generally speaking the things they saw as unimportant were very important and their priorities were either irrelevant or even pointlessly damaging. Many of them either ignored established process or invented but didn't document new ones meaning making them a source of continual chaos.
t68
Well-Known Member
You hit the nail on the head there, is it better to pay the premium to keep jobs in Australia or pay at the dole queue like Greece?
The premium still needs to be manageable and temporary. If the premium is greater than the benefit and is ongoing i.e. project after project, ship after ship, you need to review what you are doing. If there are mitigating factors, such as an unnaturally skewed exchange rate, or a new contracting model, new facility, new class of ship, you need to accept costs will be higher until everything is up to speed and back to normal.
The ANZAC project and the ASMD upgrade were successful but both were conducted in established facilities, following straight on from other comparable work. This is basically the complete opposite to the AWD, no surprise realy that the key finding of the Winter / White report was that Australia had forgotten how to build ships. They did not forget while building the ANZACs, they did not forget while busting their guts to get AWD off the ground, they forgot in the years between the construction of HMAS Perth and the construction of Nuship Hobart because no new ships were ordered after the ANZACs in the early 90s and the AWDs in 2007. This is why the failure of Gillard to order any ships in six years annoys me, it compounded Howards failure to order any ships (bar PBs) for twelve.
Well Goknub
I have NO scorn for Japan or the USA what so ever.
Just have a problem with ordering a submarine from our former major trading partner Japan, who is a neighbour of our current major trading partner China and the political complexities that this brings.
Also not keen on a novice submarine exporter supplying and supporting SEA1000.
Sorry you don't see the alarm bells.
A European supplier is safer on both counts.
If you want to know which is the best submarine........It's the one that serves your country first and any alliance second. Sometimes the two are the same and sometimes they are not. Japanese sub for India,yep makes sense; but not for Australia.It will just end in tears.
I'll go back to under my rock.
knightrider4
Active Member
The Soryu is widely acknowledged as the most advanced conventional submarine in existance at the moment. What will be offered to us will be a far different beast to the current Soryu Class. How is a European option safer? Their is certainly a commercial risk with the German offering in so far that TKMS is looking to offload HDW at some stage in the future and then waht. We are left with an orphan submarine and serious sustainment and IP issues. The French SMX is in my view pie in the sky stuff, but gives you a glimpse of what technologies may be available in the future. All three options share risk, just the Japanese option carries less risk in my opinion.
knightrider4
Active Member
The Soryu is widely acknowledged as the most advanced conventional submarine in existance at the moment. What will be offered to us will be a far different beast to the current Soryu Class. How is a European option safer? Their is certainly a commercial risk with the German offering in so far that TKMS is looking to offload HDW at some stage in the future and then what. We are left with an orphan submarine and serious sustainment and IP issues. The French SMX is in my view pie in the sky stuff, but gives you a glimpse of what technologies may be available in the future. All three options share risk, just the Japanese option carries less risk in my opinion.
The security implications of purchasing a Japanese option is certainly worth debating. When China, Japan and the USA are our top 3 trading partners (with South Korea taking the 4th spot) it is in our interests to be aware of the impact.
It is the wise cracks and passive-aggressive quips that get to me. The ADF has an anti-American sub-culture within it, particularly the Army. This has had a negative impact on our ability to learn lessons and source suitable equipment. Thankfully this is passing as the older generation of military members who were influenced by the Vietnam War are replaced by those that have served alongside the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If there are points for or against the Japanese submarine option then please make them, including the geopolitical impacts.
Joe Black
Active Member
Japanese ‘ready and able’ to build subs here: Nick Xenophon
The Australian
July 11, 2015
12:00AM
Brendan Nicholson
Defence Editor
Canberra
High-level Japanese government, military and industry officials have given strong assurances that they are willing and able to build the navy’s new submarines in Aust*ralia.
Independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon told The Weekend Australian he was given the assurances during meetings which included detailed briefings by Japan’s two submarine builders, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation.
The two companies alternate in producing a new submarine each year for the Japanese navy in a “continuous build” process.
Senator Xenophon travelled to Japan at his own cost for talks with the officials.
The Japanese bid has so far been cloaked in secrecy.
That has added strength to speculation that Japan would insist* on the submarines being built in Japan.
The government has insisted that it will not make decisions on who will build the submarines or where they will be built until it sees the results of a “competitive evalua*tion process”.
That process is now under way and involves Japan, France and Germany.
It calls on the nations involved to provide three options — to build overseas, build in Australia or a hybrid*, where work would be done in both countries.
That has not stopped the government’s critics saying repeatedly that it intended opting for an overseas build.
Senator Xenophon said that in light of the soaring unemployment numbers in South Australia, Tony Abbott needed to end the confidence-sapping impression he had allowed to be created that the new submarines were likely to be built overseas.
“The Prime Minister needs to put an end to this nonsense,” he said.
Senator Xenophon said he had told his Japanese hosts that Japan would find itself in the middle of a political dogfight if the decision was made to build the submarines in Japan.
“They were all incredibly helpful,” he said. “They genuinely want to do the right thing.”
The Australian revealed this week that one of a number of option*s being considered was that Japan might work with a Swedish company on its bid to sell Australia a new submarine evolved from its successful Soryu-class boat.
That could be suggested as part of the evaluation process and could increase the chances of the submarines being built in Aust*ralia.
If the government breaks its promise to build them here, the Coalition fears that it could lose most of its seats in South Australia.
While buying a Japanese submarine is an option said to be favoured by the Prime Minister, there are concerns that because of its pacifist constitution Japan has no experience selling defence equipment to another country, and that language and cultural issues might further complicate an already complex project.
Sweden was excluded from the government’s “competitive evaluation process” before it began but it has a close working relationship with Japan.
The Swedish company SAAB provides equipment, including the air independent propulsion system, for Japan’s Soryu-class submarines
SAAB has 350 specialist staff in Australia.
A year ago, it bought the Swedish company Kockums, which built Australia’s six Collins-class submarines.
Joe Black
Active Member
Bigger Royal Australian Navy could be on the way
Australia could end up with a much bigger navy as the government embarks on a national shipbuilding program which turns out new vessels every two years.
A study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says this is likely to involve the sale of the government-owned shipbuilder ASC. But this would only make sense if ASC could build ships cheaper than it does now.
ASPI analysts Andrew Davies and Mark Thomson said the nature of the continuous production process suggested the navy could end up with a surface warship fleet of 14 or 15 vessels, up from the current fleet of eight Anzac frigates and three air warfare destroyers.
....
Australia could end up with a much bigger navy as the government embarks on a national shipbuilding program which turns out new vessels every two years.
A study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says this is likely to involve the sale of the government-owned shipbuilder ASC. But this would only make sense if ASC could build ships cheaper than it does now.
ASPI analysts Andrew Davies and Mark Thomson said the nature of the continuous production process suggested the navy could end up with a surface warship fleet of 14 or 15 vessels, up from the current fleet of eight Anzac frigates and three air warfare destroyers.
....
Swings and roundabouts, we seem to be heading back to the sort of force levels we were aiming for in the early 90s. The difference then being those numbers were as a result of a detailed strategic assessment of the number and capability of combatants required to secure vital sea lanes in the event of a conflict threatening our interests, i.e. sea borne trade. Now we are being told its about building a sustainable industry?
I wont complain if it comes about but I do see it as ironic that these twenty year old plans that were axed nineteen years ago are now in vouge again, no matter the reason. We are even discussing replacing patrol boats with OPVs, back then it was to have been PBs with corvettes. Is this possibly an acknowledgement that the Hawke / Keating era plans (more to the point Beazley and Ray the two longest serving defence ministers in the last forty years) were right all along and most of the choices made since were actually wrong and may have been a waste of time, money and resources?
Actually come to think of it Plan Beersheba looks a lot like the stillborn reorganisation planned for the late 90s, as does the sort of capability the RAAF is getting resemble what was proposed (though in smaller numbers) during the late 80s early 90s.
Dibb and White were wrong but it appears a lot of very smart people back then came to similar conclusions to a lot of very smart people today, the issue it appears is neither Howard, Rudd (maybe, he was gone before we could see) and definitely Gillard listened. When the experts across decades agree and it doesn't happen then you need to look at the political leadership and ask why. It is good that the current government appears to be listening.
- Status