Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rockitten]

John, I don't believe anything Rex Patrick writes, he was a combat systems operator, not an engineer or boat driver, his speciality was acoustics, what a submarine does once it gets where its going, not how it gets there. His opinions are a mile off what those who actually know what RAN submarines need to be able to do think.

I am, I must admit, getting a little frustrated with some of your posts, you make some very good points but yes you do appear to me to be quite blinkered. You appear to be very politically biased and as such automatically dismissive of any points that do not fit your particular views. Anyone who supports Australian industry in your view is putting jobs above capability, apart from being inaccurate and misinformed I personally find it insulting. I no longer work in the industry but many outstanding people I know still do, people who are as good as any working elsewhere in the world, people who, so long as our political classes pull their heads out of their ....... are perfectly capable of building a class of next generation submarines, destroyers, frigates, whatever.

The problem John is political not industrial, one side has made it about local jobs and the other about foreign alliances (and bashing the other side with trumped up failures), both missing the point of what was achieved and what it can still be grown into. Your posts are just a reminder of the tactics being used by those determined to kill the industry for purely political reasons.

The irony is local submarine construction started as a concept under Frazer and would have proceeded no matter who was in power for the simple reason no one was building the sort of boats we needed. Just imagine how different things would be if the project had been kicked off under a Peacock or Howard government in the 80s instead of a Hawke one? Just imagine if instead of a stick with which to beat Kym Beazley to political death with it was a Liberal baby? Just imagine how different the spin would be if there was no political mileage to be made over the projects difficulties. Its not that hard actually just look what the government was saying about the Collins class and ASC in 2007, after 11 years and nationalising ASC there was no way Labor could be blamed anymore so all the bad press disappeared over night and all we heard was how great things were because of the hard work of the government.

Mate, no offense, but I would say your comments regarding to John somewhat applies to you as well.

No hard feeling, okay. No one want an industry dead, but at what cost? Right now, WE DO NOT HAVE A SUBMARINE BUILDING CAPABILITY NOW. Those in ASC who built the Collins are mostly gone. Therefore, no local submarine only mean no job gain, not job loss. And, unless we have a rolling build programme just like the frigates, a local build submarine programme will only repeat the the scenario we got in the Collins.

And that's why, I support the local build frigates & OPV, as we the number to keep at least one yard busy. But not for a local submarine, especially if we are going to get only 8 and the premium for local build may cost our navy get even less.

There are many way for SA to create jobs and save/create manufacturing, hijacking the defence plan of the whole nation is not the way.

 

[StingrayOZ]

No hard feeling, okay. No one want an industry dead, but at what cost? Right now, WE DO NOT HAVE A SUBMARINE BUILDING CAPABILITY NOW. Those in ASC who built the Collins are mostly gone. Therefore, no local submarine only mean no job gain, not job loss.

ASC and its previous incarnation were made to build and support the subs.

We did this after the Oberons. Which were wholely built in the UK. Australia had to develop a whole industry to support these foreign made submarines because the UK had no real system to maintain and develop them.

http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol5no3Woolner.pdf
The only example we have for operating an overseas submarine in Australia's context. Is Oberon service cost. Which was ~75% of the new purchase cost. This was on a submarine that was inservice with half a dozen navies and over 35 built!

On at $30 billion submarine project, we may have to spend $22 billion to maintain them every major maintenance period.

You can't really divorce maintenance and construction. Maintenance is 75% of construction with a submarine. You have to cut them open to do it. Imagine overhauling the space shuttle by cutting it in half with an angle grinder. Then welding it back up so it can go 500m under the ocean with zero failures.

There are many way for SA to create jobs and save/create manufacturing, hijacking the defence plan of the whole nation is not the way.

There are many ways to partner with Japan. Why don't we just get Germany or France to build our submarine, why does it have to be with Japan, with an overseas build and heavily modifying their submarine. A project they are not keen to embarking on.

IMO maintenance and construction are fair game to tie together in a Submarine project. Particularly in a one off situation like what is being proposed for Australia, where there is currently no submarine in the water that meets the criteria.

I do believe Singapore does its own submarine maintenance.
Naval Shiprepair : Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd

 

[Volkodav]

Mate, no offense, but I would say your comments regarding to John somewhat applies to you as well.

No hard feeling, okay. No one want an industry dead, but at what cost? Right now, WE DO NOT HAVE A SUBMARINE BUILDING CAPABILITY NOW. Those in ASC who built the Collins are mostly gone. Therefore, no local submarine only mean no job gain, not job loss. And, unless we have a rolling build programme just like the frigates, a local build submarine programme will only repeat the the scenario we got in the Collins.

And that's why, I support the local build frigates & OPV, as we the number to keep at least one yard busy. But not for a local submarine, especially if we are going to get only 8 and the premium for local build may cost our navy get even less.

There are many way for SA to create jobs and save/create manufacturing, hijacking the defence plan of the whole nation is not the way.

Are you a ship / submarine building expert, have you ever even visited a shipyard? Do you have any idea what is involved in a full cycle docking, i.e. Collins hull was cut open and she was basically gutted. Do you have any real world experience to be able to assess whether we have a capability or not? Use caps as much as you like it wont change the fact that we do have a capability.

John frustrates me because, although he brings some very well thought out ideas to the discussion, asks insightful questions and usually participates in an open minded fashion, his political bias sees him flying off the handle and often attempting to shut down discussion when he perceives it is critical of the government. This is a shame as it robs the discussion of his reasoned input. You on the other hand seem to enjoy making comments more suited to Alan Jones or the Bolt Report with the grammar of a fifteen year-old. To be honest I usually can't be bothered reading your posts, let alone responding to them.

 

[vonnoobie]

I do believe Singapore does its own submarine maintenance.
Naval Shiprepair : Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd

I wasn't implying they don't do maintenance per say but more along the line of the full cycle docking (Cutting them open, Gutting them and refurbishing them down to the last bolt). From what I can gather both the major refit's for the Challenger and Archer class submarines took place in Europe hence why I'm uncertain on if they into the future would undertake such work or contract it out to a nation that is doing it.

 

[old faithful]

But I like Andrew Bolt!!!
Alan Jones....not so much.....

I tend to doubt that ASC could come in on time, and I would bet my house that they would be way over budget.
What remains to be seen is, whether international bidders can do better.

I hope and pray that if they go Jap, we dont end up with a submarine version of the sea sprites. Jap Hull, and systems from the US, engines from somewhere else, and nothing works well together first go.

 

[John Newman]

John, I don't believe anything Rex Patrick writes, he was a combat systems operator, not an engineer or boat driver, his speciality was acoustics, what a submarine does once it gets where its going, not how it gets there. His opinions are a mile off what those who actually know what RAN submarines need to be able to do think.

I am, I must admit, getting a little frustrated with some of your posts, you make some very good points but yes you do appear to me to be quite blinkered. You appear to be very politically biased and as such automatically dismissive of any points that do not fit your particular views. Anyone who supports Australian industry in your view is putting jobs above capability, apart from being inaccurate and misinformed I personally find it insulting. I no longer work in the industry but many outstanding people I know still do, people who are as good as any working elsewhere in the world, people who, so long as our political classes pull their heads out of their ....... are perfectly capable of building a class of next generation submarines, destroyers, frigates, whatever.

The problem John is political not industrial, one side has made it about local jobs and the other about foreign alliances (and bashing the other side with trumped up failures), both missing the point of what was achieved and what it can still be grown into. Your posts are just a reminder of the tactics being used by those determined to kill the industry for purely political reasons.

The irony is local submarine construction started as a concept under Frazer and would have proceeded no matter who was in power for the simple reason no one was building the sort of boats we needed. Just imagine how different things would be if the project had been kicked off under a Peacock or Howard government in the 80s instead of a Hawke one? Just imagine if instead of a stick with which to beat Kym Beazley to political death with it was a Liberal baby? Just imagine how different the spin would be if there was no political mileage to be made over the projects difficulties. Its not that hard actually just look what the government was saying about the Collins class and ASC in 2007, after 11 years and nationalising ASC there was no way Labor could be blamed anymore so all the bad press disappeared over night and all we heard was how great things were because of the hard work of the government.

Again, yet again, seriously?

What's the old saying about people that live in glass houses? Well I'm sure you know the answer to that, well I hope you do.

If my comments are so politically biased, then I must be the ONLY one here doing that, if anything my 'so called' political bias is one way at least to be the most minimum attempt to 'counterbalance' the rather extreme political bias that you have been writing the other way on this thread for many a year, seriously mate, remember glass houses, ok? (it's difficult to type accurately with laughing so much!).

So let's get back to where all this garbage started yesterday, I made an observation about Mr Rex Patrick's article on the ASPI website and made the point, and in subsequent posts, that I believed that he was pushing a particular agenda, knowing some of his history myself, and how he has said one thing and then the other, one minute he appears 'anti local build' and next minute 'pro local build' once he buddies up with Xenophon, so obviously I question his motivation, please explain to me what was wrong with that?

Then out of the blue you attack me and say I have blinkers on, true?

So having said what I said, you now also state that you have no faith in Mr Rex Patrick either, isn't that the SAME point I was making? So what the hell is the problem???? I questioned Mr Patrick, you make a stupid comment about me having blinkers on, but also don't agree with Mr Patrick either! Doesn't that mean we were actually on the 'same page' about Mr Patricks comments??

Seriously V, what is your problem?? Were you just looking for an opportunity to 'have a go', well if you did, then you certainly picked the wrong post to make the comments you did.

As to the other crap you wrote, where have I ever said we shouldn't do local builds? Where? I have certainly said we shouldn't do local builds at 'all costs', is there a problem with that? Is the Naval shipbuilding industry in Australia a 'work for the dole' program that should be supported at all costs, regardless of the cost??

Despite my 'so called' political bias (as opposed to your political bias), my SOLE agenda is to see/hope that the RAN gets exactly what it needs 'ON TIME AND ON BUDGET', is that such a problem?

I'm not 'anti' Australian Shipbuilding industry, not one little bit, but if at the end of the day if it means that the Defence budget (and specifically the RAN's budget) is damaged by having to support local industry, when the same restriction don't seem to apply to the RAAF or other ADF aviation assets that we continue to buy willingly and happily off US production lines for example (and keeping US aerospace workers in a job), well so be it! If we can achieve a good result 'with a reasonable additional premium' and get the product delivered on time by producing locally, well then lets bloody well do it!!

I'm not so 'blinkered' that I believe that we should have a naval shipbuilding industry at 'all costs', regardless of which flavour of Government is in office and makes the necessary decisions for the 'good' of the RAN!!

Anyway V, I'm not going to bother trying to reply to each and every point you are making, but if you want to 'continue' having a go at me in a rather personal sort of way (which previously I haven't done to you, true?), then just send me a Personal Message and we can continue this stupidity privately and not pollute this thread anymore than it has been recently, ok??

Seriously V, take a chill pill will you??

 

[John Newman]

Mate, no offense, but I would say your comments regarding to John somewhat applies to you as well.

Mate, thanks and appreciate your comment in support (well at least to put some 'balance' to the debate), but really I don't need that all the same, I'm old enough and ugly enough to take whatever crap is thrown at me.

Just a pity that when you made your comment, that you were attacked as well and accused of being an 'Alan Jones' disciple. Anyway, the more some people say, the more they make themselves look stupid.


PS, this doesn't mean that I'm going to start agreeing with all you say, but I won't be sinking to the low point of personal attacks, ok??

 

[John Newman]

But I like Andrew Bolt!!!
Alan Jones....not so much.....

I tend to doubt that ASC could come in on time, and I would bet my house that they would be way over budget.
What remains to be seen is, whether international bidders can do better.

I hope and pray that if they go Jap, we dont end up with a submarine version of the sea sprites. Jap Hull, and systems from the US, engines from somewhere else, and nothing works well together first go.

Like you, I like Andrew Bolt too!

Every Sunday morning after watching 'Insiders' for an hour (well I have to get some value out of the ABC don't I??), I switch to Bolt and see the same stories but only painted in the totally opposite perspective, (good to get a bit of balance in your diet hey??).

As for Alan Jones, well that guy is just too painful to listen too, believe or not, in the past I would actually switch over to Mike Carlton (a friend of the right, not!!!) and listen to him on the way to work!!!

As far as what the final outcome for the Collins replacement, well I'll wait for the announcement from the Government at the end of this year or early next year, and then we can all throw our two bobs worth in!

 

[rockitten]

You can't really divorce maintenance and construction. Maintenance is 75% of construction with a submarine. You have to cut them open to do it. Imagine overhauling the space shuttle by cutting it in half with an angle grinder. Then welding it back up so it can go 500m under the ocean with zero failures.

There are many ways to partner with Japan. Why don't we just get Germany or France to build our submarine, why does it have to be with Japan, with an overseas build and heavily modifying their submarine. A project they are not keen to embarking on.

IMO maintenance and construction are fair game to tie together in a Submarine project. Particularly in a one off situation like what is being proposed for Australia, where there is currently no submarine in the water that meets the criteria.

Mate, did I mentioned Japanese submarine?

If we go for the local construction (regardless of who won the bid), ASC will have to expand their facility, hire and train hundreds of extra personals to build the submarines in SA. Agree?

And how long will the construction programme last? If ASC takes 3 years to deliver the first boat and then delivering 1 boat every 12 months, that's 10 years for 8 submarine. Agree?

Yes, there may be a MLU for the submarine, but those programmes are unlikely to take as many tradesmen and engineers as construction. And so, unless there is a new submarine construction project commence soon after SEA 1000 is completed, SAC will have to sack most of the "redundant" staff they have spent so much to train.

Therefore, when SA request the nation to support local submarine construction (or, a 10 years unemployment hands out) programme AT ALL COST, is that wrong to question the worthiness of rebuilding a capability that is expensive to rebuild and will be shut down Again in 10 years?

As a tax payer myself, I would say no and prefer an overseas construction.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I hope and pray that if they go Jap, we dont end up with a submarine version of the sea sprites. Jap Hull, and systems from the US, engines from somewhere else, and nothing works well together first go.

Integration will be the key.

I do wonder if the requirements, are do able. There doesn't seem any two ways about it that its has pretty high/unique requirements.

 

[Bonza]

Some people in here need to take a deep breath before they proceed. I appreciate that certain issues can get heated - but this board is for discussing things with discretion and courtesy, not for jumping on one another with personal attacks. I suggest you meditate on that.

 

[old faithful]

SP Arty comes to mind as well, we want this kind of chassy, this kind of gun, but the fire control system must be this! And we want, 18 of them! Lol!
We end up with how many? Zero....so far.

Land 400, we want an IFV that can take 8 pax, has this level of protection annnnd has a 30mm, no make it a 40mm, yeah, a 40mm gun(and a spoiler!)
Australia really needs to be realistic when it comes to making descision on military equipment. The way things are happening, we are ending up either nothing, or an unsuitable bit of gear due to replacements needed now, when we really had plenty of time to choose something more adequate in the 1st place.
The ANZAC, s are becoming like Phillipino taxi, s covered in furry dice, and party lights, not a lot of room for any more improvments.
Defence procurment is pissing me off, after all, its our tax money that is being wasted on rubbish like SP arty , land 400 wish lists, sub debate, sea sprites, M113 upgrades, Armidale patrol boats, ARH Tigers, hmmm RAAF dosnt seem to have as many procurment problems as the other services.
Wsh they would make timley decisions and get on with it, rather than trying to redign the wheel, for an order of 18....or 8 etc

 

[Goknub]

This is something that the scrapping of DMO and returning procurement to Defence should hopefully reduce in the future.

Although many of those listed were projects before DMO was established so it's not fair to be blaming everything on them.

It would be easier if we had only one primary defence trading partner. Buying a mix of European, American and now possibly Japanese complicates things even if individually they are the better asset. Then again if the budgets are sufficient we get the best of both worlds.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm not 'anti' Australian Shipbuilding industry, not one little bit, but if at the end of the day if it means that the Defence budget (and specifically the RAN's budget) is damaged by having to support local industry, when the same restriction don't seem to apply to the RAAF or other ADF aviation assets that we continue to buy willingly and happily off US production lines for example (and keeping US aerospace workers in a job), well so be it! If we can achieve a good result 'with a reasonable additional premium' and get the product delivered on time by producing locally, well then lets bloody well do it!!

This debate about local build or foreign build seems to be more of an issue for naval procurement. Given the complexity and cost of aviation kit, few middle power countries can do this on their own. Canada, like Australia, has debated this issue for new naval ships and for better or worse they will be built in Canada. Both countries have had successful programs (ANZAC and Halifax frigates). I dare say the Collins program shines brighter than our Victoria acquisition. At the end of the day, a naval program has to be affordable, it must be mission capable, and sustainable. Just as important, it must be politically immune. The last item is the toughest nut to crack (in Canada).

 

[Volkodav]

South Korea's initial subs, India's locally built subs, Spain's S80s are all projects that followed the Collins, they are all projects that have had difficulties and they are all projects that have delivered boats that by design are less capable than the Collins class. All of the mentioned nations intend to keep on building subs, doing otherwise would be seen as a colossal waste of money, they simply learn from their experiences and aim to do better the next time. Does anyone notice the difference between those examples and what we are doing here?

I threw Bolt in because he is an ex Labor staffer who has modelled himself on certain US personalities to fill what he saw as an opportunity to fill a gap in the Australian media and built a successful and profitable career. When he talks he smirks, I believe because he is taking the piss, he knows what he is saying is over the top and is amused that so many believe every word he says. I could be wrong but that is the impression I get, he is a very smart man playing a role because it is profitable to do so.

Those I have flagged I have done so because of consistent disingenuous snipes at one side of politics and the virtual whitewashing of the other. This is not helpful and besides being predictable and boring detracts from the discussion. The simple fact is most people in politics are there because they care about the country and its people and honestly want to make things better. Most politicians like and respect each other and where permitted work together for the greater good. Good work is done by both sides and mistakes are made by both sides, some on here do not seem to understand this and seem to believe that everything is black and white.

I have no issue discussing policies, I have no issue discussing historical fact, I do however have a very big issue with people parroting the same boring irrelevant or sometimes plain untrue crap over and over again. I also have an issue with people getting stroppy and attempting to shut down debate when it doesn't fit their political views. This may seem like I am having a go at some of the clearly more right wing or conservative members, well that is because as a defence site we don't seem to get that many socialists or Greens in here, if we did I would be making exactly the same points to them.

In Australia we have two (three if you count the Nats) major political parties, one is centre right, the other centre left, with a significant overlap of opinions within their memberships, this is particularly the case with individuals who are egalitarian by nature. The difference between the parties is less than most imagine and more to do with artificial distinctions aimed to win the votes of politically naïve swinging voters as they, rather than rusted on or informed voters are the ones who count in winning government.

John you go off every time someone says "captains pick", well I get annoyed every time someone says Labor didn't order a single ship in six years for the simple reason Hawke took six years to order new ships and Howard took seven years to order new patrol boats and eleven years to order actual warships. If the current government orders new ships in the next couple of years they will be the exception not the rule.

That, in a nutshell, is my problem, there is far to much Liberals good for defence, Labor bad BS, the truth is there is not that much difference in the actual capability desired but some here honestly seem to believe the political rhetoric sprouted by their preferred side, or anyone backing up their preferred side. The truth, as I see it, is there is a sad lack of bipartisanship that continues to cause delays and waste money, with stupid things being done for political reasons.

Again the Australian dollar is dropping in value, it is almost half what it was two years ago, this is a natural result of the end of the resources boom. Toyota has ramped up exports (now 70% of local production) and has turned a A$196million profit 23014/15, the break even point for the industry as a whole is an exchange rate of about .86c to the dollar, we are apparently heading to less than .60c. Talk of Australian ship building being 40% more expensive than worlds best practice (for the first warship built in a new yard after an extended break in any new construction) become irrelevant when the exchange rate is currently about 70% of what it was when these sums were done and is heading to 50%.

Alternatively, instead of offering facts and reasoned discussion, I could just go off and make sweeping politically motivated statements that add no value. Yes I do go off on occasion when frustration gets the better of me, but then I usually come back and rephrase what I have said, or even apologise and attempt to get the discussion back on track. This is not something I have ever noticed John or Rockkitten do, its more a case of you're right everyone who disagrees is wrong and god help anyone who calls you out for it.

Oh by the way, before you guys start ranting about leftards etc, I'll just let you know I have been involved in two political parties in my life, first the Liberal party in my early to mid 20s and then the Democrats until my late 20s. I am a genuine centre right egalitarian who believes in science, technology, manufacturing, the environment and human rights, if you guys see the need to gang up and shout me down because I'm too lefty for you then I think you need to reassess how far you may have lurched from the centre.

 

[old faithful]

....ok......centre to me equals fence sitting non decision makers, and we need those people to stop the "reactor on the left, oh my god, the children!" And those on the right "shoot em!,s*

I find a huge difference between the 2 parties im afraid, and to me, niether have the countries best interests at stake.
I think free trade is what is killing off our manufacturing and agriculture industries. Both ALP and Libs are to blame, Nats notso much. As far as libs good, labor bad goes (regarding defence), well that sits true for me Im afraid, in my life time, 47 years, thats been the case,, or more Labor bad, Libs a fair bit better. As with the ecomomy, nearly always better under the right.
ALP is owned and run by the unions, and the more I have to do with unions the more I dislike them. When Libs are in, unions blame all the work place bargain fails on them, and I believe, sabotage conditions in the work place in order to blame the Libs. Then when ALP are elected, encourage workers to be happy with a small win, again blameing the Libs, all the while living it up on our union fees....rant complete, now a question on Destroyers

After missiles are fired from a warship, say 7 ESSM, s, are reloads carried in a magazine, and can the crew reload the cells quickly?

Same question regarding the quad packed harpoons?

If not, can a reload be done at sea via replenishment ship?
Sorry if the questions seem ignorant, and sorry for the politics, no more from me on them.

(Atheism is a non prophet organisation)

 

[Volkodav]

....ok......centre to me equals fence sitting non decision makers, and we need those people to stop the "reactor on the left, oh my god, the children!" And those on the right "shoot em!,s*

I find a huge difference between the 2 parties im afraid, and to me, niether have the countries best interests at stake.
I think free trade is what is killing off our manufacturing and agriculture industries. Both ALP and Libs are to blame, Nats notso much. As far as libs good, labor bad goes (regarding defence), well that sits true for me Im afraid, in my life time, 47 years, thats been the case,, or more Labor bad, Libs a fair bit better. As with the ecomomy

Depends how far back you go, most Libs admit Hawke got much more important stuff though than Frazer, basically all the reforms Howard, as treasurer, wanted but was prevented from doing because of the feared electoral backlash. I spent years caning Labor for killing of the RANs carrier capability then a couple of years back the 82-83 cabinet papers were released and it was revealed that Sinclair had recommended Melbourne not be replaced and Frazer agreed but delayed the announcement until after the election. Basically a global recession had wrecked the economy and there was no money.

DOA was a disaster but so to is the current FTA obsession. Don't get me wrong, a level playing field is great but the FTAs we have been signing are anything but.
A lot of the really dumb policy is actually from think tanks, academics and senior public service wonks. DMO for example was created in the feeding frenzy over issues with the Collins submarine project but completely ignored how well the ANZAC build had run, or for that matter the MCMVs, survey vessels, etc. Ironically since the creation of DMO and the introduction of the Kinnard reforms the only procurements that seem to have gone well are the ones that bypassed the established process, i.e. Abrams, Super Hornets, Choules, the rest have all pretty much had problems.

The key problem I see with defence at the moment is successive governments, in an attempt to reduce risk and increase governance, have created a very complex bureaucracy that has effectively removed accountability, involved far too many parties and made it very difficult to "just do it". Some time the only way to get things done is to bypass this but then governance falls over and mistakes are made because some of the experts who really should be involved aren't. There is actually a very good report into the ANZAC project that shows how to do things properly, to bad, in hindsight, that we didn't build on that success with a more timely AWD.

* Whoops forgot the C-17, another success story. Basically an operational need appears, the professionals advise of the best option to meet that requirement and the government acts on that advice. Its how it should be but unfortunately other factors usually get in the way. Not just to choose a particular preferred option but to occasionally specifically disadvantage or exclude particular, perfectly sensible alternatives.

 

[John Fedup]

....ok......centre to me equals fence sitting non decision makers, and we need those people to stop the "reactor on the left, oh my god, the children!" And those on the right "shoot em!,s*

I find a huge difference between the 2 parties im afraid, and to me, niether have the countries best interests at stake.
I think free trade is what is killing off our manufacturing and agriculture industries

In Canada, we have three parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the socialist NDP. When it comes to defence matters, the differences are best described by renaming them...the minimally good, the bad, and the ugly.

As for free trade, the U.S.-Canada deal made sense but when Mexico and other low cost countries were added our manufacturing has been going downhill for years. This decline has been helped by some really dumb management in many companies here (e.g. Nortel, RIM-Blackberry, GM). Our only sellable product in 10 years will be fresh water.

 

[Volkodav]

....ok......centre to me equals fence sitting non decision makers, and we need those people to stop the "reactor on the left, oh my god, the children!" And those on the right "shoot em!,s*

I find a huge difference between the 2 parties im afraid, and to me, niether have the countries best interests at stake.
I think free trade is what is killing off our manufacturing and agriculture industries. Both ALP and Libs are to blame, Nats notso much. As far as libs good, labor bad goes (regarding defence), well that sits true for me Im afraid, in my life time, 47 years, thats been the case,, or more Labor bad, Libs a fair bit better. As with the ecomomy, nearly always better under the right.
ALP is owned and run by the unions, and the more I have to do with unions the more I dislike them. When Libs are in, unions blame all the work place bargain fails on them, and I believe, sabotage conditions in the work place in order to blame the Libs. Then when ALP are elected, encourage workers to be happy with a small win, again blameing the Libs, all the while living it up on our union fees....rant complete, now a question on Destroyers

After missiles are fired from a warship, say 7 ESSM, s, are reloads carried in a magazine, and can the crew reload the cells quickly?

Same question regarding the quad packed harpoons?

If not, can a reload be done at sea via replenishment ship?
Sorry if the questions seem ignorant, and sorry for the politics, no more from me on them.

(Atheism is a non prophet organisation)

Oh yeah, the centre means the majority rather than a fence and that majority is further right now than it used to be, the trouble is the outliers, the greens and the social conservatives, are probably more extreme than the outliers of old and they seem to be getting more oxygen than they used to as well. The majority supported Howards and Rudds policies but now that pragmatic, bipartisan, middle ground seems to have gone and its the greens or the DLP we get to choose from.

 

[Joe Black]

More sub news....

Future Submarines: Japan no longer frontrunners over Germany and France

July 21, 2015 7:29pm
TORY SHEPHERDThe Advertiser

IT received the “red carpet” treatment, but Japan is no longer walking ahead of Germany and France in the bid to build the $50 billion Future Submarines.

‘Option J’, as it became known, was seen to be a frontrunner for the lucrative project, but several Government MPs have said that is no longer seen as politically palatable because even after the competitive evaluation process, it would appear to be another “captain’s pick” from Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Mr Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are believed to have made a “handshake deal” on the submarines, but political uproar led to the Government announcing the CEP so the three nations could compete to be the international partner.

Both Germany and France have been openly pushing their own bids in recent weeks, while Japan has remained almost silent.

Japanese representatives have also declined to put in an appearance at a shipbuilding inquiry, which will hear from shipbuilders ASC, four senior Defence representatives, Germany, and France on Wednesday in Glenelg.

The Advertiser has revealed that both Germany and France are keen to build the submarines in Adelaide. Both are also prepared to throw in sweeteners. France will share all its stealth technology with Australia, while the Wall Street Journal has revealed Germany could make Australia a regional hub, bringing in more maintenance work from Asia. Both are also interested in working on the Future Frigates.

Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said the CEP would pick the best submarine and that any commentary was “uninformed speculation”.

Opposition defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said Japan was getting the “red carpet” treatment both in their visits to ASC (with a government entourage) and in the visits from Australian officials overseas, and that it was “very disappointing” no one would front the committee.

“The secrecy that surrounds Japan’s bid and involvement in this process is remarkable. We want to get to the bottom of that,” he said.

Senator Conroy said the special treatment was because it was a government-to-government deal with Japan, while the other bids are from corporations – TKMS in Germany and DCNS in France.

The Ambassador of Japan to Australia, Sumio Kusaka, said Japan’s situation was different and he was “not in a position to be able to offer any further specific details on that process at this time”.

It would not be appropriate to attend, he said. Neither Mitsubishi Heavy Industries or Kawasaki, who would do the work, will attend either.

Mr Andrews called on Labor to give up their “xenophobic campaign” and “present a united voice promoting Australia as a great place to do business and to promote our skilled shipbuilding workforce in a positive manner”.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/nat...rmany-and-france/story-fnii5yv8-1227451482021


------------
Future Submarines: Cheaper to build subs in Adelaide, Germans say

• BELINDA WILLIS and LUKE GRIFFITHS
• The Advertiser
• July 22, 2015 10:20PM

THE German company bidding on the nation’s new fleet of submarines has given the state a ray of hope saying Australia is the cheapest and best option to build.
Thyssen Krupp Marine System’s confidence in the state torpedoes previous claims that Australia couldn’t compete with an overseas build.

Yet TKMS Australia’s calls for a local build were marred by senior ASC executives warning the Economic References Committee in Adelaide that 266 jobs lost at the local shipyard in the past three months could be the tip of the iceberg.

TKMS Australia’s chairman John White said his German-headquartered company’s bid for the billion-dollar Future Submarine project was focused on a local build, adamant that this would save the country money.

Australian companies must be involved from the beginning, he said, and that “you ask for trouble if you build something overseas”.

“If Australia wants to have a long-term sustainable competitive world-class naval capability we need to look to build both future frigates and future submarines in this country,” he told the public hearing in Glenelg.

“If you truly analyse all aspects of the project we will have a lower cost to the government for a build in Australia……. With the most major savings in through-life support.”

And Sean Costello, chief executive of the Australian arm of French company DCNS, told the committee that the firm “absolutely has a plan to build the submarines in Australia”, however he would not be drawn on cost comparisons to an overseas build.

“I can’t give you a percentage differential,” he said after constant probing from Senator Nick Xenophon.

Mr Costello, previously chief of staff to former Defence Minister David Johnston who infamously said he wouldn’t trust ASC to build a canoe, added that DCNS has 100 people working on its submission.

Dr White was joint author of a major government study into the Air Warfare Destroyer program and involved in privatising Victoria’s Williamstown Naval Dockyard and the $5 billion ANZAC Frigate Project.

Senator Xenophon said Dr White was the nation’s most respected shipbuilder and it was “quite stunning” that he “has effectively torpedoed the government’s plans to build submarines overseas”.

“This absolute nonsense of the Prime Minster considering an overseas build must be put to an end,” Senator Xenophon said.

“When you have the nation’s most respected shipbuilder and a confidant of the government saying it would be cheaper for Australian taxpayers to ensure the subs are built locally, then how can the government ignore that?”

Dr White told the inquiry “a lack of confidence” creeping into Australia about its shipbuilding was unjustified and problems linked to the Air Warfare Destroyer and Collins Class submarines projects were about “decisions well beyond Australian industry”.

TKMS is one of three companies asked to bid for the project, it has built submarines in seven other countries and Dr White said it now had 190 people in Australia and Germany working on the Future Submarine bid.

While another bidder, DCNS appeared at the hearing, Japan, long regarded as the frontrunner, did not, declining its invitation to attend.

When ASC appeared, shipbuilding chief Mark Lamarre said that even if a decision was made “today” regarding the future submarine project, more job losses would come.

Mr Lamarre confirmed to the committee that 77 jobs were lost at ASC in May, 88 in June, and 101 in July.

“We will be making changes to the profile of our manning, further reductions, regardless of what near-term decisions are made by government on shipbuilding,” Mr Lamarre said.

“There will be further job losses due to the winding down of current projects.

“We will go to where we are today, 2000 people, to zero if there’s no further work, or we will not (go to zero) depending on the timing of future work — there’s lot of variables in the process.”

A spokesman for Defence Minister Kevin Andrews encouraged Dr White and Mr Costello to “not be distracted by the interference being run by the Labor Party”, referring to the committee.


Mr Andrews’ office also reiterated the point that Senator Sean Edwards, deputy committee chair, made several times throughout the day.
“For six years, the former government sat on their hands and did nothing to advance the future submarine program.”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...aide-germans-say/story-fnii5yv6-1227453184542
----------



Well, it looks like we are going to have a robust debate as to why the subs shouldn't be built in Australia now that both the German and the French literally say that they will build them here. I think Japan will yield to the pressure too. It will be a win-win situation regardless of which options we go with.