I really wonder what the DEFMIN wrote on that note she gave him during the hearing about government advice that had back peddle, apologise and look contrite. For me it was the high point of the whole sad and miserable waste of time.They have more or less indicated that by the levels of enthusiasm generated whenever the japanese solution comes up.
Without wishing to be seen as flogging a dead horse, one only needs to look at the systems integration problems that have arisen out of some of the projects.... as opposed to integrating US gear where we stay within update and upgrade lockstep.
If we stay out of lockstep then we invite problems, and thats hardly the US's fault.
The US have made it abundantly clear that they see no problems helping the integration of their combat systems into a Japanese sub.
re Conroy its pretty apparent that he's not even getting decent advice - or if he's getting it that he can't comprehend context when drafting up his zinger questions for the Senate hearings.
He's no Faulkner or Combet by a long shot. He's obviously never sought input from Beazley either otherwise he wouldn't be asking such numpty questions.
He's reason enough to dissolve the Senate so that we can avoid getting half wits treading the halls of Parlt
I am no fan of Barrett but he made a very good point on continuous build with reference to other government ships that was just missed. Noting Stoker, Besant and the new aviation training ship are all build overseas these vessel may also be replaced as part of this 'minor vessel' build programme. the only wrinkle being .... If they are commercial then Class and AMSA will have a significant say in compliance.
I don't see an issue in this as it would be good for the industry to understand commercial build and the need for strict adherence to mandatory conventions as it may open up other opportunities (not that I see us as a builder of bog standard cargo ships ..... We cannot compete in that market).