Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
John Newman
The Bunker Group
With all the commentary on the Solomon Islands security deal with China and its implications for Defence, it’s incredible that in all the ‘expert’ opinions not one article has tackled the most glaring shortfall: the number of surface combatants.
To truly “Shape” and “Deter” you need to maintain a constant and highly visible presence. And in a region defined by the maritime environment, you need more than 11 ships to do that.
There was a single anonymous quote hidden within the depths of an ABC article which said as much, but that’s it.
A GP Frigate program to fill the Force Structure’s glaring omission of a mid-tier combatant needs fast and serious discussion, exploration and action.
Even if Hunter’s drumbeat was 12 months, the RAN would remain an 11 combatant navy for almost the next 20 years.
To truly “Shape” and “Deter” you need to maintain a constant and highly visible presence. And in a region defined by the maritime environment, you need more than 11 ships to do that.
There was a single anonymous quote hidden within the depths of an ABC article which said as much, but that’s it.
A GP Frigate program to fill the Force Structure’s glaring omission of a mid-tier combatant needs fast and serious discussion, exploration and action.
Even if Hunter’s drumbeat was 12 months, the RAN would remain an 11 combatant navy for almost the next 20 years.
Unfortunately this isn't an April Fools joke.
Cancelled French submarine program could cost taxpayers more than $5 billion - ABC News
Recently it seems like a lot of money is being squandered on programs that don't see the light of day.
Cancelled French submarine program could cost taxpayers more than $5 billion - ABC News
Recently it seems like a lot of money is being squandered on programs that don't see the light of day.
WaveWalker
Member
HMAS Abbot, gotta love that one. By the time I got to Vegemite I was suspicious but Abbot..
John Newman
The Bunker Group
$5billion? $hit happens.
Today that is beer money in the big scheme of things for the Australian economy.
Would you prefer we had spent $65b or $75b or $85b, etc, BEFORE making the change from conventional to nuclear subs?
Tell me please?
If the Government wants to claw back some of that money, let’s put the spotlight on the very excessive billions of dollars wasted on ‘middle class welfare’ every year.
I’m sure if the public was offered the option to give up some of their middle class welfare they would soon shut the F up!
I'd say that Xavier has a sense of humour.
I know it's an April fool story, but I actually like the name HMAS Vegemite. Is anything more Aussie than Vegemite? And the tongue in cheek nature of the name fits the Aussie character perfectly.
I also like the bit about the pump jet needing to spin in the opposite direction to be optimized for the Southern Hemisphere.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I disagree that it should be regarded 'trivially', it's a terrible waste. I don't think most Australians would treat the government losing 5 Billion dollars as casually as you do. It's shocking and I think most would want to see the folks who wasted it held to account. Just to give you an idea of the scope of the loss, that money would build 5 tertiary referral hospitals in Oz.
In vIctoria we do that sort of thing all the time. Daniel Andrews tore up a contract for a badly needed freeway simply because it wasn’t his idea and that cost $1.3 billion. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s a good idea to rip up that amount of cash but if we start reporting adding up government waste here we will need another forum.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Pollies aren’t exactly the brightest lights but naval ship building is a political C-F in most democracies. Certainly without the deterioration of the geopolitical situation, SSNs would have been a no-go but clearly were the correct choice 10 years ago from an operational point of view. One could blame the French for over promising but other contenders weren’t any better. The US and UK should have promoted the nuclear option via AUKUS much earlier. Having extra SSNs and support facilities is in their interest.
The 5 billion is is no small amount. Could be worse though. Canada paid a $500 million penalty 30 years ago and ended up buying 15 helicopters 15 years later from the same vendor…..I doubt the RAN will have to grovel 10 years from now and buy Attack boats from France.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
And a quantum computer to do the addition.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree that it’s a horrendous waste of money, it’s definitely a win to get out of that contract - with the French saying that there will be a much lower level of Australian industry participation than planned, the Naval Group would have gouged our defence budget for the next 40 years. We learnt during the Oberon years that submarines require a large amount of maintenance parts and the only way to keep the costs under control is to manufacture them locally.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Trivially? Casually? No, reality is all.
We had a project for large conventional subs, it got cancelled, and now we turn out attention to nuclear subs, it appears the cost is approx $5 billion.
The money has been spent, it’s gone, kaput! Unless you’ve got a time machine and go back and change it to a nuclear project from the start, nothing will change, that is the reality.
And yes I stand by my statement, $5 billion is beer money in the big scheme of things of the Australian economy, which is approx $2 trillion per year, that’s trillion not billion.
Mate, if you want to go and sit in the corner and wring your hands and have a little sob over it, go for your life.
But nothing will change what’s happened, that’s reality.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I have no intention of doing any hand wringing nor sobbing but I would like there be just a little bit of accountability by those involved. Same with the other recent stuff ups in defence acquisitions. But there is none, never. It's one of the reasons why it keeps happening frequently, no accountability. No one is ever responsible and so it will keep on happening. With the deteriorating strategic environment we find ourselves in, we don't have time or resources to waste like this. You may think it's peanuts, I don't. I think most folks would agree.
Such a loss of treasure is ’annoying’. But everything submarine is eye wateringly expensive.
at the time, it was money well spent, but then the game changed.
luckily it was at an earlier stage of the process.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, who ever was responsible for the courageous change in the program deserves to be congratulated actually.
at the time, it was money well spent, but then the game changed.
luckily it was at an earlier stage of the process.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, who ever was responsible for the courageous change in the program deserves to be congratulated actually.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Seriously? Again, seriously?
You just said - “With the deteriorating strategic environment we find ourselves in”.
That just validated my point 100%.
Let’s talk facts:
* Fact - At the start of this project the ‘nuclear’ option was ‘not’ on the table.
* Fact - the LNP would have been more inclined to go nuclear from the start, but as we all know the ALP has strong ‘anti nuclear policies’, eg, no bipartisan support for nuclear.
* Fact - There was no conventional MOTS option to replace Collins.
* Fact - All options required a bespoke solution, the French Barracuda SSN design came closest to a ‘reference’ design of the same size, etc.
* Fact - The French reference design was chosen in April 2016, six years ago.
* Fact - The ‘strategic environment has changed’ as you’ve acknowledged above.
* Fact - The Attack class project ran for approx five years, total cost approx $5b, or approx $1b per year on yearly average.
* Fact - Due to the change in our strategic circumstances, the Government made the choice to go nuclear and create AUKUS with our UK and US friends.
Did I miss anything?
Did we make the best choice possible at the time? And with the knowledge at the time? Yes I think we did.
So who is accountable today for a decision made in 2016? Who had the crystal ball back then?
Please explain who is accountable and why? In detail please?
I agree
It’s far from trivial. At median wages and median tax rates it’s the equivalent of c. 10k people’s lifetime PAYG taxes.
All the income tax 10,000 average Australians will ever pay.
It’s a tremendous waste of money, and accountability is definitely called for. This can’t happen again with AUKUS, or the Hunters, or any other future program.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate, have a look at my post above.
Please explain who is accountable and why.
It’s easy to throw the word ‘accountable’ around without referring to historical facts as to where we started, why we’ve changed direction, and where we’ve arrived.
I really want to know how?
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
You assume we will get the nuclear subs. At present they are only vaporware.
I don't know who is accountable, but I wish I did. However I did see 3 PM's pick 3 different subs over the last decade. Not the way to do military acquisition. It comes after a number of 'poor choices' wrt to acquisition by the ADF, so it's not isolated problem.
Why do we do it so poorly? (Thinking of a comparison with our friends in Singapore.)