It is funny to read the words from the rent-seeking crowd.
Actually it is not. We have heard the pitch of the Ponzi scheme before.
This is the cousin to the industry that can't build common warships without goofing it up. In partner of course with the entrenched Defence bureaucracy. Most of the money the rent-seekers talk about comes from you the taxpayer; or they dream it will anyway.
This idea of building home-grown subs needs to be shut down. Home industry is great; when it is based on realistic goals. When it is not, it does more damage to the defence posture of this nation than an enemy by burning up limited defense dollars.
And, they would rather have a faulty product tied up to a dock instead of something that works; off the shelf. These people do not have the defence of the nation in mind; even if they pretend they do.
13 comments:
It doesn't make sense. Even the Brazilian enlarged U214 doesn't cost $1B USD a piece. And that submarine is meant for long endurance.
U209 is about half a billion a piece, depending on fancy option one wants. At $50B, Australia can buy U212 diesel submarine fleet the size of China! And whoop anybody's ass, including US in the pacific. (We are talking about 50+ fleet here folks... The most reliable submarine in the world.)
It is info given by a Politician to aJourne. hardly likely to be correct
I don't have any particular problem with the government spending some $big on a home grown sub or two to build organic capability.
However if we are going to do this we also need to build up our submariner capability, and that means buying the bulk of our fleet COTS, and keeping it at sea.
So sure, buy one or two home made subs---you have to let home industry learn their lessons the hard way. For the submariners, buy eight 209's or 214's and let them learn their lessons without risking their lives and the nations security.
There is an easy solutiion. Award a proper commercial contract, and keep DMO out of it.Once he desig is finalised keep Defence out of it. Simple, someone is responsible.
The all-important, nay, vital phrase: "and keep DMO out of it."
What will Bonza and ADmk2 do?
Why do you not do your maths. The 209/214 cannot reach northern Asia and return on a fuel load, nor can it carry enough food.
The crew numbers are inadequate, and the space is too small.
It can terrify NZ, or Indonesia, but that is all.
As opposed to a faulty dock queen.
There is an easy choice. Funny how Defence would be worried about long range presence but gave up the F-111 based on a lie.
As opposed to a faulty dock queen.
There is an easy choice. Funny how Defence would be worried about long range presence but gave up the F-111 based on a lie.
Agree regarding F111, however who ever said Houston was either intelligent or had a grip on reality, or even got the veracity of his statements correct.
Bonza will be upset, the DMO as well, be careful Eric
Time to acknowledge the reality of Oceania and do a split buy of Virginias. RN, RAN, USN.
Leasing SSN's would be ideal for Australia but extremely unlikely for political reasons. When people speak of the range limitations of smaller submarines I wonder why there has never been any serious consideration to upgrading the facilities on Christmas Island for both RAAF and RAN use? In some ways it could almost serve as our unsinkable aircraft carrier enabling us to reach potential enemies. Persoanlly, I would like to see the government outline a 30 year naval construction plan so that our shipyards have continuous construction (and economy) and our defence budget has predictable expenditure. To my mind the initial construction of 5-6 type 212/214 boats (with minimal Australianisation) followed in the future by another 5-6 boats of the design type being investigated by the RAN would seem to have the best of both worlds and not put all of our eggs in one basket.
Post a Comment