The short version is that the entire submarine organisation was now "unfit for purpose".
In what the report described as a "worrying statistic", it said crew shortages mean that one-third of trained submariners have now been qualified for less than two years.
"Crews are inexperienced and with reduced (submarine) availability it is getting more difficult to achieve the required levels of training," it said.
"With submarines having to live with defects of operational safety significance, decisions on what to live with and what to return to harbour to fix are being made by inexperienced people; a worrying feature with profound implications for safety.
And this via today's print edition of the Australian Financial Review.
He (Coles) suggested there was an unhealthy "master-slave" relationship between the Defence Material Organisation and ASC which discouraged the latter from taking responsibility.
7 comments:
So what's your opinion on the RFIs for 212/214, S-80, and Scorpene?
Nil.
They are not suitable for this part of the world.
Read the report, it is not the machine at fault of DOD, DMO and ASC.
A total F***up.
See Cameron Stewart's incisive analysis from The Australian at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/smiths-quest-to-repair-the-navy/story-e6frg6z6-1226222306553.
Unquestionably (and sadly), the RAN is in disarray, a situation that could compound considering the overly ambitious AWD and LPD projects, let alone the unrealism in Rudd's DWP2009 to build 12 unique submarines based on a contentious premise that Australia needs very long range boats. According to Coles, the Navy apparently rates submarine operations pretty low precedence, so was the extended range argument generated to justify building of the Collins principally for defence industry benefit?
Whatever Australia may have done with submarines hitherto is largely irrelevant as their future employment has to be related to the foreseeable strategic scenario with the main priority being contributing to deterrence of interference with trade corridors in regional oceans/seas. RAN submarine operations in Asian waters for whatever purposes would only foment increased hostility toward Australia's involvement in a region of the world where western power interference is no longer welcome. China, as the emergent super-power in East Asia, has an economic stranglehold on Australia and it would be absolute folly to antagonise her through clandestine RAN submarine activities within her perceived First Island Chain.
Type 212/214 submarines appear quite suitable for Australian regional waters operations and progressively acquiring 6 such boats from foreign specialist manufacturers would be wise, subject of course to the submarine related infrastructure within the RAN being restored to credible capacity, which might take decades. Attempting to build more submarines in Australia would seem fraught with risk considering the parlous efficiency of the local ship-building industry.
Must get out my books on Neville Chamberlain, and send them to Smith.
thanks for the reminder
Bushranger, have a look at the two latest reports regarding DMO and Defence.
It is not the machine, it is the mangement, or lack of it.
Would not matter what you had, it would still end up the same.
Shipbuilding, give it certainty and ongoing contracts to build up expertise and the ablity to train.
We distribute approximately $4 billion a year of foreign aid, about to be doubled to $8 billion by our frenetic and maybe future prime minister. Most of this is cash and usually stolen, I would suggest that part of this treasure be redirected to such things as shipbuilding to be given as foreign aid.
Ongoing projects of patrol craft, tugs, landing craft and light frigates et cetera could be produced under long-term contracts giving shipbuilders certainty.
This funding could obviously go towards other similar items.
Links for the noted reports:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fadt_ctte/procurement/report/index.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publications/Coles_Rpt_Ph1.pdf
Hi Perplexed. I am across the reports you mention and I do agree with your sentiment that Australian industry could do much better if focused mainly on building suitable smallish vessels; but submarines are just too specialised.
It would have been much wiser to progressively build say 5 or so smaller amphibious support vessels, perhaps akin to Galicia class or lesser displacement.The Army ambition of moving large expeditionary forces around on aircraft carriers is more likely than not to become problematic and methinks Navy will have difficulty coping with the LPDs, if and when they become fully operational.
The Senate Committee virtually condemned the organisational dysfunction and deficient leadership within DoD and nothing will improve until those big fundamental issues are remedied. Australia once had a pretty efficient defence organisational structure pre-Tange when the military was properly subject to firmer political oversight and the procurement system functioned pretty well when managed by the individual armed forces. But the military has since become subject to Public Service domination and huge bureaucratic empires have emerged.
Strong political leadership is required to dismantle and restructure the defence organisation so that accountability can be enforced for any managerial shortcomings. Further; DWP2009 and the Defence Capability Plan should both be trashed in my view with fresh national strategic assessments initiated as a basis for recovering adequate and credible capabilities for operations in Australia's near neighbourhood.
"We distribute approximately $4 billion a year of foreign aid, about to be doubled to $8 billion by our frenetic and maybe future prime minister. Most of this is cash and usually stolen, I would suggest that part of this treasure be redirected to such things as shipbuilding to be given as foreign aid.
Ongoing projects of patrol craft, tugs, landing craft and light frigates et cetera could be produced under long-term contracts giving shipbuilders certainty.
This funding could obviously go towards other similar items."
There is so much commonsense in what you say there, perplexed, that it's patently clear it will never happen.
Post a Comment