This submarine story doesn't even end with a proper sentence.
Until the Soryu became theoretically available, off-the-shelf submarines included only German, French and Spanish designs of about 2000 tonnes.
It is almost as bad a sin as referring to the failed-within-one second of launch 2009 Defence White Paper as if it had value.
And yes the article fails to mention that Defence/DMO/RAN do not have the skill to sustain and crew 6 subs let alone 12.
2 comments:
How about include a warm-water-improved joint-development of the next-gen A26 variant (Sweden) in that list of options?
Dear Eric,
The usual same old same old "Collins has now come right we have learned our lessons. Everything will be ok now" we have been hearing for the last 15 years or so. Questions are: can the class do its job against formal validated test metrics including sustainment? Is the DMO/ANAO report (#20 of 2011-12) covering phases of PROJECT SEA 1439
still valid and on track?-that(for example) indicates Final Operational Capability (FOC) is some time away still. And has the recommendation of ANAO #23 of 2008-09 (Collins-Class Operations Sustainment) been implemented?
Collins is one of several victims of what might be called DMO/Defence "spin-shock" and this once-over-lightly with-the-rose-coloured-glasses style of reporting is now just annoying and tends to increase suspicion that someone is once again up to no good-indeed that is the way to bet.
Whether we should/could build another submarine should be answered by an objective assessment. We have seen little of such a process including who is going to be put in the slammer if we get it wrong again.
Cheers
Ely
Post a Comment