It is that time again. About every few months or so the discussion comes up about Australia's useless submarine fleet.
Then we have those that want to continue under the fantasy that subs can be built here at home.
Those stating that off-the-shelf subs will not work, (due to the nonsense-need called "Australianisation" of the product)..guarantee a plan to have no subs.
The ASC, DMO, Navy and rent-seekers are a poisonous team that ensure failure by their own incompetence on managing the current 6 subs we have.
They do not deserve the taxpayer's trust when talking about submarines.
Off-the-shelf subs make it certain that we can have a continuous, skilled, crew capability. Off-the-shelf subs make it certain that the RAN has some submarine capability as opposed to none.
Not a hard choice if ones only goal is the defence of the nation.
-
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
5 comments:
Didnt HDW put out a design recently that was specifically aimed at producing a sub with the sort of tonnage and range class that the RAN (and regional players like India) is claiming it needs in any future "Australianized" sub? So really there is no need for this build it at home nonsense at all.
If you want to buy a 4000t sub off the shelf, now that the Japanese are selling I'll try asking them first. Not a matter of nationality (I'm nominally Japanese), but the tech doesn't always scale up well from 2000t (which is about as big as Germany ever built) to 4000t - this would seem to be one of the Collins lessons. AFAIK, those tricky Hemadoras worked just fine on the Swedish boats.
Since this will be their first sales, they'll be motivated to do well to break in the market.
Only concern is that the Japanese seem to use a lower level of automation (perhaps b/c of the American influence) than what HDW promises (the crew size is about half, which is a significant advantage for sub-crew starved Australia). If they are forced to modify the sub to use half the crew, you risk taking them out of their comfort zone.
But it isn't just 'defending the nation', it's also about keeping peoiple emnployed. Bigger Return on Investment if built poorly, at home.
@arkhangelsk: Japanese haven't decided to sell yet, but apparently are talking to Aus Navy. Could sell in the future. You are right though, probably best possible result.
@EP: Any thoughts on nuclear option?
Plenty of thoughts about nuclear. Just that none of them are workable in this political climate.
>>"Bigger Return on Investment if built poorly, at home."<<
Anon 11.59, I'm sure that will make the poor buggers crewing the boat feel all warm and fuzzy as they think about all those jobs (and votes) their sub-standard lemon provided if they (the crew) ever have to face up to an adversary armed with weapons chosen by someone whose first, second and third priorities were whether those weapons/ships/aircraft/systems were the best available, affordable - and WORKED.
The way we're going with Defence in this country, it's almost certain that some hapless Australian commander will find him/herself in a similar position to the Wirraway flight commander at Rabaul in early 1942. Before leading his half dozen locally produced version of a Harvard trainer to face hundreds vastly better performing Zeros, that man sent the gladiators' salute to RAAF HQ in Melbourne: "We who about to die, salute thee, Caesar".
We should not put any future leader in a similar situation.
Post a Comment