JOURNALIST: So it seems like a very much British-lead relationship, as you’ve been talking about procurement. What does Australia bring to this relationship that Britain perceives?
PHILIP HAMMOND: Well, on the frigates program our requirements for frigates, I think, yours would be around-do you have a number?
STEPHEN SMITH: Frigates?
PHILIP HAMMOND: Yeah.
STEPHEN SMITH: Half a dozen, six.
PHILIP HAMMOND: Half a dozen. We have a requirement for about 13, so clearly if you’re planning to build a program of 19 frigates you have a lot more potential economies of scale in that, and we will both benefit from those economies of scale.
And we wonder why Defence is so stupid. 8 Frigates were not enough and now they will be replaced by 6?
Unfortunate because these ships will be more useful than expensive-to-operate-and-crew Air Warfare Destroyers which I assume pick up the slack as a mix?
Hat-tip: SR
Also of interest:
Indonesia to buy frigates from Britain
3 comments:
This seems more about cementing a somewhat already entrenched position for BAE Systems in domination of Australian defence industry. Just consider the projects from which they already bleed hundreds of millions of dollars from Australia and particularly those that have been ineptly conducted; like the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier upgrade program and the AWD. Several former politicians and military chiefs have been/are connected with BAE Systems (formerly Tenix).
We are doing our best to catch up with New Zealand.
Eric; note these latest comments attributed to General Hurley, CDF:
General Hurley said Labor's decision to cut $5.5bn from the defence budget over the next four years would not affect the ability of the Defence Force to prepare, deploy and sustain operations. But he said: "We will come into tension, as we always do when you move budget money. . . between retaining capabilities that age and degrade and replacing those - and then sitting underneath that keeping the ADF at the appropriate preparedness."
The Royal Australian Navy is in a diabolical mess and unlikely to be adequately remediated for years. If it cannot adequately maintain and man existing assets, then it would make no sense to plan on the same number of types in service for particular roles; assuming of course they have the right mix of platforms at present, which is dubious.
The big arms conglomerates are pricing new hardware beyond the affordable capacity of most nations and the costs of operating such up-market stuff are soaring. It is inevitable in my view that defence planners will have to rationalise their force structures and prioritise capabilities to get best result for the taxpayer dollar.
The present lobbying by the Brits renewing interest East of Suez might be seen as sort of reinvigorating 'colonialism'. Many of them have been emigrating to South Australia for years and both Australian major political parties are pushing to expand defence industry in that State, especially regarding naval requirements in which BAE Systems has become more involved.
Post a Comment