James Brown, military fellow at the Lowy Institute, says our neighbours to the north are making strides in acquiring submarine fleets - not just big players such as China and Japan but also Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam.
Yes but they do not have a destructive DMO-ASC cabal which causes rent-seeking as a goal and dud projects as a natural product.
"In 20 years' time there are going to be a lot more submarines in the region. We have to respond to that in some way and that means having a decent submarine fleet of our own."
Because the sub fleet we have is an expensive laughing stock. And so is the replacement. Curious how James thinks this will be funded, assuming no problems with the program?
They are also an effective deterrent to protect Australia itself, he says. If Australia were threatened, it could use its long-range submarines to launch land-attack cruise missiles at the aggressor's homeland. Then there are intelligence missions - submarines are good for sitting quietly and listening, but only if they have the range and endurance to travel far and wide.
"Calling Dr. Dunning...Calling Dr. Kruger...". Well let us see. Our current junk submarine fleet is no deterrent...the days that they work. The mission set described above (note: the faulty SEA1000 project) is that of a U.S. Virginia-class nuke attack sub. Don't see that happening.
Or as Andrew Davies, a leading submarine scholar at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, puts it, submarines are what you use when you want to take the war up to the enemy. Nazi Germany couldn't match the British and US navies on the surface, but the legendary German U-boat took the fight right up to the east coast of the US.
"Submarines are not crocodiles you leave in the moat," he says.
Not a moat. In Australia, submarines have more familiarity tied up to a dock or maintenance yard. Hint to the "scholar". Germany lost two world wars. It was in part air power that closed the Atlantic gap by the middle of 1943. Thus, putting Germany's sub success on a downward trend. Losses on an upward trend. They also had more than 6 submarines. Or even 12. None of their munitions costs $1M each like a Tomahawk.
What is the best way to deliver long range stand off missiles? Aircraft. Rinse and repeat daily. Better?
Ballistic missiles with precision warheads.
The smart money seems to be on the evolved Collins. ASPI's Davies calls it ''sort of a no-brainer''. Defence Minister David Johnston was quoted in media reports this week as saying the evolved Collins was the ''leading option'' - though his office afterwards played down the remarks.
On the topic of the current fraud: smart-money, submarines and Australia have no proven connection. No-brainer is the dominate quality of the players in this sham.
Now for the extra spin:
It might all sound strange to the average Australian taxpayer who's been reading for years about the Collins' many flaws and annual support costs thought to be about $500 million.
But experts both inside and outside Defence say that, after years of repairs and adjustments, the Collins is now a formidable submarine. The combat system and sensors have been fixed, though the propulsion system still needs work. In recent weeks, the ASC - formerly the Australian Submarine Corporation, the government company set up to build and sustain the Collins - has cut open the hull of one boat to completely remove the engine, so it can be thoroughly overhauled.
As you read this, three Collins are at sea, which meets the benchmark for 50per cent of the fleet being operational at a given time. That's a success.
Given the history of the program, do not be surprised if these "bench-marks" are rigged.
The rest of the article is gold-plated rent-seeking and hopes of extorting more money out of the taxpayer. The "reporter" even drags in the popular but inaccurate claim that Defence spending somehow needs to be 2 percent of GDP. So far this only qualifies as a bad Internet meme. The alleged, taxpayer funded Defence "experts" do not understand that in an entitlement society, Defence gets what they get as a percentage of the existing federal budget after every other nanny-state program gets funded. Paying people to breed, you name it.
More? 2 percent or 1 percent, our current Defence structure is spendthrift and incompetent when it comes to use of our money. Giving a substance abuser more money doesn't magically make things better.
What "sounds strange to the average taxpayer" is how the government steals money from them for no return on the
With no obvious change on the horizon.
---
Looking at Australia's submarine options
---
-New Defence White Paper fails to address Australia's core security needs
-2009 Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-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
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy
-ADF cost per flying hour
-Illegal boat-people problem update
-Vacancy
-Put Vol 2 Report of DLA Piper Review into the light of day
-Rory and Jim
-Parasitism as an Abstraction for Organizational Dysfunctions
-Hobart-class "Air Warfare Destroyer" to be fielded with obsolete radar guidance technology
No comments:
Post a Comment