Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Push to axe Collins subs now, buy European
Aussiegunneragain    10/7/2010 12:44:07 AM
A RADICAL plan is being pushed by a group of senior Australian submariners. It is to retire two Collins-class submarines immediately and fast-track the purchase of four ready-made submarines from Europe. The proposal, which has been sent to both the federal government and the opposition, reflects growing concern among some former senior naval officers that the government's plan to build 12 of the world's most sophisticated conventional submarines is flawed and unrealistic. The proposal comes after Treasury last week urged the federal government to buy more off-the-shelf weaponry. The former submariners say that Australia cannot afford to wait until 2025 for the new submarines and must take urgent action to buy off-the-shelf submarines from Europe to progressively replace the under-performing Collins-class fleet. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage No-show by subs slammed The Australian, 5 Aug 2010 It's up to us, says Collins sub boss The Australian, 4 Jul 2010 We all lose if we buy subs off the shelf The Australian, 4 Jul 2010 Torpedo a $400m embarrassment Adelaide Now, 20 May 2010 SA chases submarine billions Adelaide Now, 31 Jan 2010 End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. "Australia should rapidly acquire four locally built military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) submarines to address the submarine availability issue and address the growing capability gap between the Collins-class submarines and the modern submarines proliferating throughout the region," said Rex Patrick, a former submariner who assists the navy in undersea warfare training and who has authored the proposal. "The Collins-class submarine program has been an unmitigated failure and two of the submarines should be decommissioned immediately (the HMAS Rankin and HMAS Collins) -- they are not available anyway, there are no crews for them and maintaining them is placing an ever increasing burden on the navy's budget." The Rudd government's defence white paper committed to building 12 large, sophisticated submarines in Australia to replace the six Collins-class boats from the mid-2020s. The plan to build 12 large homegrown submarines has been costed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute at more than $36 billion, making it the nation's largest ever military project. The government says it is still committed to the controversial plan, but there is growing debate in the defence community about whether such a large, complex and time-consuming project makes strategic and economic sense. Mr Patrick argues it would be cheaper and easier for Australia to purchase proven off-the-shelf submarines from Europe, such as the German Type 214 or French Scorpenes, rather than try to build a new generation of unique, homegrown submarines like the Collins. He said a military off-the-shelf submarine would meet Australia's strategic needs at a fraction of the cost of building a new class of Australian submarine. Under his plan, the first boat of an initial batch of four MOTS submarines would be operational for the navy within five years and the remaining three in under eight years. The first batch would be supplemented by two more batches of similar, but perhaps modified, design in the years ahead.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Old Codger       10/13/2010 5:12:38 PM
Why bother?
 
We can't even crew 2 of the 6 we already have!
 
The socialists should have bought 4x American nuclear attack subs in the first place, but of course that is against the socialist dogma.
 
Best part of NINE BILLION $$$$s  down the drain.
 
 
OC

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/13/2010 7:47:24 PM
Are you suggesting we move away from USN (FMS) sourced systems and go for European systems unproven in our region?

Are you suggesting that we limit ourselves to one buyer rather than reviewing all options to test whether or not they work?
 
These guys are professionals and experts in the field, they do not all agree but that is a good thing.  Would you rather the board be made up of arm chair experts and academics who all sing the same tune irrespective of capability we actually require, based on the premise they have no relationship with the industry?

From the statement in response to the comment it looks like these guys pretty much sing to the same tune to me, Australian build and uniquely designed to Australian requirements, which fits in with the commercial interests of the majority of the committee. 

Umm, Thales supply the sonar for the COLLINS class.
 
Ok, so does Sonartech Atlas supply equipment for the Collins class or not?

 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   10/13/2010 7:52:16 PM
I have no problem with an industry association acting as an industry association and lobbying governments, that is what they are paid by their members to do. I merely point out that their commercial interests mean that they should be taken with about 50,000 grains of salt when it comes to matters like their response to this comment by Patrick.
 
The only thing that I do take issue with is that they call themselves an institute. That gives connotations of independent analysis, when they are clearly a partisan industry body. I consider it to be a disingenuous title.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/13/2010 9:41:16 PM


The only thing that I do take issue with is that they call themselves an institute. That gives connotations of independent analysis, when they are clearly a partisan industry body. I consider it to be a disingenuous title.


which is the problem I have with ASPI..  it's masquerading as an independant entity when its not independantly funded and they also don't have access to relevant material

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/14/2010 9:10:46 PM





The only thing that I do take issue with is that they call themselves an institute. That gives connotations of independent analysis, when they are clearly a partisan industry body. I consider it to be a disingenuous title.







which is the problem I have with ASPI..  it's masquerading as an independant entity when its not independantly funded and they also don't have access to relevant material






Interesting, who funds it?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/14/2010 10:39:09 PM


Interesting, who funds it?
govt provides support costs

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/15/2010 12:11:42 AM





Interesting, who funds it?


govt provides support costs




I've looked up the governance arrangements for ASPI and it appears to me that while it is government funded, the measures to ensure that the advice is independent are about as strong as you are going to get. Anybody who considers a university or the Productivity Commission to be reasonably independent should have no problem with the way this thing is set up. At the very least it provides an alternative voice to defence and industry. Here are the governance arrangements.
 

Who is ASPI?

  • ASPI is an independent, non-partisan policy institute. It has been set up by the government to provide fresh ideas on Australia's defence and strategic policy choices.
  • ASPI is charged with the task of informing the public on strategic and defence issues, generating new ideas for government, and fostering strategic expertise in Australia
  • It aims to help Australians understand the critical strategic choices which our country will face over the coming years, and will help government make better-informed decisions.

History of ASPI

  • The Howard Government was keen to promote contestability in policy advice. While it already existed in many sectors, Ministers were concerned that alternative policy advice was less easily found for defence and security issues.
  • The Government agreed to establish a small government owned but independent and non-partisan organisation to make independent inputs into defence policy development.
  • In 2000 Ministers agreed that ASPI would be established as:
    • A company limited by guarantee under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act), wholly owned by the Commonwealth;
    • It would be funded for between $2.1 and $3.0 million for the first seven years of operation from within the budget of the Department of Defence;
    • It would be governed by a board of distinguished Australians; 
    • It would be non-partisan with two of the board members being the personal nominees of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition;
    • The Secretaries of the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade would serve on the board ex-officio.
  • In mid 2001 Ministers appointed the first ASPI board (the Council). 
  • The Prime Minister also advised that the remuneration for Directors and the CEO would be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 
  • These steps were completed and ASPI was incorporated as a company on 22 August 2001.
  • The Council met for the first time on 29 August 2001.  They considered a number of issues relating to the establishment of the Institute, how it would operate and, based on an earlier executive search, agreed to appoint Hugh White as CEO (the Director).
  • In considering how the Institute might operate, Ministers envisaged that:
    • The Institute would maintain a very small permanent staff, and would rely primarily on short-term contracts, secondments and similar arrangements for research work;
    • The CEO (Director) would be responsible for much of the day to day running of the Institute, and would need to be a figure of significant standing;
    • The Institute would not publish views in its own name, but provide a forum for the publication of the views of the authors of its publications;
    • That in addition t
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2010 3:37:26 AM

one for Volk...  welcome to CEAFAR

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachments/navy-maritime/royal-australian-navy-discussions-updates-4267d1287119157-033.jpg" alt="" width="2047" height="1535" />

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/royal-australian-navy-discussions-updates-5905/#post204920" alt="" />

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2010 3:43:37 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/15/2010 7:48:49 AM
That mast would look good on an LHD, especially if there were some Mk 41s as well.
 
What would be interesting is a similar set up being fitted to the eventual replacements for Success and Sirius.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics