'Defense' Minister David Johnson sinks his own boat.

[Mofra]

We should have been building and designing them ourselves for years, we should have a built a competitive advantage when it came to long range diesel-electric submersible technology.

Nice in theory, but in practice the Russians spent well over 10 years trying to build a top-line fully integrated weapons and intelligence system into their attack subs, and hadn't succeeded only a few short years ago (can't comment on the past few years). This is one of the biggest manufacturers in the world with a history of sub development - we can't undersell just how difficult capital military projects are, and only a few years ago less than 4% of projects over $500m were delivered on time and on budget.
We couldn't even integrate the Penguin System into the Seasprite helicopters and had to can $1bn of military spending because of it.

Are we self restricting the use of nuclear powered technology?
If so then we are artificially altering the margins for what is acceptable while potentially tying our own shoes together on final output.
Ie. (mythical example) all our tanks have to be hybrids so we can only choose to buy the 5th best option by output which happens to be the second most expensive too.

We are idiots when it comes to acquisition - buying 62 tonne tanks that serve no likely immediate military need which are to be based in the top end, surrounded by bridges that are only rated to 50 tonnes was one of my favourites.

Regardless of the merits of nuclear technology when it comes to range (virtually infinite, limited by food more than energy) the first rule of policy making (and by proxy, acquisition) is that it is inherently political. No party will have the political capital to acquire nuclear technology for sea-power when you consider consistent declines in the two-parties' share of votes at every successive federal election since 75 (before we consider regional complications and even ANZUS issues).

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Nice in theory, but in practice the Russians spent well over 10 years trying to build a top-line fully integrated weapons and intelligence system into their attack subs, and hadn't succeeded only a few short years ago (can't comment on the past few years). This is one of the biggest manufacturers in the world with a history of sub development - we can't undersell just how difficult capital military projects are, and only a few years ago less than 4% of projects over $500m were delivered on time and on budget.
We couldn't even integrate the Penguin System into the Seasprite helicopters and had to can $1bn of military spending because of it.

Just investing in diesel and diesel-electric technology would have been good, there are a range of applications for it.

If any nation could benefit from developing diesel engines that are more efficient, compact, robust and that can operated over long ranges it would be us.

Imagine our 62 tonne tanks having their powerplant replaced by an engine that is smaller, lighter, more robust and efficient with a longer range and bringing the tonnage back down to 50 tonnes (a bit of an exaggeration) but having improved performance.

 

[madmug]

Nowhere near as effective - especially from an intelligence gathering perspective (something our Sub fleet do almost continuously, now).

I simply wonder how we're going to crew 10 subs considering we can't crew 6 currently. Range issues with the Jap subs are also a major concern - spending billions on equipment that wont; do what we need them to do, given the range we require is unique to our circumstances as a low/mid range power with an enormous coastline.

Again, if we rationalise our real defense needs, rather than buy every expensive bloody tank & plane toy the idiots in Canberra think we would like to have, then we might get somewhere.
I argue our navy is THE service we need most. The subs are THE most vital defense asset. Then we can direct more of the best people into that service.
Collins class subs have a compliment of 58. I guess the 10 newer subs might need a few less, say 50. Thats 500 plus replacement & training crews, say 1000 as an absolute maximum total if we are at war readiness. That should be achievable. You would only have 2-5 of these at sea at any one time in peacetime anyway.
With 2 Canberra class, 3 Hobart AWD & some frigates, that a handy Naval force for defense & projecting to our neighbours if they need help.

 

[Mofra]

Just investing in diesel and diesel-electric technology would have been good, there are a range of applications for it.

If any nation could benefit from developing diesel engines that are more efficient, compact, robust and that can operated over long ranges it would be us.

Imagine our 62 tonne tanks having their powerplant replaced by an engine that is smaller, lighter, more robust and efficient with a longer range and bringing the tonnage back down to 50 tonnes (a bit of an exaggeration) but having improved performance.

Nice in theory - but we have the most anti-development government (arguably, ever) in Canberra at the moment slashing CSIRO jobs (we dontl; even have a science minister) and a defence Minister openly slandering our own defence building capacity. It's really a long, long way off.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Yes why on earth would a defence minister demand the best defence outcome from taxpayer $'s?

He never has before

 

[madmug]

Nice in theory - but we have the most anti-development government (arguably, ever) in Canberra at the moment slashing CSIRO jobs (we dontl; even have a science minister) and a defence Minister openly slandering our own defence building capacity. It's really a long, long way off.

Those situations alone make you wonder what this Gument is up to. I've heard of dumbing down the population, but this is ridiculous. Who's side are they on?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Nice in theory - but we have the most anti-development government (arguably, ever) in Canberra at the moment slashing CSIRO jobs (we dontl; even have a science minister) and a defence Minister openly slandering our own defence building capacity. It's really a long, long way off.

That is my point it's what we should have been doing over the last 50 year's our allies should be coming to us for the knowledge and experience not us going to them.

 

[madmug]

That is my point it's what we should have been doing over the last 50 year's our allies should be coming to us for the knowledge and experience not us going to them.

Its said that 'You get the Goverment you deserve',

How true!!

 

[AM]

Rumours have been rife for sometime that the Mad Monk and his cohorts have wanted to dice the unpopular Johnson for sometime. The motor mouth might just have signed his own death warrant.

 

[Mofra]

Those situations alone make you wonder what this Gument is up to. I've heard of dumbing down the population, but this is ridiculous. Who's side are they on?

Just feeds into a long running anti-information agenda.
Anti-education, restrictive university placements & reductions in tech training, slash ABC/SBS funding, slash CSIRO funding, reduce connectivity policies (not just NBN), attempts at internet censorship. It's a consistent narrative.

 

[Maggie5]

I note he can't even apologise, he can only regret if anyone took offence.
I find it strange that governments complain about delays and over-cost when it is a government organisation and is managed by a board the government chose.
I am sure that Sophie brought across a lot of expertise.

 

[Pie eyed]

Just another of Abbott's incompetent morons.

 

[carnthemlions]

Things are looking up for the govt, no one actually knows who David Johnston is anyway. Maybe they can claim they're just following the lead of the US again.

Just feeds into a long running anti-information agenda.
Anti-education, restrictive university placements & reductions in tech training, slash ABC/SBS funding, slash CSIRO funding, reduce connectivity policies (not just NBN), attempts at internet censorship. It's a consistent narrative.

Who needs innovation anyway? It's not like it has anything to do with economic growth.

 

[madmug]

Why is it such a problem for politicians to just say 'sorry, I apologise'. Whats this 'regret if offense is taken' bullshit all about?
I dont care who it is, thats not a contrition. It sounds false & makes the person look cheap & sneaky. No wonder we have such a low view of our Politicians.
If you really are sorry for an out burst, just apologise & move on. Thats the adult thing to do.

The ASC is a GBE. The Gument have the say on the management board. Why is it all about blaming Unions etc for the difficulties in the place? It all starts with management. Maybe the organisation should be privatised. If Gument havent got the balls to make the place work properly then sell it. Its all about keeping the jobs & expertise here. We dont need to keep exporting jobs.

 

[Taylor]

It might be to do with an acceptance of liability from an apology, opening up the individual and the organization they represent to damages litigation.

It's not called coward's castle for no reason.

 

[Maggie5]

It might be to do with an acceptance of liability from an apology, opening up the individual and the organization they represent to damages litigation.

It's not called coward's castle for no reason.

Yes, but it is Government company, under his portfolio, who is going to sue?

 

[Taylor]

Yes, but it is Government company, under his portfolio, who is going to sue?

The right side of politics is all about hands off government so I wouldn't be surprised to see ASC suing the government for potential loss of income from those statements, assuming they do work for other clients other than the Australian Government.

 

[madmug]

It might be to do with an acceptance of liability from an apology, opening up the individual and the organization they represent to damages litigation.

It's not called coward's castle for no reason.

Ok, but its cheap & nasty. Anyway his comment was just a cheap insult. It caused no loss or had any costs associated with it. IF hed just said 'sorry & I apologise' it would have cut off any real continuation of embarrassment. Yes he would have looked silly but he would have deflated his detractors then & there.
The real issue is why did he say it?

 

[Gough]

Rhetorical flourish my elegant posterior. This was all about laying the groundwork to offshore the building of subs.

 

[Taylor]

Ok, but its cheap & nasty. Anyway his comment was just a cheap insult. It caused no loss or had any costs associated with it. IF hed just said 'sorry & I apologise' it would have cut off any real continuation of embarrassment. Yes he would have looked silly but he would have deflated his detractors then & there.
The real issue is why did he say it?

I think he is in a position to both;

Know all the gritty details about how the company and just how good or poorly they operate.
Through his words cause the other potential clients of the company to think again about contracting them to do their work, due to the above point.

 

[madmug]

Rhetorical flourish my elegant posterior. This was all about laying the groundwork to offshore the building of subs.

Thats what I was thinking. I mean why else would he say such a unnecessarily inflammatory & stupid thing. If these geese export any more jobs then they deserve to be impeached by the GG.
As Abbortt has said, 'Let the people decide'.

 

[Taylor]

What if they couldn't organise a beer in a brewery?

Referring to the company, not the government.

 

[Power Raid]

mmm.....the Senator Xenophon standing behind an opinion of convenience and misleading the public?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-new-submarines/story-e6frg8yo-1227141998416

Senator Xenophon accused the government of disregarding the evidence to parliament of two Australian shipbuilding experts, John White and Paul Greenfield, who claimed Australia could produce a domestic submarine within 12 years without a capability gap.

He said the Collins-class was built from a Swedish design over nine years between 1987 and 1996, and the Italians built a German-designed submarine over eight years between 1998 and 2006.





mmmm.....and when did the replacement for the Oberon class start? in 1987? no theat was went construction started

http://www.submarineinstitute.com/submarines-in-australia/The-RAN-Oberon-Class.html



and from our wiki friends

Planning for a new class to replace the RAN's Oberon-class submarines began in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Proposals were received from seven companies; two were selected for a funded study to determine the winning design, which was announced in mid-1987. The submarines, an enlarged version of Swedish shipbuilder Kockums' Västergötland class and originally referred to as the Type 471, were constructed between 1990 and 2003 in South Australia by the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC).

 

[Power Raid]

This report was commissioned in 2001 - http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...s/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP03

it is worth a read

 

[Freo2012]

I don't think our current sub's are anywhere near the failure that many like to make out. We may have had development and other problems, but in comparison to long term established sub builders we actually did far better given this was our maiden operation in sub building. We have developed some significant expertise and capability as a result and I think it would be stupid not to progress this much further with the next boat chosen (ie not buy off the shelf from elsewhere), and to extend that technology for our economic betterment where possible (it needn't be limited to industry directly relating to these boats).

I think everyone should also be aware of the "pressures" that are exerted on some of our military (and some politicians) to buy expensive "toys" from certain places - easy to guess why. We have a bit of a history of this, and to having overpriced toys that don't meet our needs, only others needs under their direction. Given our position on nuclear power there have been a few real opportunities that Australia could have taken major technological advancements in diesel tech in the past (which would massively help our industry / economy) but alas the powers that be do like to bend over to their "masters".