Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
F35B Would be the option if the Ausies decided to get into the carrier business again. F35A being better for ground based. I know they have a interest in F35A as a possible Hornet replacement. But am unsure about the F35B which is the only production VTOL supersonic platform in the world.
 

shen

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Tony Abbott: open tender means navy risks buying 'Vladimir Putin submarines'
Prime minister accuses Labor of wanting Russia or North Korea to build Australia’s next fleet of submarines by pushing for an open tender

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Submarine bid? Australia’s prime minister Tony Abbott has said Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, could win the contract to build submarines under an open tender. Photograph: Ria Novosti/Reuters
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, political correspondent

Wednesday 11 February 2015 01.22 EST
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has claimed the Labor opposition wants Russia or North Korea to build Australia’s next fleet of submarines and that it objects to Japanese involvement because of “antediluvian xenophobia” dating to the second world war.

The prime minister’s outburst during parliamentary question time on Wednesday followed days of confusion about the process the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
government would follow to decide on the submarine acquisition.

Abbott said the government would not pursue an open tender because that would allow anyone – including Russia or North Korea – to bid to be involved in the project.

“They don’t understand the difference between an open tender and an evaluation process – a competitive evaluation process,” he said in response to a question from the opposition leader, Bill Shorten.

“Do you know about an open tender? Anyone can compete. What the leader of the opposition wants – he wants anyone to be able to compete to provide Australia’s next generation of submarines. He might want the Russians to compete; the Putin-class subs is what we will get from the leader of the opposition.

“First of all, he attacks the Japanese in some bout of antediluvian xenophobia; he says that we can’t possibly have Japanese involvement in the submarine contract because of what happened in Sydney Harbour. Now he says you’ve got to have an open tender. We could have Kim Jong-il submarines,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
submarines.

“You cannot the trust the defence of this country with members opposite but you can with this government.”

The reference to “what happened in Sydney Harbour” appears to mean the 1942
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Shorten had asked whether the prime minister had promised the Liberal senator Sean Edwards a “full and open tender” –
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
– in order to secure support in the leadership spill vote.

0:00
/
0:00
Embed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Labor’s defence spokesman, Stephen Conroy, dismissed Abbott’s response as a “ridiculous accusation by an increasingly desperate prime minister who has been caught out trading submarines for votes to secure his leadership”.

It was not the first time Abbott had accused Shorten of xenophobia over the potential involvement of Japan in the next submarine fleet.

In September last year, Shorten visited government-owned shipbuilder ASC in Adelaide and said the issue was “all about Australian jobs, and it’s about keeping your word”.

“Torpedo Tony has torpedoed the Australian shipbuilding industry and Labor’s never going to stand for that,” Shorten said at the time.

Shorten delivered a stump speech to ASC workers in which he accused the government of “fighting for jobs in foreign countries, not our own” and jeopardising “our security as an island”.

“This is a government with a short memory,” Shorten said at the time. “In the second world war, 366 merchant ships were sunk off Australia, and the government in the 1930s said ‘we don’t need Australian ships, we’ll privatise them’. This is a government who forgets everything and learns nothing.”

On Wednesday, Abbott moved to defend the assurances he had given his South Australian colleagues last weekend before the Liberal leadership vote.

He said there was “a clarification of the government’s intention” in response to “some anxiety that ASC might in some way be cut out of the process”, but he had used the term “competitive evaluation process” rather than open tender.

Labor’s assistant defence spokesman, David Feeney, asked Abbott on Wednesday to clarify whether he had any agreement with the Japanese government or prime minister, Shinzo Abe, concerning the submarine project.

Abbott replied that the government was “exploring the potential for defence cooperation with Japan” and had “agreements for defence cooperation with Japan”.

“We are certainly talking to the Japanese about a whole range of defence cooperation, a whole range of defence procurement, but we are not just talking to the Japanese,” he said.

“We are talking to the French, we are talking to the Germans and we are talking to the Australian Submarine Corporation. That is what sensible governments do.”

Conroy rejected Abbott’s characterisation of Labor’s position on the submarine project.

Labor said it had made clear in November last year that it was calling for “a proper competitive tender process involving a funded project definition study”.

In a speech to the Submarine Institute of Australia, Conroy said the process Labor supported would include the government “inviting the big submarine design houses from around the world – the Germans, French, Swedes and Japanese – to participate”.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
JSF: So late and over-budget that we have had to acquire an entirely different platform in the interim -- originally on a temporary basis, now permanent.

12 submarines: entirely unaffordable, esp. from an operational/personnel cost perspective. Not to mention this idea was floated at a time when Australian couldn't even crew the submarines it had, and just before the government started cutting the defence budget!

F-35B: unnecessary, unaffordable, inadequate (to do anything we couldn't do without them) ego-aggrandisement project.

Soryu-from-Japan: throwing away hard-won and strategically valuable domestic industrial expertise to save a few bucks. The ultimate in short-sighted, non-strategic thinking.

Lethe, you seem to have some quite strong opinions regarding Australia's recent defense procurements, so what do you think about other major recent purchases?
Canberra class LHD, E-737 AEWC, Airbus tanker, and Hobart DDGs?

Personally I think those four products all make sense given Australia's budget and their needs. Canberra LHDs are useful for disaster relief and low intensity amphibious assault, AEWC and tanker are a necessity even for a small modern air force, and a modern air defence DDG has been long overdue. But all these projects I think have been procured in sensible numbers.
OTOH I do agree that 12 submarines to replace the 6 strong Collins class is very ambitious, and will have to result in a likely expansion of submarine crews. The requirement for 12 large ocean going SSKs also goes beyond the current limited open ocean operations by the RAN's submarines, and 12 submarines says to me that the RAN is looking to operate against a larger and more high tech navy than it currently is oriented towards -- China, namely. Which leads to the larger question, how do you think the ADF should react towards China?

The F-35 purchase is similar to the Collins class, in the sense that by the time orders are completed, it will lead to a net increase in strike fighter number compared to current and 2000s fighter numbers (at least 70 F-35As, up to 100 + 36 Super Hornets/Growlers post 2020 vs ~ 73 F-18A/Bs + 28 F-111Cs in the 2000s). The increase in the fighter fleet is not unreasonable, but I do think purchasing such a large number of F-35s might be excessive given the high unit cost of the JSF. They might be better off buying 70 Super Hornets/Growlers and 36 F-35As instead, or maybe even reducing the total fighter fleet number relative to 2000s, depending on how ADF defence budget goes.

At this stage I don't think F-35B is not being seriously considered by the Australian govt either.

The ADF obviously can't do a NZDF and completely retire their fighter aircraft fleet and reduce their navy down to a pair of frigates and a handful of OPVs (shed tear), however I do think Australia should choose its missions and requirements in greater detail. Really, the major reason 100 F-35s, 12 Collins replacement subs, would make sense, is if they want the potential to help the US contain China in a more vigorous manner than they are currently able to do.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Australian-Defence-Chief-Subs-Dont-Need-to-Be-Built-in-Australia.jpg

Naval Today said:
The Australian Government is considering an order of twelve new submarines to replace its ageing Collins subs.

However, the Government is still not 100 percent sure where these new vessel will be built.
Currently the Japanese Soryu class subs are leading the race as favorites, but the final decision on this project could be announced mid-year, as part of the new Defence White paper.

According to the Australian Associated Press, Australia’s Defence Chief Mark Binskin commented that more focus should be put on timely delivery of the appropriate vessels, than on where they will be built. He added that building the submarines in Australia might not necessarily be in the best interest for the project. ABC News quoted Binskin as saying:

Binskin said:
I don’t believe you have to build to be able to sustain in the country.

Binskin’s main concern is that, if the project gets held up, the country could lose its defence capacity.

This venture, the largest and most complex Defence procurement, will presumably cost anywhere between $20 billion and $40 billion.

The existing six Collins class submarines are expected to start retiring sometime in the next ten years.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Here is an opinion piece suggesting other wise.
1424129941677.jpg

Abbott's plunge into submarine market is a risk we cannot afford

The Prime Minister's submarine adventure with our tax dollars, which doesn't follow due process, is the biggest captain's pick yet.

Last week Tony Abbott did not just back away from promises allegedly made to South Australian back-benchers. He stood up in Parliament and mocked the idea of choosing our new submarines through a competitive tender process. That makes it clearer than ever that he intends to sign an agreement with Japan just as soon as he can, without seriously considering the alternatives.

This is the biggest captain's pick of them all – in the dollars involved, in the consequences of getting it wrong, and in the lack of elementary due diligence in making really momentous national decisions. There is simply no precedent in Australia for a defence decision of such importance to be made so irresponsibly.

Japan builds fine submarines but there are major doubts that they are the best bet for us, and there is no way we can be sure without a rigorous competition against the other possibilities...... to read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
There is no doubt some kind of evaluation process needs to happen for reasons of political expediency; due diligence ; and accountability to the different stakeholders.

The problem I see is that Tony Abbott needs to show leadership by quickly outlining the framwework and process so that he can shape and proactively manage the conversation rather than being dictated by the conversation because of a lack of direction.
 
just found
Japan willing to partner with ASC on subs
Japan has signalled a willingness to sell submarines to Australia that could be at least partly built in Adelaide.

It's welcome news for the prime minister who came under pressure in last week's leadership ballot from his South Australian colleagues over the issue.

When Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met last year, Japan was clearly the Australian Prime Minister's preference for one of Australia's biggest ever defence deals.

A deal with Japan would represent an important show of deeper security ties between the two nations and an active demonstration of Japan's new stronger regional military posture.

The new fleet of up to 12 submarines to replace Australia's Collins Class will be worth between $20 and $40 billion.

In response to Opposition accusations of a secret deal between the two leaders, Sky News has been told there is no agreement in place.

The decision has been complicated by domestic political pressure on Tony Abbott after he agreed to open the door to the Australian Submarine Corporation to bid for the project.

Under any future deal the ASC is likely to partner with a foreign supplier.

Sky News understands Japan is willing to partner with the ASC even though this would require sharing sensitive military technology in an unprecedented manner.

Japan has expressed it doesn't favour a tender or a competitive evaluation process in which it would compete against European companies.

Instead, the clear preference would be for Australia to make a decision in favour of Japan before the Abe government decides how much of the build and the technology it is willing to share.

- See more at:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
The Sky news report quoted the following :
"Japan has expressed it doesn't favour a tender or a competitive evaluation process in which it would compete against European companies.

Instead, the clear preference would be for Australia to make a decision in favour of Japan before the Abe government decides how much of the build and the technology it is willing to share."

Tony Abbot might be able to get away with an open tender but at a minimum a competitive evaluation process needs to take place simply for transparency, accountability and due diligence.

Ideally compettitve bids would be solicited on (1) an entirely off shore build; and (2) a hybrid with local particpation (ASC) to ensure jobs and through life support eventually. If the Abbot government is in favor of Japan, the best it can do is to structure the hybrid bidding scenario according to a pre-agreed structure with Japan. The notion of Japan deciding on how much to share in build and technology after the decision is not going to work even if that is how it is done in Japan. This is an example of culture difference and potentially the difficulties why Japan as a partner is a concern.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Instead, the clear preference would be for Australia to make a decision in favour of Japan before the Abe government decides how much of the build and the technology it is willing to share."

Tony Abbot might be able to get away with an open tender but at a minimum a competitive evaluation process needs to take place simply for transparency, accountability and due diligence.

Ideally compettitve bids would be solicited on (1) an entirely off shore build; and (2) a hybrid with local particpation (ASC) to ensure jobs and through life support eventually. If the Abbot government is in favor of Japan, the best it can do is to structure the hybrid bidding scenario according to a pre-agreed structure with Japan. The notion of Japan deciding on how much to share in build and technology after the decision is not going to work even if that is how it is done in Japan. This is an example of culture difference and potentially the difficulties why Japan as a partner is a concern.

That is not what Japan is saying and you should know what they mean if you been following the news.
“If we are asked that’s not a problem, but we can’t really be seen to be going out and actively pursuing a deal,” the source told Reuters, echoing comments Japanese sources have previously made about taking part in an open tender.
This comment had been taken up by various news service.
 

Brumby

Major
That is not what Japan is saying and you should know what they mean if you been following the news.

This comment had been taken up by various news service.

I think it is the main reason why Abbot is against open tender but a competitive evaluation is a minimum because anything less is political untenable for the Abbot government. A competitive bid in my view is no more than a formalised outline of what Japan has to offer. I think the challenge is to reconcile the two ends of the pole for both governments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top