"Australia to produce its own guided missiles" Topic
20 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleYou wanted more photos of the Santa Claws Gang? Here is Santa and two of his companions.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Nick Bowler | 30 Mar 2021 5:25 p.m. PST |
Australia will move to produce its own guided missiles under a $1 USD billion plan to establish a new weapons facility with a global arms manufacturer. Prime Minister Scott Morrison will unveil the plan later today but is warning the "changing global environment" highlights the need to create the sovereign capability. "As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, having the ability for self-reliance, be it vaccine development or the defence of Australia, is vital to meeting our own requirements in a changing global environment," he said. link From ABC News. (Australia Broadcasting Corporation) |
arealdeadone | 30 Mar 2021 5:40 p.m. PST |
Goods news except I'd rather have this money spent on ramping up key industrial capability that we need to keep the country functional in a crisis. Eg oil refining Australia had 8 oil refineries at start of 21st century. It is now down to 2 with largest ones being closed. Of the two remaining oil refineries, one is under review. link link Weapons are useless if their delivery systems are grounded because someone turned off the gas!
|
Archon64 | 30 Mar 2021 5:44 p.m. PST |
Hopefully not another Work For The Dole project located in a marginal seat to secure votes. Also, a pity the same thinking could not have been applied to our new submarines. |
arealdeadone | 30 Mar 2021 6:28 p.m. PST |
Yeah new sub program is a disaster. It was estimated at "over" $10 USD billion initially in 2010 then $25 USD billion by 2014, then $50 USD billion, then now $89 USD billion AND THAT'S WITHOUT A SINGLE BOLT BEING MANUFACTERD! And by all accounts they're expecting further cost increases as the project choofs along. No one seems to know what's going on – the French think most will be built in France, the Australians want them built in Australia. So many technical questions remain unanswered. And by some accounts the boats will be obsolete by the time they enter service in 2030 (with last to be delivered by 2050 by which time they are well and truly obsolete!). Should have just brought Japanese Soryus for $25 USD billion. Best conventional attack subs in service.
|
Thresher01 | 30 Mar 2021 7:47 p.m. PST |
How many subs are you buying? Better build them quick before the costs increase exponentially again. Yep, those Soryu class subs are very impressive. |
Tgerritsen | 30 Mar 2021 7:59 p.m. PST |
May I humbly recommend that the missile be named the ‘Boomerang?' |
arealdeadone | 30 Mar 2021 8:49 p.m. PST |
How many subs are you buying?Better build them quick before the costs increase exponentially again. 12 are planned (currently 6 Collins in service).
First metal for first boat is meant to be cut in 2024 with commissioning around 2030 assuming everything goes to plan (which it apparently isn't as many aspects of contract have not been finalised apparently). Cost now is over AUD$7 billion per boat compared to AUD$1.68 billion for a Soryu (12 in service and AUD$1.46 billion for a Swedish A26 (also a paper boat at the moment).
Government was threatening to scrap agreement though this appears to have been a negotiating tactic: link EDIT also Japan has already launched the first of their new Taigei boats with commissioning expected in 2022 and second and third boats of 7 planned will be commissioned in 2023 and 2024 .
|
arealdeadone | 30 Mar 2021 9:01 p.m. PST |
Good article on Australia's sub program. link |
David Manley | 31 Mar 2021 1:36 a.m. PST |
"Cost now is over AUD$7 billion per boat" You could just about buy a QE class carrier plus air group for that :) |
Dal Gavan | 31 Mar 2021 2:24 a.m. PST |
Dawnguard, that's exactly what it will end up being- another pork barrel. Just like the sub's, basing 7RAR at Edinburgh, the fight between WA and SA over who gets to do sub maintenance, Cairns getting the ACPB support contract, etc ad nauseum. While the only interest in the major parties is being in government then it's unlikely to change. The same with selling off resources and infrastructure (anyone here remember when Commonwealth Oil Refineries hadn't been sold off, to reference ARDO's point, and petrol prices were controlled?)- if it can bring in the baksheesh and the odd quid for the next pork barrel, then it's for sale. (Yes, I know what "baksheesh" is and used it accordingly.) |
Wargamer Blue | 31 Mar 2021 4:09 a.m. PST |
Gearing up for inevitable war with China. |
nsolomon99 | 31 Mar 2021 1:26 p.m. PST |
I would've thought the Japanese option was clearly the winner. Stupid people making stupid decisions. The Navy are incompetent at choosing suppliers. My taxes at work. |
Thresher01 | 01 Apr 2021 8:06 a.m. PST |
Clearly, things are well out of hand, and it definitely sounds like the entire "deal" should be scrapped, and revisited, and/or renegotiated. 12 subs sounds like a nice, round number, but I'm not sure how your navy will man/woman those, since from what I've read, due to a lack of interest, and perhaps low pay, and "sub-par" working conditions (my poor term for relating what I've read) the navy can't recruit or provide more than 3 crews for the 6 subs you have already. If that is still the case, then I'm floored as to why they would consider increasing the number of vessels so sharply, since unlike some things, I can't imagine vessels floating on/in salt water can be preserved until needed. Perhaps they can drydock them, but again, that seems a terrible waste, since tech will only improve as time marches on. I should think someone in the navy, and/or politics would stand up and call for reason to prevail, since I can't imagine a non-nuclear, Australian/French(?) build boat will be 4X better than the Soryu, or A26 class. That's getting into the price range of a US-built nuke boat, which has far greater performance and capabilities than a conventional D.E., or even AIP sub. Where's Mal Wright when we need him? I just may need to ping him on Facebook about this. |
Thresher01 | 01 Apr 2021 8:23 a.m. PST |
March, 2021: link $90 USD+ BILLION now, according to the latest article I ran across above. I just saw info about the new Taigei last night, but not much info on the design. I was rather shocked that after spending so much time and money to create and build it, that it will be just used as a "test-bed" and not be an armed, combat-ready submarine. Makes me wonder what drove that decision, and how Japan can afford to do that. |
Dal Gavan | 01 Apr 2021 11:50 a.m. PST |
Thresher, but I'm not sure how your navy will man/woman those, since from what I've read, due to a lack of interest, and perhaps low pay, and "sub-par" working conditions (my poor term for relating what I've read) the navy can't recruit or provide more than 3 crews for the 6 subs you have already. It doesn't make sense, does it? Unless you look at it from the political point of view. 12 boats creates lots of jobs, for a long time, in a state there aren't many jobs to be had (due to industry moving off shore or being bought, gutted and folded by foreign companies). New jobs means there may be votes to be won. And it's only tax-payer money being wasted- there's always more of that to be had. I could go on, but as it is I could get the sack for what I've written, even if I haven't breached the OSA. Mind you, come July I'll probably retire (again) anyway- you can't fight parliamentary "interest" in Oz. And is Oz really that different from the US, UK or even France (the French president is still talking about all the jobs the new sub's will bring to France)? |
Thresher01 | 02 Apr 2021 8:30 a.m. PST |
I really hope you don't have to worry about being sacked for stating your opinion, but these are very strange and sad times we live in. I get the whole "national jobs program", but if you can do the same and get "more bang for your buck" so much the better. Seems to me you could get some nice, new subs, some surface warships, and a few squadrons of military aircraft too for the same price, if they drove a harder bargain. Sorry to have jumped the shark on the original poster's thread. I think it IS good that Australia is developing and indigenous weapons program. That almost always seems like a good idea, since you never know what the future will bring, and you don't want to be dependent upon others for your own defense, or resupply to permit that. |
Dal Gavan | 02 Apr 2021 12:34 p.m. PST |
I'm going shortly in any case, so that doesn't worry me that much. The fact that I would be sacked does say a lot about Australia today, though. The government, of any persuasion, does not like to be criticised by mere minions. Whistle-blowers can expect to find themselves in court, even if the government uses what they exposed for its own purposes, critics can find another job. Agreed, mate, the basic premise has a lot of merit. Australia needs to re-establish the industrial base we had up to the 70's, with the skills sets needed to be able to best maintain and utilise it. But there has to be some sense involved as well, and the submarine package is just one sign that political considerations, not sense and logic, will drive the decision. We also need to have a credible, sustainable ADF. Getting the Soryu, or another proven Military Off The Shelf (MOTS) solution, and a deal to do the bulk of the maintenance and support in Australia, makes most sense. The capability will be delivered more quickly and the skills and infrastructure can be up-dated and developed during the delivery process. Buying submarines that we shall have troubles crewing, which is an unproven re-design of a nuclear sub' to conventional, which also may not the meet the requirements for being compatible with the USN on a number of fronts, just doesn't "Pass the Pub Test", as we say here. And it's just one of many issues (frigates, PMV buys, using an air-to-air refueller as "Airforce 1", Hawkei, Pentagon-level pricing for basic tools and consumables, high ADF separation rates, etc). The missile manufacture is a good idea. Implementation, though, is likely to be on the same level as the sub's programme. |
Thresher01 | 02 Apr 2021 1:11 p.m. PST |
You guys need to enter "The Space Race". There's hundreds of billions, if not trillions to be spent on that. |
Dal Gavan | 02 Apr 2021 5:03 p.m. PST |
|
Thresher01 | 05 Apr 2021 11:46 a.m. PST |
Love it. That acronym is classic Aussie humor. |
|