Land Forces 24 728x90 WEB 240202 01First some good news – an extra $100 million of military aid for Ukraine. It’s not enough and Australia could be doing a lot more, but at least it’s a move in the right direction.

Next – the unfolding disaster of the General Purpose Frigate project.  Some acquisitions are doomed from the very beginning and this is one of them. Firstly, the highly paid independent reviewers of the RAN future surface fleet couldn’t even get it right about how many designs from Korea are available.

Secondly, the Minimum Viable Capability philosophy might force the RAN to buy ships that are incompatible with every other class because there will not be enough time to include CEA radars and the Saab 9LV combat management system.

Also we make another unsuccessful attempt to shed light on how the impending $4.7 billion transfer to US submarine manufacturers was calculated.  Does no one care?  It’s wrecking the Australian Defence budget.

To listen to the podcast, click here.

APDR_Bulletin_728X90


For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net

For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net

Previous articleAustralia, NZ join Exercise Tagata Toa 24
Next articleBoeing T-7A Red Hawk triples testing progress
Kym Bergmann
Kym Bergmann is the editor for Asia Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR) and Defence Review Asia (DRA). He has more than 25 years of experience in journalism and the defence industry. After graduating with honours from the Australian National University, he joined Capital 7 television, holding several positions including foreign news editor and chief political correspondent. During that time he also wrote for Business Review Weekly, undertaking analysis of various defence matters.After two years on the staff of a federal minister, he moved to the defence industry and held senior positions in several companies, including Blohm+Voss, Thales, Celsius and Saab. In 1997 he was one of two Australians selected for the Thomson CSF 'Preparation for Senior Management' MBA course. He has also worked as a consultant for a number of companies including Raytheon, Tenix and others. He has served on the boards of Thomson Sintra Pacific and Saab Pacific.

2 COMMENTS

  1. Regarding CEAFAR and the 9LV combat system on the GPFs, to me that makes a very strong argument for the A200. MEKOs are built for modularity, but more importantly, surely there’s plenty of work already done for the ANZAC ASCM defence upgrades and TransCap programmes. While unlikely to be a perfect fit, there must be a lot of commonality given the ANZACs are A200s, giving them at the very least a massive head start. Combine that with familiarity and a general sense that the ANZACs have been good, reliable workhorse and I find it hard to see anyone else getting the guernsey.

  2. Thanks once again for an informative Podcast, I was pleased that the Governments Pledge of 100 Million to Kiev but do you know if that is in cash or Equipment ? Either way the RBS 70s we’re gifting will be put to good use . It was a surprising shock that 60mins was allowed to show that Program on the Taipan as they usually toe the Government Line ( I thought it was going to be a Goverment White Wash ) as to ASPI looking at a funding cut, I’m of the opinion that ASPI suspected some sort of financial difficulties once the Albanese Government was elected, Albanese is so fixated on relations with China being stable that a promise to gag one of Chinas critics in exchange for something or other would be too much to pass up. As to the Frigate Program, the more we learn about it the more I’m convinced that a decision to buy the Constellation Class from the U.S.has already been made, that , or it will be the subject of a lengthy review which will decide(because of the Time Constraints) that it will be in Australia’s best interest to purchase an off the shelf design from the U.S. I hope that I’m wrong on the Frigate Program but the secrecy surrounding the DoD and Ministry doesn’t engender a level of trust .

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here