Firstly another interview with Defence Minister Richard Marles, from which we learned nothing useful. More about the RAAF $10 billion error in not considering the Embraer C390 as the replacement for the C-130J fleet. As several countries have discovered, the C390 is less expensive to acquire, costs less to support – and flies faster and further with more cargo than a C-130J. We quote extensively from the publicly available Dutch evaluation of the two aircraft, which conclusively concludes that the C390 is by far the better choice. South Korea has come to exactly the same conclusion. The RAAF didn’t even bother looking at it.
The General Purpose Frigate situation keeps getting worse – and the government and the RAN are walking into a complete disaster. Finally, having no refund clause for our forthcoming $4.6 billion donation to the US submarine industrial base makes Australia’s AUKUS negotiating position immeasurably weaker.
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact :
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
MEKO remains, IMO, the best and in some ways only rational choice for the GPF. We know how to integrate CEAFAR and 9LV onto that type of ship. Send the TransCAP and AMCAP plans to Germany and ask for that, but with extra VLS cells and, if they can make it work, one of those nice new Rheinmetall laser weapons. Planning and detailed design won’t exactly be something the intern can knock up over a weekend, but nor should it be particularly difficult, especially if they involve the people currently working on the AMCAP.
If the concern is that this wouldn’t represent a sufficient step up in capability, then split the order, six baseline, five more later with whatever upgrades navy thinks it needs. This is absolutely achievable stuff, we don’t need to overcomplicate it.
I agree with all of that. I have no idea where Defence gets the idea from that it’s impossible to integrate 9LV and CEA radars before 2029. As well as tkMS, HHI can design, construct, and launch an 11,000 tonne, 128 VLS cell KDX destroyer in less than 4 years – so could they do it even faster for a ship one third that size? You bet they could.
The political protection racket continues. Any idea that we buy based on objective qualitative criteria should now be laid to rest. The Hunter class, C130J-30 and even HIMARS all reek of political protection racket purchases either to support US/British industry or to buy our way into their military protection/access. Blind Freddy could see that the C390 was worth a very close look and that’s not to even mention the Airbus A400M or the Japanese C2.
In regards to the GP Frigate purchase I will reiterate my stated opinion that a GP frigate is what we should have replaced our current GP/Patrol frigates (the ANZAC class) with and not whatever it is we are getting with the over twice as large and under gunned Hunter class.
Furthermore, if they truly wanted a ship fast I have already mentioned that Fincantieri in Italy has vessels already built they are looking to sell, namely the Thaon Di Revel Class currently on offer to Indonesia, Navantia could have built more of our AWD destroyers either at their yards or ours and that’s not even to mention the Koreans and their extraordinary shipbuilding capabilities.
We dropped the ball with our ANZAC replacement decision and Defence has failed a basic internet/Wikipedia search for so called off the shelf purchases of capable ships.
What we now have is another list and another competition and more delays as a result.
Leaving us to celebrate the cutting of first steel for the Hunter class 6 years after the decision was made to select a power point presentation over an actual in the water vessel.
We need to place the Defence of our nation first, value for money a close second and the US and Britain need to realize that a strong independent friend is better than a weak lackey.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks as always for your thought provoking and frequently productively frustrating podcasts.
NB: This rant was powered by (hopefully) competent Wikipedia usage and not (sadly) a Janes subscription which I presume Defence may have at least one.
Thanks. I agree. The inability of Defence to do even the most basic research into these matters is appalling. I have joked that they rely on Wikipedia – but it’s worse than that because in several cases it looks like they have done no research whatsoever.
“In regards to the GP Frigate purchase I will reiterate my stated opinion that a GP frigate is what we should have replaced our current GP/Patrol frigates (the ANZAC class) with and not whatever it is we are getting with the over twice as large and under gunned Hunter class.”
Functionally, that’s what they’re doing, even if defence isn’t describing it that way. GPF will replace ANZAC, Hunters will be a brand new, ASW focussed capability.
IMO, there are very few problems with the proposed combat fleet as it stands now – the Hunters will fit in very nicely into what should be a well balanced, widely capable fleet. 3 AWDs, 6 ASW Frigates, 11 General Purpose Frigates, two Helicopter carriers/Amphibs, 6 unmanned magazine ships to add pinch and a fleet of regionally significant submarines is an extremely respectable combat fleet for a middle power, on paper. Commit to turning the Arafuras into minesweepers, bring back the cancelled support ships and you’re more or less there.
The challenge of course is speed to delivery. It’s the fleet we ought to have now, not in the 2040s or 2050s.
The selection of the C130J over the C390 has more to do with familiarity than actual performance, Similar to the Blackhawk over the Taipan , the R.A.A.F used to be the more accepting of Change than the Army and Navy but it has become more resistant in the last Twenty or so years ( the Obsession with U.S. Compatibility began in the Howard Era) There is a lot to be said for staying with an upgraded model as a replacement, Logistics,training,familiarity,compatibility with Allies. These things impact on selection ( look at the Nth American F86 to Dassault Mirage III change over) but Capability should be the deciding factor not “ But I Like my Old one” . As for the GPF Goat Rodeo,have they realised that none of the short listed ships actually fit what they have asked for. The ships that fit the weight requirement don’t have 16 VL cells And the ship that does have 16VL cells isn’t in the weight range. Considering it’s supposed to be Off The Shelf it’s a bit strange even for our lot… I still like the Alpha or the Luerssen option ( I know,more Corvettes than Frigates) mainly because of the Crewing ( but who says that will looked at)
Agree with all of that. Defence is meant to make decisions in the interests of taxpayers and look for value for money, not just do whatever the services want based on prejudices, habit and hearsay.
Why is anyone surprised ? we’re talking about an organisation that had two helicopters ditch offshore within an 18 month window, yet dumped the European Airbus Taipan it was able to salvage from Jervis Bay (quite easily) thanks to its emergency flotation system, for another dozen of the brand new float less US Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky Seahawk that went to the bottom of the Philippine sea like a 10 ton rock.
Correct.
As for Embraer’s C390, (impressive performance specs aside), RAAF could be forgiven for avoiding the obvious risks of dealing with a corporation at the mercy of the lunatic fringe of Brazil’s far right Bolsonaro regime at that time, coupled with Morrison & Dutton’s mantra of imminent war with China.