For all of its positives in calling for a whole of government approach to Defence and an increase in spending, this is a shocker for industry. Most of the analysis repeats the government’s talking points that this is the most fundamental reorientation of strategy in the last 80 years – which it is not. What has happened is that the ADF has caught up with the existence of long-range weapons and now has a sensible desire to acquire them.
Before we get to local industry, spare a thought for South Korea. The most surprising decision, anticipated by no one, was the cancellation of additional 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzers, due to be ordered later this decade. Built by Hanwha, these have become the western world’s most respected and prolific SPH. Poland has just ordered 648 of them; they are in widespread NATO service; India and Egypt are users – and the RoK will field 2,000 of them.
Australia decided in 2019 to acquire an initial 30 ‘Huntsman’ systems plus 15 armoured in-theatre resupply vehicles, built near Geelong. The 2020 White Paper called for a second batch to further boost Army’s mobile, protected firepower. As events in Ukraine are showing – and there’s not a single mention of this conflict in the DSR – mobile 155mm artillery has been a key ingredient in Ukraine’s resistance to massively superior Russian numbers.
All the publicity has gone to the HIMARS MRLS, but mobile artillery has done the bulk of the work, firing hundreds of thousands of rounds. If Ukraine could get their hands on the ‘Huntsman’ they would – and they are already making use of a Polish variant that uses the Hanwha chassis with a British 155mm gun. They are complimentary to MLRS and have several advantages, including a high sustained rate of fire, greater mobility due to the use of tracks rather than wheels – and greater levels of crew protection.
The unfortunate history to this that in 2012 Army declined to proceed with an initial order of the same SPH. APDR has documented all of this – once being threatened with legal action by Chief of Army – because even though the Hanwha system clearly won the technical evaluation a contract was never signed, despite years of risk reduction work and trials. The reason: some very senior people were not confident that an Asian country could produce quality defence materiel.
Looking for any excuse, in 2012 then Defence Minister Stephen Smith – now of the DSR team – was looking for budget savings and Army gleefully offered up the SPH purchase. The people involved covered their tracks well, but some of the nonsense they told the Minister was that they weighed 80 tonnes and therefore could not be deployed other than under their own power. This is an obvious falsehood – and at 49 tonnes they are 13 tonnes lighter than an Abrams M1A2, to which the Army is inordinately attached.
Hanwha is also one of the two finalists for LAND 400 Phase 3 for Infantry Fighting Vehicles, also to be built in Australia, which the DSR has cut back from an aspirational figure of 450 to just 129. This makes one wonder if economies of scale make it worth building them here at all – and maybe that’s the idea. It is an open secret that the Korean ‘Redback’ was the better vehicle during the extensive test and trial phase of the project, being more reliable, more lethal, and more survivable.
Yet here they are, compelled to go through a full, expensive rebid process that will mean the restructuring of their entire industry package. Months if not years of further delays will occur. The question for Defence is: having figured out which is the better vehicle, why not sit down with Hanwha, negotiate a price, and just get on with it? After all, the DSR emphasises the need for more rapid acquisitions.
By so dramatically scaling back IFV and SPH purchasers the government is ripping $15 billion out of Australian industry. As an aside, part of the logic of the local build of these systems was to undo some of the damage caused by the end of the car industry. Instead, Army is going ahead with the purchase of 72 old Abrams MBTs made in the U.S. with zero Australian content for $4 billion.
Put simply, the message to Korea is: “We don’t want your modern systems; we want U.S. missiles and 30-year-old refurbished U.S. tanks.” This will be interpreted in Seoul as a deliberate slap in the face.
The DSR theme that long range missiles can do everything is wrong. If that logic applied, ships would no longer have main guns and fighter aircraft would not have cannons. Missiles – as good as they are – are relatively expensive and complex to produce. Ammunition for 155mm artillery can be manufactured in vast numbers and give accurate ranges of 60km.
To add to the bleak picture, the Thales vehicle factory in Bendigo might shut within six months as orders for Bushmaster and Hawkei dry up. The future for naval shipbuilding is unclear, with a further review into the structure of the surface fleet due later this year. In one of the worst examples of cultural cringe that APDR has ever seen, this is to be conducted by a retired USN admiral – as if no Australians are qualified.
Because of the 2012 budget, Labor almost destroyed the naval shipbuilding sector and progress on replacing the Collins submarine – such as it was – stalled completely. The DSR will have a similar effect on what has been a promising armoured vehicle sector – and one of the ironies is that the Hanwha factory is in the electorate of Defence Minister Richard Marles.
AUKUS won’t fix everything for us. These decisions need to be reversed for the sake of future Army capability, local industry – and Australia’s reputation in Asia.
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
Further entrenching Australia’s reputation as a country that cannot be trusted to make a decision and stick to it in terms of negotiated deals on Defence.
Cannot continue to expect organisations to submit realistic tenders when there’s a better than even chance the deal will be scrapped after it’s all agreed to
I totally agree with your article. I’m not a military person, just like reading about our defence.
Australia went wrong about 20 years ago, first navy, we should of never built the 3 destroyers, there only glorified, modified frigates. Or ordered the hunter class frigates, 12 off the shelf Arleigh Burkes destroyer, 94 cells on each . I also read years ago the taipans were chosen so Australia could get United Nations set’s, army wanted blackhawks then. Tiger’s, country’s are getting reed of there’s same as Australian, army wanted Apache’s then. America are starting to use their reserve stock pile of missiles. It takes 2 years to build a Tomahawk cruise missile, how are they going to supply Australia with missiles, when there flat out re-socking themselves? Get the bloody 450+ redbacks and the huntsman howitzer. Because in my view, if the enemy lands on our Shaw, what are we going to throw at them, rocks? I’m also not fully decided on the F35 yet, I’d love to see about 40 F15 ex strike eagles backing them up.
Well that’s only my view, I’m also all for the nuclear submarine, should of happened 10 years ago.
Regarding your comment, “Because in my view, if the enemy lands on our Shaw, what are we going to throw at them, rocks?”, you need to consider the larger implications of an adversary landing on our shores. Not only is our shoreline so large that it would be almost impossible to defend, by reaching our shores that means that both our Navy and Air Force was unable to defend against the invaders. This would mean that they were either critically damaged, or potentially destroyed completely. In that scenario the adversary would be able to develop decent supply lines, of which we would not be able to threaten, to simply overwhelm our relatively small army regardless of this capability. Opting instead for land launched anti-ship missiles, we can at least threaten their amphibious ships before they reach our shores. It is unfortunate for industry but the defence of our nation is paramount. I do strongly agree that we need to focus on ships that have a larger VLS capacity. By building and maintaining our own fleet of Arleigh Burke’s we would be able to do this whilst further improving our interoperability with the US.
strange as it may seem, i’d like to see us build, from new, the old Harrier jump jet and station them at Butterworth where we already have RAAF presence.
I think they’d be less expensive. Forward deployment there appropriate for a number of reasons including air cover for ships, troops and installations in surrounding islands and sea
I agree
What company in their right mind would ever bother to tender for an Australian defence contract, they are not worth the paper they are written on!
Missile manufacturers beware before you sign anything from this government
We spend millions paying for productions IFV samples from manufactures over a year testing at huge expense in people and equipment then just walk away. Sacrifices Australian soldiers protection the day before the Albo goes on about the Anzac tradition what a hypocrite!
This is worse than the subs at least there we traded up in capability which you would expect cost more, but the 378 billion bill is a joke. This cover the entire life of the project, subs equipment weapons, crews, payroll, training, base upgrade and on and on, we pay this regardless for the sub type so yes nukes are more expensive but it’s wrong to add all that cost and lay it on the project because they are nukes.
Imagine the diesel fuel we save, give the navy a greener footprint
This government is a joke on defence just as we’re previous labour governments, but this is much worse they know the world situation and they are hiding under the worst review ever delivered, so much so that I expect we will need another one about the time same time Stephen smith easy London job runs out, need to keep their old mate employed
It’s a depressing outlook.
we must rid ourselves of the USA influence in our purchases and the reason for purchases. Much of our problems are from that
It’s further repetitional damage to Australia following the cancellation of the Attack program.
And when I listen to Marles and Conroy floundering about trying to explain all of this it almost makes me laugh. The latest one is that Australia is now re-orienting to be able to project power in the region – the example being some extra watercraft to replace the very old LCM-8s. What do they think we have LHDs for? Or air-to-air refuelling?
They seem to be making it up as they go along.
When you said “As events in Ukraine are showing – and there’s not a single mention of this conflict in the DSR – mobile 155mm artillery has been a key ingredient in Ukraine’s resistance”, did you consider why the DSR does not mention this? Australia is an island nation, we share no land borders. If we are involved in a land conflict it will be in the Indo-Pacific region. Most of this area would be considered jungle/rainforest terrain (think Kokoda Trail WW2), rather than the open plains of Ukraine. These infantry fighting vehicles and self propelled howitzers would struggle in the terrain. Not to mention the fact that the large amount of vehicles previously planned need to transported by our two LHDs, which would need to survive multiple trips to get them all there. The Russo-Ukrainian War is not the sort of conflict Australia would be fighting in the future. That is why the DSR is so pivotal in changing the way the defence thinks and optimises itself. I can understand the frustration from Industry’s point of view but as the DSR mentioned we need to weigh up Australian sovereign production to the actual requirements of the ADF and timely delivered capability. If the government had the budget to spare it could consider bolstering the industry by building Howitzers to donate to Ukraine but they are struggling as it is and Howitzers are just not as applicable to us. It is unfortunate that the armoured vehicle sector will take a significant hit but the defence of our nation and the ability to strike potential adversaries from a distance is paramount. I just feel like your article does not consider the ADF’s needs going into the future.
A few points – the most important being why are we spending $4 billion on 62 tonne additional Abrams MBTs and all of their heavy support vehicles. You cannot have both – that is argue you want a nimble, mobile, force and then commit to these cold war monsters with not a single cent of that money being spent in Australia.
But to your point about geography; the history of conflict in Asia, including the Second World War and Vietnam, shows that there is indeed a role for heavy armour when used well. What Defence planners hint at is they are preparing for is war with China, which if it ever happens will dwarf the scale of the current Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Army was previously planning for a balanced force for combined arms operations of 75 MBTs; 300-450 IFVs and 10 batteries of SPH. They didn’t just invent these numbers – it’s years of study and planning. Well, the DSR has swung a huge wrecking ball through that.
If we were not going to fight a land war like Ukraine, then why bother with tanks if they are so heavy? And particularly M1A2 Abrams which are notorious fuel guzzlers and difficult to maintain?
The answer is obvious. Because they are American.
So it’s just a second batch that hasn’t been ordered that been put to pasture, and the initial 30 guns are still been order are still going thorough right?
I think thats probably about the right balance then, 30 SPGs for heavy forces, but say another 30-40 M777 155mm that transported by Air mobile helicopters. HIMARS can back both heavy and light forces.
To be honest at almost 50 tons the K9 Thunder is too heavy for Australian requirements, as Australian forces are more expeditionary in nature given the size of the continent and overseas operations. A better fit would be something around the 30 ton or less mark that it still self propelled, something along the lines of the French Caesar or the Swedish Archer would be much better fit. It looks like the British Army is going to go this way too.
If the K-9 is too heavy then why on earth are we spending $4 billion on refurbished 62 tonne MBTs? With zero Australian content?
Well that is certainly a good question. MBTs are probably the most advanced ground vehicles that exist and are also the most highly classified. Whilst other countries have been allowed to produce the Abrams in the past it has always been without those classified items especially the armour side of it (but for Australia these days it’s probably less of an issue). Also for the numbers that Australia is purchasing it’s not really worth it given the costs involved. (To be honest I can’t understand the point of producing 30 SPGs, they’re probably be costing more than twice the price of Korean made ones)
As too whether Australia should be buying Abrams probably not. They are very heavy, extremely thirsty (and therefore have a short range) and are difficult to maintain. The Leopard 2A7 would probably have been a better option. The Swedish chose the Leopard 2 in the 90s over the Abrams and a few others for the better mobility and economy etc. Singapore also has the Leopard 2 which means there would have been room for co-operation there.
The next questions why does Australia needs tanks and why does a tank need to be so heavy. Well simply armour. The Tank is closing with the enemy at close range something a SPG should never do especially these days with the extreme ammunition ranges and should be protected with other assets.
Tanks have proven themselves over and over again (when used with competent crews and tactics). There was a case late in the Iraq war when a platoon who was on patrol in Bagdad got attacked and had to seek refuge in a building, they were attacked for hours and rapid response units couldn’t reach them, so then they sent the M2 Bradly IFVs and even they had to turn back because of the amount of enemy fire, so then they sent the Abrams tanks and they smashed through because of their superior armour protection and rescued the platoon.
we buy our defense kit for defence of global economics, not Australia, at least that the impression i get
a wheeled version, like the G-6 Rhino, now made by BAe, served well in South African bush wars, mobile, doesn’t need a transporter, 155m. Allegedly the longest artillery shot in history, 3 man crew, 46 tonnes and $3,6 million
If the Government wants to cancel or reduce some of the very important equipment then why cant they do forward funding for these items or reduced production. We need the industry if war is to come. I realise that production may require a sustainable volume of production to be cost effective but there must be some way around this?
Yes, there are all sorts of ways of finding funding, or cooperating with industry for solutions. Many large companies would be happy with a “buy now, pay later” sort of arrangement (without getting too technical, it’s all about the cost of money and various inflation rate calculations) but the Department of Finance has very strict rules and regulations about that, probably with good reason. My own arguments are slightly different – forget about the $4 billion used MBT purchase and definitely defer (I’d cancel it) the purchase of Blackhawks and Apaches, which will cost an eye-watering $11 billion. As I’ve argued frequently Taipan and Tiger are fine for the next 15 years, but the pro-U.S. faction only want things with the stars and stripes plastered on them – and AUKUS will make that mentality even worse..
exactly. What irks me about MBTs is why don’t we buy from Rheinmetall who sold us all those support vehicles. Seems to me the interoperability, a word so misued re AUKUS would work here. Rheinmetall has huge corporate presence in Australia and buying MBTs from the same company that produces support vehicles seems right
I totally agree with the article. It is absolutely farcial to throw all the eggs in the US basket.
The Koreans have some of the best defense industry in the world, and Australia is throwing it away on the AUKUS unicorn.
Poland is doing something smart though by muscling up with Korea to massively drive up their defense capabilities. Australia is chasing rainbows and throwing away billions in obsolete subs and destroying its reputation as a trustworthy country to do business with.
NAILED IT !!!
So we are going to spend 4 billion on northern bases, what for to save the Chinese the trouble.
No point building bases without the armour, infantry and artillery to protect them.
Are we making nice landing strips for the 7 airborne brigades the Chinese can currently field.
Again we are spending on buildings not bullets, needs to be bullets first. Happy to Improve bases but not at the expense of combat power.
The Japanese built an airfield on Guadalcanal and the yanks said thanks very much and move in to occupy it
In every conflict where the government has sent troops to war it has been overseas yet again we have a review that says we don’t need equipment to fight a land war in Australia. In every conflict we have sent troops under equipped at least to start with, this is a not a capability you can produce overnight.
Gone are the days you beat the drum outside the local pub and hand out rifles as they come out the door.
While defence is not Labor’s usual forte, you would think that they would have had a senior army, Air Force, navy representative overarched by a sitting member of parliament to determine the future of this nation with what is going on. But no, we get Stephen Smith who has never put the uniform on of this country and with his cohorts blown up (pun intended) Australia having a robust military. More reviews, more procrastination, no expansion of the Air Force, the army having very little defensive capability. It is almost a deliberate act to ensure that the public think something is going on with defence but in reality very little is. Labor had a real opportunity to deliver a succinct and detailed proposal to make any potential adversary think twice in dealing with Australia militarily. But what did we get? A navel gazing mish mash of a report that future generations will ask, “what the hell were they thinking”.
Agree with all of that.
All this stuff is a bit moot unless we do something about our Strategic Fuel Reserve.
i.e. Where should it be held and how much should be held.
The current situation is beyond ludicrous.
yes, spot on
Was there any mention in the Review of the Strategic Fuel Reserve?
i.e. Where is it kept and how much is kept?
All this other stuff is a bit moot without fixing the current ludicrous situation.
Yes there was – and finally there is an acknowledgement that it is a problem that must be fixed.
Successive Australian Governments have been seduced into believing that if it’s made in the U.S.A. It is the ultimate in what ever is available.Time and time again they have been told by lobbyists that buying American is the best thing to do and in certain instances they have a point, a Defence Force compatible with its major Ally is not a bad thing but is relying on any Ally at the expense of self sufficiency ever a good thing. The DSR has put Australia at the mercy of American Politics, just because the current POTUS says okay doesn’t mean Congress will agree on the next POTUS will feel the same. I’m at a loss to see any benefit in the DSR to anyone other than the United States and any Future adversaries.
It’s a lot more than just lobbyists. Through things such as AUSMIN and various other government-to-government talks, US industry via the US military has direct access to the Australian DoD not enjoyed by any other country on earth. It seems that what our officials crave is a pat on the head from Washington. Nothing else explains all of the retired USN admirals now working as highly paid consultants telling us what to do. It’s a disgrace.
I’m concerned about the RAN “Review” by an ex USN Admiral
The USN wants rid of their LCS ships.
Which don’t appear to have been a success either through design issues or lack of effort.
We’d be a convenient place to offload them.
In the current climate nothing would surprise me.