By Leith van Onselen, with kind permission from Macrobusiness:
I have noted previously how the Coalition has ear-marked tens-of-billions of taxpayer dollars to local defence manufacturing, including a $10 billion to $15 billion-program for 1,000 locally produced armoured vehicles, and locally designed and built submarines for around $40 billion. It has also flagged a multibillion-dollar warship project that will be built locally.Today, The AFR has revealed that an $8 billion contract for local shipbuilder, ASC, to supply three air warfare destroyers for the Australian Navy is running two-and-a-half years late and more than $300 million over budget because the company has no experience in shipbuilding:
- An audit released in March… warned there could be further cost blowouts and delays to come…
- The 320-page audit found defective drawings supplied by Navantia and an inexperienced Australian shipyard workforce were a devastating combination leading to hull blocks not joining up, pipes, air conditioning systems and cabling requiring modification, doors not lining up and equipment being left off and expensive and costly rework.
Surely the above schmozzle casts serious doubts over the Government’s plan to build military hardware locally.
While I acknowledge that there is an argument to retain your own military hardware building capacity, at what cost? The Coalition’s hard line on industry assistance appears to be in stark contrast to its defence procurement policy. Australia could easily purchase proven, fit-for-purpose, military hardware from abroad at a fraction of the cost of developing similar technology locally, saving taxpayers billions in the process.
Once again, it is these sorts of inconsistencies that undermine the Government’s goal of “ending the age of entitlement”. While it slashes benefits to vulnerable sections of the community, it is allowing egregious lurks and subsidies to remain in others, which is undermines the Government’s calls for “shared sacrifice”, whilst also ensuring that the burden of adjustment is not broad-based, reducing its efficacy. As I’ve said before, a much clearer framework for these decisions is needed.
Past experience of Australian military hardware (e.g. Collin’s class submarines) is that locally built generally means over-priced and second-rate (….be kind). While that does not necessarily extend to armoured vehicles, naval vessels such as frigates, destroyers and submarines appear beyond present capabilities. Commissioning local development is no doubt intended to create jobs, but is at the expense of selling short our soldiers and sailors — equipping them with second-rate equipment in situations where it can mean the difference between life and death. Which is why military procurement, like the selection of infrastructure projects, should be above the political process.
Read more at War on entitlements doesn’t extend to military | | MacroBusiness.
The aspirations of being the clever country have gone down the gurgler.
Its easy to make an argument for procuring military equipment from overseas during peace time however if (or should say when) there is a war on our door step we might not have the ability to acquire equipment from overseas for various reasons such as blockades and countries keeping their equipment for their own use and therefore it is prudent to have the capacity and the expertise to build here.
A solution would be to be smarter about how companies are being contracted. I’m no expert but perhaps Australian companies could joint venture with more experienced companies or similar arrangement to build equipment here or have experienced consultants on the projects. For example surely we shouldn’t need to design submarines from scratch but can still build a working design here.
Colin, you make a good point that our soldiers and sailors deserve first rate equipment. However, I also see the capacity and expertise to build equipment here in the national interest and definitely above politics and there is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to if managed properly and perhaps with a bit of ingenuity.
I would agree that we need some local capability, but capital ships and aircraft are time-consuming and difficult to replace. What often happens is a group of allies collaborate on joint development of new weapons. Sweden’s Saab Gripen for example. But sometimes it is cheaper and more effective to buy than build. See Australia’s Submarine Folly.