 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: ADF mulling 14B in arm'd vehicles as fries with 40B in subs? |  |
|
Can't afford a proper NBN in due time, can't afford to hasten the transition to alternative energy, have to tighten health and education budgets, but can afford...
| The Murdoch-Ruined WSJ via The Still Mourning Tony Mouthpiece wrote: | Army mulls $14bn armoured vehicle program
Amid political uproar over the acquisition of Australia’s next-generation submarine fleet from overseas, the federal government is preparing to spend $14 billion replacing the army’s bomb-resistant armoured vehicles.
In one of the world’s most lucrative deals in armoured vehicles, the Defence Department is moving to replace its Vietnam-era troop carriers and reconnaissance vehicles, drawing bidders from the US, Europe, Israel and Britain.
Rob Taylor from the Wall St Journal writes:
Only a few years ago the global market for armoured vehicles capable of withstanding roadside bombs and rockets was forecast to wind down, along with the intensity of long-running and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But as newer conflicts rage from Syria to Ukraine, and newly wealthy Asian nations hedge against the more uncertain backdrop of China’s rise, the market for armoured vehicles and troop carriers is buoyant again. While the US slashed its armoured vehicle budget a few years ago, Russia recently paraded a new generation of tanks and infantry carriers through the streets of Moscow, following a similar show of might from China.
But the appetite for armour is also moving into newer places, and some less expected customers. One of the most lucrative deals right now is in Australia, where the government is looking to replace Vietnam-era troop carriers and reconnaissance vehicles in a $14bn billion program drawing bidders from the US, Europe, Israel and the U.K.
The armoured vehicle program is the largest ever contemplated by the Australian Army.
“[Australia] cannot really avoid this deal, because it’s been battling on now for 30 years with largely obsolescent vehicles that cannot survive on a modern battlefield or insurgency,” said a person familiar with one of the bids. The companies involved are constrained by tender rules and commercial sensitivities surrounding the bids.
The London-based Defense iQ analyst group said in a recent report that the global armour market was on the rise again after a lacklustre period during which North American demand dried up. The US last year awarded a $6.75 billion contract to Oshkosh Corp. to build new light trucks — better protected than older Humvees — for the US Army and Marine Corps. The UK, Russia and several Middle Eastern nations are purchasing combat vehicles, although budget cuts led the Pentagon in 2014 to shelve plans to replace its ageing fleet of troop carriers capable of withstanding heavy fire.
Around 11,000 combat vehicles are forecast for production over the next decade, along with around 27,000 light vehicles, the report said.
“Based on the market’s current trends and the recent violence in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, and other regions of the world, we expect to see international demand and sales to foreign governments grow,” Defense iQ said.
The Asia-Pacific region is expected to be the main growth area for armour over the next decade. China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand all have armoured vehicle replacements under way. Middle East nations including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are re-equipping as conflict continues in Syria and Iraq.
India and Saudi Arabia are the most attractive to manufacturers. After several false-starts, India has plans for 2,600 of its Future Infantry Combat Vehicles, likely to cost around US$10 billion, along with 1,650 Russian T-90 tanks. Saudi Arabia has signed a US$10 billion deal with General Dynamics for armoured vehicles, while the UAE. plans to buy 600 eight-wheel armoured vehicles and thousands of surplus US trucks.
A close American ally, Australia — the world’s sixth largest arms buyer last year according to the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research — is seeking to modernise its military to cope with potential threats in the Asia-Pacific region and Middle East. Australia’s air force recently began targeted air strikes in Syria, and its troops have been part of a US-led coalition fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia has been readying defence contracts for jet fighters, warships and submarines together worth almost A$270 billion over the coming decades.
The Australian government has invited Germany, France and Japan to provide detailed expressions of interest on building a new submarine fleet of up to 12 submarines to replace the navy’s six Collins-class boats.
Following a voter backlash, particularly in South Australia, the construction is expected to include substantial work for local shipbuilders.
The roughly A$10 billion tender for 450 armoured troop carriers will see Rheinmetall propose its Puma infantry fighting vehicle, a joint venture with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH. General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Corp. are expected to team up to offer a vehicle developed for the British Army, while BAE’s Australian arm will offer the CV90, used by a number of European countries, people familiar with the matter said.
The same companies, along with Singapore’s ST Kinetics and Israel’s Elbit Systems Ltd., are vying for an earlier $A3.5 billion contract for reconnaissance vehicles due to be short-listed soon.
“This contract is probably one of the top two or three in the world just now,” said the person familiar with one of the bids. “The contract will transform Australia’s army from essentially light infantry into one of the most potent small forces in the world.”
The Australian government is due to release a strategic blueprint to address shifting power balances in the Asia-Pacific region driven by China’s more assertive foreign policy next month. While Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is expected to drop a promise to lift military spending to 2% of GDP, people familiar with the coming blueprint said it would still proceed with armoured vehicles and up to 12 submarines to be chosen from German, Japanese and French bidders.
The defence department declined to comment, citing confidentiality rules surrounding the tender. Analysts expect the armoured vehicle deal to go ahead despite emerging budget pressures as tumbling commodity prices roil the resource-rich economy.
“There may be some compromises on timing given emerging economic challenges, but the project will get a tick,” said Mark Thomson, a military budget expert at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which independently advises the government on defence policy. |
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/army-mulls-10bn-armoured-vehicle-program/news-story/73b7de3b363630a70c3142938d7d60b3
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Don't you support a large defence budget, generally speaking? Either way, I suspect this is mostly about us keeping up with the Joneses for when the next overseas military adventure comes around. I don't think defence is a huge priority for our country right now, and, like you, I also find it remarkable that so many hugely expensive defence projects get practically rubber stamped while we often have to fight tooth and nail for social spending.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^I definitely support robust defence, but this doesn't qualify. Note the reference to the Middle East tacked on to potential threats in the Asia Pacific in the article.
First, anything that involves engaging the Middle East is about defending corrupt fossil fuels companies and their contracts, and therefore *weakens* national security, meanwhile using your taxes to secure someone else's private shares. Add the bonus downsides of delaying the alternative energy transition, and providing an excuse to further cut local services, and this will only weaken the nation.
Second, this spending will take place under the auspices of what is now an outdated alliance with the US, a partner which is flaky at best and lunatic at worst, as is the unwritten Anglo-American alliance which gets thrown in for free, a partnership which has just lost two wars, overseen the Middle East's return to 1950, helped usher in a new Cold War, and whose local politics is more unstable by the day. Who would want to spend money in alliance with proven dangerous failures like that?
Third, in the context of the former two points, anything done regionally is likely to only be done in aid of providing free public security to private mining and fossil fuels operations, as well as PR for erratic Anglo-American chest beating.
Fourth, the matter of people movements has not been dealt with at a regional level, and will only be worsened by said fossil fuels-related activities. This creates a grotesque circular industry whereby, much as with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, you first create the conditions for chaos and suffering with tax payer money, and then you pay to punish the poor displaced bastards with further taxpayer money.
Fifth, everyone agrees with spending robustly to deal with domestic terrorism threats. But this spending will only be used to create more terrorists elsewhere and will thus heighten the statistical likelihood of domestic terrorism. Meanwhile, much like the subs, this spending has nothing to do with building better terrorism-oriented domestic intelligence capabilities, which is priority number one as far as sane citizens go.
Australia needs a moratorium on military spending until someone explains WTF the strategy is aside from what I have outlined. Those who think something more noble or grand is going on are gullible fools, or hopelessly subject to conflicted private investment in fossil fuels and/or military companies.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Our troop carriers are currently death traps from the Vietnam era that could be chewed up by a heavy machine gun. This purchase is necessary and overdue. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^They'd surely be of greater use in circumstances such as humanitarian and peacekeeping situations than freaking subs FFS, so from that perspective I wouldn't have a problem prioritising them if what you say is true.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yep, the M113 APC has been in service for 50 years. The army has done their best to upgrade them but really, their time is done.
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/News-and-media/50-years-service-for-M113
The German Puma is being looked at as a replacement, Rheinmetall has already supplied the army with trucks not that long ago.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/will-germany-supply-450-armored-troop-carriers-to-australia/
Submarines are pretty important to Australia, we use them for intel gathering as well as special forces operations and they're a great deterrent to any kind of invasion or naval attack. The Collins class have been great (despite media reports, they're very capable boats), but again they're getting old.
The last thing we want in a volatile climate is to be running an obsolete defence foce. Indonesia are rapidly upgrading and China is modernizing their fleet too. The numbers are always huge in defence, but it's always better to be well armed and at peace than find ourselves outgunned during a time of conflict. |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We purchased ASLAV vehicles and bushmasters in between. A nd if you need to get an idea what our strategic intent is read the next Defence white paper.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Both wheeled though, need tracked APC/IFVs as well.
The Bushmaster is amazing, I'd hope after that we'd go with an Aussie IFV, but just doesn't seem to happen much anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
the federal government is preparing to spend $14 billion replacing the army’s bomb-resistant armoured vehicles.Factually incorrect. The upgrade started with LAN121 around 4 years ago under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government. Oshkosh http://oshkoshdefense.com/products/ and Supacat http://supacat.com/ are two overseas companies that are involved. Both use local and employ Australians in many areas. I am happy that the dollars are being spent as I am finally back into full time defence work.  |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't understand why we're looking towards Japan for these new subs.
Apart from past conflicts the Japanese also have limitations on there military since the end of WW2 so i would have assumed that submarines weren't something they were highly specialised in.
Personally when it comes to military hardware I'd look towards the UK and europe ahead of the US or others.
I've seen enough Top Gear to know that those nations know a thing or two about highly engineered vehicles and superior build quality and technology.
We're still waiting for those new generation US fighter jets all these years late aren't we?
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | I don't understand why we're looking towards Japan for these new subs.
Apart from past conflicts the Japanese also have limitations on there military since the end of WW2 so i would have assumed that submarines weren't something they were highly specialised in.
Personally when it comes to military hardware I'd look towards the UK and europe ahead of the US or others.
I've seen enough Top Gear to know that those nations know a thing or two about highly engineered vehicles and superior build quality and technology.
We're still waiting for those new generation US fighter jets all these years late aren't we? |
We can build our own subs. As our $$ is at USD 71 cents there is no reason not too. What we have is a massive conflict of interest with Sophie Mirabella being on the sub board. http://www.asc.com.au/en/About-Us/Board/Sophie-Mirabella/ She is their to hinder our manufacturing. If the DMO not bureaucrats build what they want we will have quality. The JSF waa doomed from day one. Costing us billions. Again bureaucrats had too much say. Running a defence force costs money. As NZ really don't have one, they rely on us as well. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Am I right in thinking that non nuclear powered submarines are at a disadvantage from the get go not the least being they aren't as stealthy due to higher noise pollution?
What would it take for us in terms of infrastructure to be able to use nuclear powered subs?
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | Am I right in thinking that non nuclear powered submarines are at a disadvantage from the get go not the least being they aren't as stealthy due to higher noise pollution?
What would it take for us in terms of infrastructure to be able to use nuclear powered subs? |
A federal Government that controls the Senate for one. People are whining now about the money being spent. Nuclear power plants whether they be for subs or ships or to replace electricity are cost prohibitive when you only have 24 million people with a majority not paying any tax. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
