Or at least, that’s what you’d believe if you read some of the articles in the mainstream media about the government’s decision to buy five new ships for the Navy. Take the Government Gazette’s effort:
AUSTRALIA’S $11 billion decision to buy new destroyers and amphibious ships for the navy will create 3600 jobs and pump about $4 billion into local industry.
Three Spanish F100-class air-warfare destroyers will be built by ASC in Adelaide from 2009, with South Australia’s economy set to receive a $2 billion boost.
Do any journalists outside the business section of the paper understand the very simple concept of opportunity cost? Not on this effort, by the looks. How many jobs would spending $11 billion on fixing schools, improving public transport, and investing in renewable energy research (to pick three not-so-random examples) generate?
In any case, the decision on which ship designs were to be purchased is intriguing. There are two different sorts of ships to decide upon: three Air Warfare Destroyers – relatively large surface ships with a big radar and missile system designed particularly to keep enemy aircraft out of the neighbourhood, and two large transport/helicopter carrier/floating hospital ships. In each case, there were two possible suppliers.
On the big ticket, shooty-shooty item, the air warfare destroyers, the government went with the lower cost, lower risk (because the Spanish Navy already uses them), but possibly lower-capability option, the Spanish Navantia-designed F100, rather than the American Gibbs and Cox “baby Burke” design. As the Oz notes in another, more informed article:
A year ago, Navantia, Spain’s government-owned naval shipbuilder, didn’t give itself a chance, assuming that the Howard Government would opt for a US warship. Now it finds itself winning both the air warfare destroyer contest and the competition to build two amphibious ships.
Yes, we’ve got a bargain here at just $2.7-odd billion a ship!
However, this desire for an existing, proven design didn’t extend to the amphibious ships, where we again went with a Navantia design (the Buque de Proyección Estratégica) instead of the French Mistral class. Unlike the AWDs, however, this Navantia project is still a paper ship. The key advantage of the Spanish “BPE” design seems to be that it’s considerably bigger, with a much larger vehicle bay – handy when you’ve just bought a bunch of hugely heavy tanks and the army’s goal is to have all its soldiers driving around in armoured vehicles (thank you, Iraq, for creating that necessity). There’s one more intriguing thing about the BPE; the Spanish Navy are going to use it as an aircraft carrier, amongst other things. While the defence brass have repeatedly denied any interest in doing so here (and, of course, if you’re using your amphibious ship as a baby aircraft carrier it’s not available for use as a transport/landing craft), it does remain an fascinating possibility with the route they’ve chosen to go.
If you want a technical discussion of the amphibious capability, this ASPI paper discusses the merits of the strategy – there are questions as to whether more, smaller amphibious ships would have been a better option. This previous LP thread had considerable debate on the merits of the AWD concept, both their anti-missile capabilities and their use as floating command posts – I’d like to be able to point to a decent comparative evaluation of the two AWD designs but I can’t find one that goes beyond one-sentence platitudes. From what little I’ve been able to glean, the key issue is the number of missiles it can carry (48 vs 64). For this reason, it will be less upgradable to carry Tomahawk land attack or anti-shipping cruise missiles (for blowing up other ships or, more likely, land targets from many hundreds of kilometres away) in the future.
But beyond that, our $11 billion is going to buy a defence force designed to be more capable of expeditionary operations into hostile territory – what we used to call invading other countries. Whether it is indeed a useful thing to be spending money on, and, if it is, whether we’re spending it in the best way to achieve it, are question that I would think are worth discussion. But all we get is regurgitation of press releases about largely illusory job creation.
Heh heh heh. You’ve got to hand it to those cunning navy chaps. They never did get over the trauma of giving up their Fleet Air Arm addiction.
One thing I always wonder about these ships are their anti-submarine capabilities. I mean having anti-aircraft weaponary is great but it would be a shame to have these expensive ships sunk by a torpedo or two.
Hm, I’m not sure about that, Robert. From what I understand the VLS tubes are pretty adaptible, it’s just that the RAN ships will be able to carry fewer than the USN Burke-class ships. I read that the Spanish Navy’s Alvaro de Bazán, of the F100 class, fields the block IV Tomahawks already.
Of course what will go in them will depend on how much the Government’s willing to spend on consumables, and whether the rockets eventually actually work: we’ve been waiting years for the JASSM which still isn’t ready. If we’re going to spend $11bn, how about some of that for missiles for the sailors to practice with?
On a related note, I love the concept of a naval broadside of cuss words. Perhaps the Navy should be putting loudhailers on the masts and training sailors in long-range filthy language.
“shooty-shooty item”
Love your use of highly technical jargon
“I love the concept of a naval broadside of cuss words. Perhaps the Navy should be putting loudhailers on the masts and training sailors in long-range filthy language”
Or recruiting a few trade unionists maybe?
Robert, you say:
What about the fourth (not-so-random) example of what they could do with $11 billion: not take it off us in the first place (i.e. cut taxes). That would create more economic activity and jobs than any government-directed spending. That is the ultimate opportunity cost of the $11 billion.
Or a few certain blog commenters of famously blue expression.
On the could-be-carrier (site in Spanish): the Armada Española already operates a Harrier fleet, and has done for years, so it makes more sense for them.
The BPE would almost certainly be able to accommodate the JSFs the Air Force is getting, but as I read it the RAN would be much more interested in using it as a helicopter carrier/troop carrier/hospital ship—those applications being useful for all kinds of things, not just expeditionism.
Robert I agree with you 100%. Extra inputs do not necc mean improved outputs in a particular area, let alone the whole system.
The greatest threat to Australian physical well-being is our ageing embodiment. Followed by our decaying environment. Unfortunately it seems difficult to get xenophobic about gradual molecular dissaray.
Australian defence is a higher political priority these days (global terrorism, regional instability, rising Asian powers). But it is not alway the correct answer to go out and buy big ticket capital purchases, such as strike-fighters, main battle tanks or blue water ships.
We probably need more infantry to undertake peace-keeping and enforcing missions. The LAVs look like a good investment for boots on the ground. No doubt special forces would also help for more sensitive counter-terrorist missions. And I will always pine for directed energy beam weapons as the ultimate in smart weaponry.
Howard has turned over like a supine puppy to the global arms traders, acting like the very epitome of a tool of the military-industrial complex. You are quite right to blast Howard on his picking up the ball and running in the wrong direction on national security. Well done Robert for a splendid series of posts on military boondoggling.
STT: what did you expect – this is a lefty site, of course I’m going to advocate spending increases instead of tax cuts
Seriously, though, you’re quite right, tax cuts are a fourth option of what could be done with the money.
Fiasco: that’s true. However, as I understand it the argument is that for self-defence you need a fair number of those launch slots taken up by anti-air misiles. You either can’t carry many Tomahawks, or you run the risk of running out of air defence.
However, there is an option for the Navy to buy a fourth AWD, which I’m sure the navy is also salivating over. Covers the shortage of VLS slots nicely
Yes, let’s. The South Australian government seems to take the approach that if there’s money to be spent on Defence, they might as well get some.
I’d argue that neither the previous incursions into East Timor and the Solomon Islands, nor future incursions into, say, Fiji, constitute “invading other countries”. Damn you 21st century postmodernists for upsetting Robert’s neat little definitions!
Australia has an impact in our region precisely because we spend so much on defence. I’d like to see a debate on what would happen if that spending was significantly wound back. Yeah, I know that this is a lefty site, but I’ve been waiting for some original thought on strategic issues for twenty years, so how about it? Would Australia’s position in the Asia-Pacific region, such as it is, be affected for good or ill with a reduced Australian defence presence?
Hugh White’s article in ALR pointed out that the old defence-of-Australia-versus-defence-of-wider-interests debate is dead, so please let us have no more of that. My grandfather could have told him (and you all) that, having been bombed in Townsville in 1942 when it might have been best if the bad guys had been discouraged from getting that far. I’d also argue that the Bali bombings of the past few years were attacks on Australian interests.
Andrew E: Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and the hotheads running around East Timor were notably short on strike aircraft, cruise, or ballistic missiles. Yes, the logistic capacity might be important, but the air defence part is not required.
MarkL has argued with some force that AWDs are vital as a command post for missions like East Timor (particularly the initial part, where there was a possibility that the Indonesian Army proper might get involved).
Governments are forced to tip regular billions into native defence industries because they would otherwise starve in boom-bust cycles. And it’s not infrastructure that’s easily replaced once it perishes.
The currently ordered frigates, subs, and ancillary ships for both Oz and NZ won’t be rolling off assembly lines for much longer, and it’s time to put something else in the pipeline for the next ten years.
God knows the mining boom has placed a lot of stress on the ship-building trades. I just hope that these projects have been costed and scheduled realistically.
Not dead, Andrew E, just resting.
The question isn’t so trite when you reframe it as: to what extent should Australian strategy and spending depend on the integration of our forces into coalitions made up of other nations’ militaries?
I tend to think that the RAN, and Australian forces generally, should be configured around an Australian-centred strategy of defence, able to operate independently to guarantee Australian interests and those of our allies. I don’t think, for instance, that the RAN should assume, as it did as it did in the late 1930s, that it would always operate as a subsidiary unit of a much larger naval power.
Note that this has little to do with foreign policy: in that sense I’m a strong believer in the US alliance, and hope for much more productive defence cooperation.
Don’t quite follow you here. Are Australian backpackers around the globe to be now chaperoned by AWDs? Naval power does a lot of things, but anti-terrorism isn’t one of them.
Not another "still-on-the-drawing-board" defence item!!
Just thing of the schemozzle with the Joint Strike Fighter (and the extra sub-standard planes we’re buying because of delays).
It’s also worth noting that the Collins sub was effectively put back on the drawing board by the gov (then ALP) because they took an existing Euro design, then said "put a completely different firing system into it".
But the wider issue is that defence spending is being used to bolster local economies: emulating the US model where state senators and representative increase military spending for local pork barreling without getting good outcomes. Look what trouble that’s caused.
Dave Bath: on your wider point, that’s just right – though I don’t think it’s as disastrous as the US situation.
As for the LHD’s, as I understand it the Spanish are in the process of building some for their own Navy, and most of the work is being done in Spain. Furthermore, it’s not like there’s a hugely complex combat system to integrate. So the risks should be a bit smaller.
Oh David Bath how much ignorance is shown in your post. There is so much wrong with your statement it would take a tome of explanations to set it right. For starters the Super Hornets are not “second rate”. Yes we should not have had to purchase them because of the time overruns on the JSF, but they are the next best choice (except for F22 Raptors which aren’t available) to fill the looming air defence gap. A similar thing happened when we phased out the Mirage IIIc’s.
The Collins class fiasco is more complex than the simple sentence you make it out to be. Tenders for whole of systems are not let out just on turn key solutions. Combat systems are plug in modules, which themselves are modular, so the tenderer can go with whatever systems they can install that shows value/capability for outcome. They stuffed up the Collins, but in large part because of the poor way the government tender itself was written. Btw our Collins are now one of the most effective conventional subs in the world, still without the original European combat system installed.
In Australia Defence is not generally being used as a pork barrel (well maybe small parts here and there). But as a whole there are only a few fixed places where major Defence construction projects can be conducted, with the major Defence contractors (Tenix, ADI, ASC etc.) being on the main located in those areas. The consortium that tenders the best solution (usually the cheapest more than the best) normally wins, as is the case with the Navantia / ASC / Raytheon(for the combat system) bid. The Gibbs & Cox was the better Defence solution but at a far greater cost, longer lead time and requiring more manning (a huge consideration which has stopped us getting bargain frontline systems in the past).
Honestly I could go on for pages on this but Defence tendering and contracting is far more complex than is being made out here, and it is this complexity along with very industrial legal savvy contractors that have led us in Australia to so often make such bad decisions, or to allow so many cost and time overruns.
Under the Howard government this has gotten worse, even though he has reformed DMO and Defence infrastructure three times, adding more bureaucracy. Under this government 18 out of 20 major Defence projects have gone over cost and over time whilst under Labor is was around 12 out of 20. Also the overruns under Labor were far smaller than they have been under this Coalition government.
Does that mean we can get a bit of Gaudi action happening on the superstructure? That would be nice http://www.aircrafter.org/boggs/europe_trip/pictures/2003.08.04-09.55.43.jpg
Does this mean we can get a bit of hot Gaudi action happening on the superstructure? http://members.cox.net/jaredf/ImageMap/Spain4.jpg
Looks good to me.
Fantastic Gummo. God really is on our side!
So who gets the spire with the best view, the Cardinal or the Captain?
Those may look like spires EC, but in fact they’re components of a cunningly disguised missile defence system. Neither the Captain nor the Cardinal would want to be sitting on top of one of those babies when it was fired.
Oh yeah. Once that nouveau ferro-cement weapons system gets moving gets moving there’s no stopping it.
MorningDude, I’d love to see John Howard wander in to Lockheed Martin with a cheque for 20 billion dollars for a nice set of F22’s, with the proviso that if we don’t get them we’re going over to see our good friends at Eurofighter GMBH and the Sukhoi Design Bureau.
Furthermore, as far as my original post is concerned, note that I wasn’t wasn’t claiming that the decision to build the warships in the locations was bad; merely that the spin placed on it was ridiculous. It may not have been pork, but it’s sure being spun like it, and dumb journos who don’t understand that government money spent on defence is money not spent elsewhere.
Speaking of dumb journos, Greg Sheridan has been playing with the orgasmatron again and the bedsheets are positively soaking with all manner of bodily fluids as Australia gets ready to kick some serious arse with its new acquisitions.
And what’s more, the Satanic presence of the Evil Dibb Doctrine has finally been exorcised and we can now go on all manner of expeditions to strange exotic lands http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21951450-25377,00.html
Australia? Fuck yeah!
He only left out
“I sit in my office, waiting for the latest delivery of tissues and hand cream, while the latest Defence Department presser does my week’s work for me.”
Sheridan might want to get his hand off it long enough to check out the severe limits of Australia’s air-to-air refuelling capabilities, and thus the ability to provide air cover…
Pretty much FDB, if this cut and paste is anything to go by: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21951450-25377,00.html
But the good news is that, not content with aiming his cardigan at foreign policy and defence, La Sheridan has moved on to art criticism, with a review of the Australian Impressionism exhibition at the NGV http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21932489-25377,00.html
Now I’ll be right up front and say that, being more into dada and modernism, the Heidelberg mob don’t do much for me, but you just have to wonder at the man’s utter gormlessness:
So I’m guessing here that he’s struggling a bit with the concept of irony.
But to observe the absolute profundity of Sherro’s world view in all its glory, we only have to remember that:
Not especially visual. And not especially verbal either.
Damn, how many are we buying again? The RAAF operates three squadrons of F/A-18s and two of F-111s. We’re only buying 100 F-35s. Someone should explain to Sheridan the concept of reserve.
Also—flying from where?
Don’t worry about it Fiasco. Remember that we’ll have the perpetually airborne servo and carwash which is, you know, completely impervious to bad people. Plus we’ve got all those big FU Abrams tanks which are useful for all sorts of things so I’m told.
Yeah, right.
As far as aerial servos go, Australia as three airborne refuellers, to expand to five at some point in the near future, to supply a force of 100. That’s a ratio of 20 to 1.
The USAF has 550 Stratotankers and 60 KC-10 extenders, for a fighter fleet of around 2600 aircraft. That’s a ratio closer to 4 to 1.
Worth remembering though, Robert, is that this is purely a Sheridan scenario.
You’ve got your AWDs, amphibious ships, 2 battalions of infantry, 24 battletanks, 100 F35 ‘Ninja’ fighters (“masters of stealth and advanced detection”), AWACs (“mistakenly called spy planes,” but only by the human cardigan himself), submarines and SAS.
In other words this is a full-on fucking invasion of somewhere – let’s call it the province of Wodehousistan – whose Birds Messing About In Trees missile system poses a dire strategic threat to the nation’s stockpiles of impressionist art.
Sheridan is off his rocker. In what vaguely plausible domestic terrorist scenario would LHDs be useful? By the time the LHD’s were loaded up and sent to Melbourne, you could have twice as many troops landed at Avalon airport, and hired all the earthmoving machinery, generators, and whatever else you want from Coates Hire (or are we supposed to imagine a terrorist attack so immense that it devastates everywhere from Caroline Springs to Lilydale?)
The one in his bathtub where he’s going [Cue theme to Red Dawn] “Kpssshewww! Blam! Kakakakakakakak!”?
The bloke’s an embarrassment on so many different levels.
“Make-work project for indolent industrial states” indeed. I read that we’re now to export a bit of defence material to the United States. Hoorah!
Which explains why air defence was not deployed to those conflicts Robert.
Indonesia does have an air force, and as I said earlier were it not for the distinct superiority of the RAAF it might have been encouraged to be a bit more helpful to said ‘hotheads’ than the meekness they have displayed.
Yawn. The whole of Australian history is one of oscillating between shrill insistence on Australia First, followed by a dutiful deployment to defend Australian interests in places, and under leadership, far from our shores. The short answer is we need to do a bit of both: as it was, so shall it be.
No, but it does demonstrate that Australian interests are not necessarily those on Australian territory. Like most people I’m not offering answers here, but I know when an answer is being misapplied to the question asked.