#Official Defence Thread

[Mpol02]

Im watching the news and seeing a lot of this is going to WA. Did we get much of this pie or were we screwed over again?

[rhino]

It sounds like the subs to be built in Australia will be built in Adelaide, but there is no submarine base in SA (no need for one either, at this point), so once built the subs will be based out of HMAS Stirling in WA, and maybe also at an east coast submarine base still to be decided on.

[Mpol02]

Great so we still get to build them.

Really hope this means we can really kick-start our economy.

[Prodical]

The AUKUS agreement places the Adelaide shipyard in a stronger and long term position. For too long, Federal Governments in Australia have lacked a clear direction and strategy. Having a 20-30 year plan is unusual but very good - it places Australia and Adelaide at the forfront of naval ship and submarine building for a generation to come.

Bannon deserves a lot of credit for "winning" the submarine contract (over Williamstown in Victoria. But since then, it has been stop-start and promises broken, so that there is never any long-term certainty. There has never been the opportunity for a continuous build.

The absolutely bozo decision to appoint the French as the main submarine contractor - and paying $$$ for them to convert their existing nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine into a F*****g diesel sub is the stuff of comedy. So all credit to Morrison and Dutton for getting the USA (and UK) to share their nuclear technology and to form AUKUS. That was a big achievement.

If you google the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, it gives an indication of the transformation that will be needed at Osborne to build these complex machines. The number of highly qualified men and women who will move to Adelaide to be part of the shipyard construction and then the submarine build will make a real difference to the technology base in South Australia.

Having agreed to buy some Virginia fast attack subs, followed by an Australian build at Osborne - hopefully seals the future of Naval shipbuilding in SA and protects it from the petty vagaries of Australia's changeable political winds.

It's v good news for the future of Adelaide and SA

[SRW]

The AUKUS agreement places the Adelaide shipyard in a stronger and long term position. For too long, Federal Governments in Australia have lacked a clear direction and strategy. Having a 20-30 year plan is unusual but very good - it places Australia and Adelaide at the forfront of naval ship and submarine building for a generation to come.

Bannon deserves a lot of credit for "winning" the submarine contract (over Williamstown in Victoria. But since then, it has been stop-start and promises broken, so that there is never any long-term certainty. There has never been the opportunity for a continuous build.

The absolutely bozo decision to appoint the French as the main submarine contractor - and paying $$$ for them to convert their existing nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine into a F*****g diesel sub is the stuff of comedy. So all credit to Morrison and Dutton for getting the USA (and UK) to share their nuclear technology and to form AUKUS. That was a big achievement.

If you google the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, it gives an indication of the transformation that will be needed at Osborne to build these complex machines. The number of highly qualified men and women who will move to Adelaide to be part of the shipyard construction and then the submarine build will make a real difference to the technology base in South Australia.

Having agreed to buy some Virginia fast attack subs, followed by an Australian build at Osborne - hopefully seals the future of Naval shipbuilding in SA and protects it from the petty vagaries of Australia's changeable political winds.

It's v good news for the future of Adelaide and SA

I'd argue real bozo decision was not deciding on the Collins replacement back during the first Rudd Government -- this AUKUS sub is so far off it could have served as the replacement's replacement!

I also think the French deal is unfairly maligned. It certainly wasn't running to plan, and the combination of Defence's penchant for bespoke solutions and French instransigence may have proved fatal. But similar criticisms can be applied to most (all?) Defence projects, and you can bet the AUKUS subs too. Broadly conceived, France made a lot of sense: enmeshing the EU's leading military power into a strategic relationship in our region would have expanded Australia's security.

Instead, we're doubling down with one overcommitted power and another fading (faded?) one. Dig at Britain aside, I recognise the opportunity of the nuclear subs, but we surely have to acknowledge the risks of operating up to three classes of submarine at the same time as well as the monumental cost (and what that may mean for other priorities). I don't know if the reality of what this means has hit most.

Long term, Adelaide does stand to benefit, but currently it feels like another Olympic Dam (waiting for the Messiah). I'll be interested to see if the government decides to build extra Hobart-class destroyers as Navantia is pitching to keep the workforce going.

[rev]

Governments stuffed up because the think tanks they rely on to formulate much of their policies stuffed up in their assessments with regards to China for example.

We should have selected nuclear subs long ago, and had at least a few operational by now.

We should never have selected a French nuclear design and then bastardized it by trying to make it a diesel electric.

Our foreign policy isn't aligned with the French, it is aligned with the USA as is the UK. That should weigh heavily on procurements.
Spanish designed destroyers aside, they're carrying American technology such as AEGIS which our frigates will have as well, and the ability to launch tomahawk cruise missiles, which I think is on the cards for the destroyers and the Collins class.
The Collins class has the same battle management systems as the Virginia class subs.

The EU is a paper tiger. It doesnt have a single foreign policy let alone military force. Most of Europe relies in American military power and logistical support.
Its the Americans deploying armour to Eastern Europe to guard against Russia not Germany or the French.
Theyre not going to be there when we need them. The Americans will, because they have a vested interest in Australia besides selling us weapons.

Only negatives i can see in this deal is the time till the Virginias arrive from the USA, and the time till the new class of subs starts getting built.

[Pistol]

I'll be interested to see if the government decides to build extra Hobart-class destroyers as Navantia is pitching to keep the workforce going.

From what I have heard, there were around 100 recommendations in the DSR.
How much budget is left to implement these is the next question...

I would say that there will be a push to for more Hobart Class destroyers built in Spain - with the casualty being the Hunter Class (perhaps we don't need 9 ASW platforms).

If the SA government was smart, they would start creating a nuclear industry in SA that would be able to cash in on the entire Life of Type of the nuclear boats instead of just looking at the glossy sticker price and being happy with that. After all, a large chunk of that reported cost is in-service/maintenance cost, not acquisition.

[Llessur2002]

Defence swaps Keswick Army Barracks for Osborne land to allow shipyards expansion

The historic Keswick Army Barracks will be unlocked for redevelopment as the Defence Department commits to handing over the prime real estate to the state government in a remarkable land swap crucial to the expansion of the Osborne shipyard.

Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed on Wednesday the site would be provided to the state in exchange for land around the shipyard as part of a new ‘co-operation agreement’.

As part of the deal, the state government will also receive land at Cultana on the Eyre Peninsula to boost plans to establish a hydrogen hub at Port Bonython.

“(The) land exchange is going to provide South Australia with really important land at Keswick in urban Adelaide (and) land at Cultana, which is important in terms of the hydrogen project, but from the defence point of view is going to provide an exchange of the land right here at Osborne necessary to put in place the construction yard, which will ultimately build the submarine,” Mr Marles said.

The Keswick Army Barracks is prime Adelaide real estate long mooted for high-density housing.

Swapping the Defence-owned, inner suburban site in return for land surrounding the current shipyard would allow for a major expansion of the Osborne precinct under the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program.

New artist impressions of the future submarine shipyard shows the scale of the planned expansion, wrapping around the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve just north of the existing Osborne site.


New render of the Osborne shipyard showing the eventual expansion around the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve. Picture: Supplied

Premier Peter Malinauskas and Defence Minister Richard Marles are preparing to sign a ‘co-operation agreement’ in Adelaide on Wednesday, which has sparked the negotiations.

The state government has not yet firmed on a specific project for the Keswick site.

But it is highly interested in the prized parcel of land due to its extremely high value, proximity to the CBD and convenient public transport access including the Adelaide Showground train station, The Advertiser understands.

The Keswick Army Barracks has been a contentious site in recent years, as calls have grown for it to be developed for housing.

Its potential has been likened to the high-density Bowden-Brompton precinct.

In 2020, prominent Adelaide property developer Theo Maras suggested the barracks be razed and converted into a “new suburb” also taking in the former Le Cornu site on Anzac Highway.

At the time, Mr Maras said the barracks appeared under-utilised and could be ripe for major high-density development.


Unley Mayor Michael Hewitson is a fan of the idea of redeveloping the Keswick Barracks site.

Also in 2020, Unley Mayor Michael Hewitson said the barracks could be turned into “one of the world’s best developments” that would help prevent the need for Adelaide’s urban sprawl “to spread to the edge of the desert”.

The barracks site, a large triangle of land on the corner of Anzac Highway and Greenhill Rd on the edge of the south parklands, neighbours the Adelaide Showground.

It is unclear whether the state government is pushing for the whole site or part of it.

Any potential development plans would need to consider the significant heritage status of ‘Headquarters Building 32’, built in 1913 and celebrated as the “first substantial Commonwealth building constructed in South Australia”.

It is considered one of the first significant barracks in Australia, given Commonwealth Heritage status in 2004

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 1267e1b45f

[SBD]

The concept drawing does not appear to have any significant parking space for thousands of workers.

The railway tracks appear to have short trains on them. Will the development propose a standard gauge railcar service from Mawson Lakes (or further - Salisbury or Virginia) to Osborne?

There don't appear to be any sidings into the site for delivery of materials. The 1940s munitions factories in Adelaide all had railway sidings/spurs for delivery of raw materials and transfer of partial and finished products.

[SouthAussie94]

The concept drawing does not appear to have any significant parking space for thousands of workers.

The railway tracks appear to have short trains on them. Will the development propose a standard gauge railcar service from Mawson Lakes (or further - Salisbury or Virginia) to Osborne?

There don't appear to be any sidings into the site for delivery of materials. The 1940s munitions factories in Adelaide all had railway sidings/spurs for delivery of raw materials and transfer of partial and finished products.

The dirt area in the top left corner of the image is currently (or soon will be) turned into a carpark. They've just built a pedestrian bridge over the rail lines that will connect this new carpark to the shipyards. Another 2 pedestrian bridges and a road bridge are also in the pipeline.

Probably still needs more parking, although I guess there would be scope to turn a surface level carpark into a multi storey. This would be years down the line through

[Pistol]

I see two carparks in that render - one of them looking like a multi-storey carpark.

Would like to see the state government consider converting the rail line for commuter trains also.
Consider there will be 4000+ workers at this site alone (along with the 2000+ for Hunter) for a 20+year timeframe, I think it would be a wise investment.

[SBD]

The concept drawing does not appear to have any significant parking space for thousands of workers.

The railway tracks appear to have short trains on them. Will the development propose a standard gauge railcar service from Mawson Lakes (or further - Salisbury or Virginia) to Osborne?

There don't appear to be any sidings into the site for delivery of materials. The 1940s munitions factories in Adelaide all had railway sidings/spurs for delivery of raw materials and transfer of partial and finished products.

The dirt area in the top left corner of the image is currently (or soon will be) turned into a carpark. They've just built a pedestrian bridge over the rail lines that will connect this new carpark to the shipyards. Another 2 pedestrian bridges and a road bridge are also in the pipeline.

Probably still needs more parking, although I guess there would be scope to turn a surface level carpark into a multi storey. This would be years down the line through

One of the spaces I thought might be a car park was the one in the centre just below the railway, but it's not connected to the bridge over the tracks, so I decided it must be something else. I guess that's the problem with early concept drawings.

[abc]

Governments stuffed up because the think tanks they rely on to formulate much of their policies stuffed up in their assessments with regards to China for example.

We should have selected nuclear subs long ago, and had at least a few operational by now.

We should never have selected a French nuclear design and then bastardized it by trying to make it a diesel electric.

Our foreign policy isn't aligned with the French, it is aligned with the USA as is the UK. That should weigh heavily on procurements.
Spanish designed destroyers aside, they're carrying American technology such as AEGIS which our frigates will have as well, and the ability to launch tomahawk cruise missiles, which I think is on the cards for the destroyers and the Collins class.
The Collins class has the same battle management systems as the Virginia class subs.

The EU is a paper tiger. It doesnt have a single foreign policy let alone military force. Most of Europe relies in American military power and logistical support.
Its the Americans deploying armour to Eastern Europe to guard against Russia not Germany or the French.
Theyre not going to be there when we need them. The Americans will, because they have a vested interest in Australia besides selling us weapons.

Only negatives i can see in this deal is the time till the Virginias arrive from the USA, and the time till the new class of subs starts getting built.

that Sky News education

You're right though our foreign policy is aligned with the US warmongering industry. We pay, they profit.
Vassal state.

[SRW]

If the SA government was smart, they would start creating a nuclear industry in SA that would be able to cash in on the entire Life of Type of the nuclear boats instead of just looking at the glossy sticker price and being happy with that. After all, a large chunk of that reported cost is in-service/maintenance cost, not acquisition.

IIRC Lucas Heights struggles to meet demand, so SA could argue its case to host Australia's second research reactor. IMO, this would largely bolster our credentials with nuclear medicine (alongside the Bragg Centre), but could potentially help train or base nuclear physicists locally?

[rev]

If the SA government was smart, they would start creating a nuclear industry in SA that would be able to cash in on the entire Life of Type of the nuclear boats instead of just looking at the glossy sticker price and being happy with that. After all, a large chunk of that reported cost is in-service/maintenance cost, not acquisition.

IIRC Lucas Heights struggles to meet demand, so SA could argue its case to host Australia's second research reactor. IMO, this would largely bolster our credentials with nuclear medicine (alongside the Bragg Centre), but could potentially help train or base nuclear physicists locally?

Not sure what the point would be in relation to the subs, as the reactors and their fuel would be coming from the Americans. We just have to find were to store it in 30 years when the subs get decommissioned.