And why NH-90+Tiger ARG was chosen rather than the preferred UH-60+AH-64D was because more "Australian industry involvement". And now we have the worse scenario: RAN has the SH-60R +NH-90, Army has the S-70+NH-90 and our 20+ ARH is such an orphan system that is guaranteed to be expensive to operate and upgrade.
Instead, we should have AH-64D + SH-60R + UN-60 (or SH-60S) and Burke IIA, all of them were to be built overseas.
No offense, but V, as an engineer myself, as long as Australian labor cost is so high, I can't see a labor intensive manufacturing industry such as ship building can have a future. The size of our navy is so small, that such niche market is unlikely to be able to sustain more than one yard.
On other "high end manufacturing", the "key players" are not the just the tradesmen, but the engineers, scientists and project managers. We Aussie are not too bad on the first two, but in military hardware procurement projects, our history in project management is just lame (such as the disastrous SH-2G(A) project, and to a lesser extent, the HMAS Sirius).
For our Sub, the US combat system is the key, so as long as our Yankee friends don't like someone (especially the French, and also the Germans) touching their wares, they will have no chance in our bid. And the major pusher(s) for an Aus-Japan alliance are not just Tokyo and Canberra, but also from Washington. So unless our country is ready to say goodbye to "colonial era" and adopted a really independent diplomatic/security position, we don't have much leeway in those stuff.
I think you find that US and Japanese labour, possibly Spanish as well is more expensive than Australian, the biggest difference actually being they are producing their product from hot lines in long established facilities, just look what happens when we order something that is not MOTS, or more to the point FMS, ask Canada what they think of Sikorsky's performance.
Another factor we tend to completely ignore is the post GFC global economy combined with the once in a generation mining construction boom saw an unusually and sustained increase in the value of the Australian dollar that made Australian products substantially more expensive in comparison with imported. The construction boom also caused a skill shortage driving up wages in some sectors and creating shortages in others, just ask the ADF about their retention issues until quite recently. Add this to the shipbuilding black hole that developed before the 2000 DWP plans began to deliver results and it is easy to see the extenuating circumstances. Actually even the experimental contracting model imposed on the AWD project has been highlighted as a major problem by every review into the project, the fact that so many parties have a say in what happens and how but only ASC cops the consequences when things don't go to plan, not a good situation when three major entities, each with something to gain if ASC is sidelined, able to directly affect project performance (Raytheon, BAE and Navantia).
As for local projects that have worked well ANZAC, ANZAC ASMD and Bushmaster come to mind immediately. HUG for the Classic fleet, the F/A-18 build its self I believe, and even the F-111 AUP were all successful local projects. The AFP (Australian Frigate Project) FFGs can be described as successful as even though it was delayed the schedule was re-baselined specifically to modernise and reorganise Williamstown in preparation for the ANZAC project and the ships were successfully completed to the new schedule and cost predictions; according to the RAN these two ships are better built and higher quality than their US built sisters. I will even include the Collins class as a success as it was actually quite trouble free, despite political interference, in comparison to any other new submarine project I can think of bar the US Virginia, with other successful projects being evolutions of existing designs from hot lines.
To be honest we are a pretty negative bunch and only tend to remember the bad, not the good, even when massive improvement, even up to and exceeding worlds best practice we tend to concentrate on the teething problems that every new project in every nation goes through. Speaking of which anyone familiar with the UKs Astute program? How about Spain's S-80 submarines, that was actually so close an evolution of proven Scorpion that DCNS sued over copying their technology, that, even though it was built in a long established, very experienced and capable yard, managed to screw up some incredibly basic characteristics such as buoyancy, causing a two year delay and massive cost increase as Electric Boat was brought in (as they were in the Astute program) to fix / redesign things. There was also a lesser known issue with the AIP that delivered only 75% of the required endurance, could you imagine the carry on if the Collins had been that bad?
Hey what about the Los Angeles SSNs, the early boats were built from the wrong steel, and some were so badly built they had to be scraped and restarted (all at US government expense), that was Electric Boat, now probably the worlds best, the company that sends experts to salvage other nations projects. Even the Virginia class has suffered issues, fraudulent weld inspections at New Port News as well as actually substandard piping welds delaying delivery of at least one boat. How about the issues with the early San Antonio class LPDs, they were not actually even fit for purpose? Serious quality issues with both LCS designs?
Do I really need to go on? Why are we so negative of our own capabilities and so unforgiving of mistakes on our projects but so accepting of the stuff ups of others. People criticise "crap" Australian cars but put up with major problems with imported models, I had more trouble with two Subaru's than with our Australian build Fords and Toyotas.
It really is odd, most peoples are proud of their nations achievements and even blow them out of all proportion, Australians in general appear to be the opposite, exaggerating the problems and ignoring the actual achievements and successes.
* Whoops I almost forgot, the Tiger and MRH90 are Australian assembled and overseas manufactured, the issues we are experiencing with them are the same as other operators, ironically the fact that we have a local facility with dedicated and capable people supporting the project, from industry, defence and DSTO, means we are actually able to fix many issues ourselves ahead of the other operators and have taken the lead on a number of certification areas. Still new Blackhawks bought under FMS would have been a better option although the Apaches, while great in hind sight were not recommended by the ADF as they are very much attack not reconnaissance helicopters and were believed to be significantly more expensive than the Tiger.
