It will be a factor, but it certainly won’t be the only one. Security of supply, domestic workshare, results of capability analysis including the actual testing results, political interests including regional (Qld v Victoria) interoperability with other Army and joint assets and undoubtedly many other aspects, will all feed into the pot…
John Newman
The Bunker Group
How do you define ‘cost’?
Is it the initial procurement cost? Infrastructure? Training? Spare parts? Sustainment over the life of the vehicles?
Cost is important however it is measured, but firstly one would hope and expect that the correct vehicle is chosen based on the selection and testing criteria.
Assuming both vehicles are equal, or near enough to equal, then the decision will be very political (in my opinion at least).
We have a Federal Election due by May this year so the ‘cost’ could come down to which Electorate gets to build the new fleet of IFVs, pick the right electorate and you stay in Government too.
I’m not having a go at the current Government, the Opposition will also be doing their best to promise all sorts of things in targeted electorates too, such is the nature of politics and elections.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Usually totally ignored here is the dictum about politics being the art of the possible. The Government has to stay in power to actually deliver their promises however the decision is made. It's all very well to expect that political concerns be kept out of it but not much use if that leads to a change of government to (for example) a Greens dominated one with no qualms about dishonouring defence agreements.
oldsig
John Newman
The Bunker Group
This election the last thing Defence (or those of us who support Defence) needs, is a minority Left of the Left Government requiring Green support to Govern.
Think Gillard Government and the cuts to Defence spending, not something I want to see happen ever again.
you may be right?
I can only presume that the opposition has current security/intel assessments. And obviously further if they assume govt.
currently defence has bipartisan support, I can only presume it’s at its current posturing for reasons.
….. but that’s venturing into politics.
I share the sentiment tho.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes, but....
What you say may well be true, but that is this side of the election whilst in Opposition. And it may continue to be true if they win after the election is held.
The big question mark is, what happens if they become a minority Government requiring Green support?
First and foremost they are politicians (all sides are), what deals with the Devil will have to be made to guarantee that support?
There is clear recent history for this to happen, the Greens would love to milk the big Defence cow to pay for their agenda.
Again, last thing we need is a repeat of the Gillard minority Government, whoever wins we will all be better off with majority Government.
The thing I am most saddened by is the loss of bipartisanship that we used to have to a degree. These days it's all about the politics and wedging the other side. When you have the likes of Nick Minchin complaining that good policy is being rejected because of politics, you know you have a problem.
Bipartisanship politics?, that's a dinosaur! I can't remember a time when that existed actually.
Although some policies' of both major parties have a degree of agreement, they are poles apart when it comes to defence.
In saying that, the lib/Nats made some terrible, some acceptable, and some good decisions in the 90's/ 2000's compared to the ZERO decisions that the ALP made.
ATM, it seems that the current mob are making some decent decisions all round, some not so popular.
All I can say about ALBO, is he has good taste in music, he has stuck to UNI bands of the 80's like Radio Birdman and the Celibate Rifles.
Although some policies' of both major parties have a degree of agreement, they are poles apart when it comes to defence.
In saying that, the lib/Nats made some terrible, some acceptable, and some good decisions in the 90's/ 2000's compared to the ZERO decisions that the ALP made.
ATM, it seems that the current mob are making some decent decisions all round, some not so popular.
All I can say about ALBO, is he has good taste in music, he has stuck to UNI bands of the 80's like Radio Birdman and the Celibate Rifles.
Takao
The Bunker Group
2020 FSP and DSP have bipartisan support. Both parties were extremely supportive.
2016 DWP has bipartisan support.
The vast, vast majority of defence decisions are bipartisan. Ironically, that brings it's own problems. But the two major parties are quite similar in this area.
Last edited:
Not sure where both parties stand on 80's music, suffice to say it was a great era.
The winner of LAND 400 Phase 3 should be an interesting one as to how both Parties conduct themselves.
Hopefully this year Army will also get some clarity as to timelines for it's various helicopter projects.
also
Small SF helicopter.........go or no go???
Regards S
The winner of LAND 400 Phase 3 should be an interesting one as to how both Parties conduct themselves.
Hopefully this year Army will also get some clarity as to timelines for it's various helicopter projects.
also
Small SF helicopter.........go or no go???
Regards S
Really? One party makes the call and orders and procures equipment, and the other does nothing at all, but begrudgingly agrees with the decision makers, is hardly bipartisan.
Did the Lib/Nats agree with the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government's call to do nothing at all for defence, particularly NAVY?
What about the Hawke Keating era?
Was there bipartisan support for gulf war 2?
Because the ALP were extremely critical of our involvement in participating due to the weapons of Mass destruction call.
- Considering the RAN is still using the gear ordered in the Hawke Keating years and that gear is expected to continue serving for between another one or two decades it can be all that bad. Yes it could and should have been better but I have more issues with the shipbuilding black hole of the late 90s early 2000s than the the perceived one now.
You can't actually be suggesting that Labor are better for defence though Volk?
We got 6 Collins instead of 8, and after a hell of a lot of tweaking, they became very good Subs.
Which Govt bought the two shopping trolleys?
Defence suffered under every Labor govt I can remember.
Libs were better, but still no where near as good as they should have been.
They made some terrible calls, sprites, NH90s, Tiger, barracuda,and now I am expecting boxer to be a problem in the future to. It's an awful lot of car for our AO.
Anyway, if it was not for our current circumstances, we would not be in the situation where we need to buy this stuff. Labor should have replaced some of the gear when they were in govt, but did SFA, and now they sit back and criticise the current mob.
Labor used to be about the worker, but not any more, they have become something other than what they used to be.
Quite a few of us are elderly, not too many old enough to actually remember the Curtin Government, which only formed as a minority Labor Government in late 1941 and lasted until his death in 1945.
Those i remember since did some good things, but during *my* service they were at best uninspired and at worst malign to defence.
Despite arguments here to the contrary, Labour and the Coalition now have a good record of bipartisanship in the core of Defdnce and Foreign Affairs with actual conflicts being mostly around the fringes...same objectives, differing priorities...except when Swan was bullsh!tting about the budget and balancing it by deferring spending, particularly on Defence.
I suspect that the current environment will keep things that way.
And I agree. Aside from the broad brush, we need to keep politics out of this forum. It is, after all an election year, and I for one don't want to get a long ban
oldsig
Not old enough to remember Curtin and Menzies old mate. Whitlam is the 1st PM I can remember.
Certainly Australia and other nations were behind the ball responding to Hitler (the Japanese were identified as a threat and the HMS Ark Royal was designed with this in mind). This does not mean the threat was not recognised rather the economic conditions were adverse from the mid 20's.
Labour were in power from 1929 to 31 with a coalition in power from that point forward. This includes Lyons who was labour and established the United Australia party. Menzies was a member of the Coalition.
The government of 1940 was also a coalition which included Menzies, Fadden and Curtin. Menzies was toppled after independent and labour blocked the budget of the minority Menzies government, Fadden took the premiership for 40 days after which Curtin formed an agreement to be Prime Minister. This did no occur as a result of an election just a change in leader.
To suggest this was a Menzies failure is nonsense in this sense noting he was only running a minority government from April 1939 to August 1941. While I have no problem with folk pointing out errors you need to get your facts straight before getting stuck in.
As an interesting point, the Department of Supply and Development was established in April 1939 to 'arm Australia' essentially. This was not a 'Labour' or 'Curtin' action, rather is was the response of a coalition of parties and occurred during Menzies premiership. It was not the action of Curtin who took control in October 1941 when he took the premiership of the same coalition. Labour did not rule in its own right until 1943.
Basically the country was let down but all parties leading up to conflict, however, the same folk established he Department of Supply and Development and the follow on Department of Aircraft Production in June 1941 (before Curtin took control).
The Department of Supply and Development and the Department of Aircraft Production were central to Australia war effort and these were not the work of one person or one party.
I suggest you modify your post to correct factual errors.
Post script .... noting this was a coalition government it was remarkable what they achieved.
Last edited:
I can just remember Curtain mainly because of my old man’s ranting at the very frequent blackouts in Sydney during 1950ish
Politics are allowed when they directly refer to defence. The politics being discussed in the present discourse meet that criteria. The Moderators are monitoring the discussion very closely.