{"id":20102,"date":"2015-05-01T11:00:58","date_gmt":"2015-05-01T01:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=20102"},"modified":"2015-05-01T12:03:16","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T02:03:16","slug":"australian-defence-industry-where-to-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/australian-defence-industry-where-to-next\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian defence industry: where to next?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Recent discussions on naval shipbuilding have highlighted the importance of a vibrant and innovative defence industry for both strategic and economic security reasons. Prior experience with building the Anzac- frigates shows that Australia can build defence product to high quality and at globally competitive prices provided there\u2019s a sufficient number of items, and a stable design, to develop efficiencies over the build program.<\/p>\n
The government\u2019s consideration of a continuous build of naval ships is positive. A much more concerning problem exists beyond the large, but narrow, confines of shipbuilding and as borne out in an analysis of contracts placed by the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). This problem centres on the trends within Australian defence industry and where it\u2019s heading.<\/p>\n
In the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2015 the DMO has placed approximately 117,000 contracts worth a little over A$71 billion for acquisition, sustainment and sundry other items. In the financial year 2007\u201308 almost 80% of the DMO contracting was to companies operating within Australia, but this has steadily declined since that time to the current state where less than 60% are awarded locally. The movement of contracting activity is shown in the following graph. (All data from Austender<\/a>.)<\/p>\n <\/a>When only Australian-owned companies are considered the picture is far worse, and is significantly impacted by the amount contracted to ASC. When ASC is taken out of the equation less than 5% (by value) of all DMO acquisition and sustainment contracts are awarded directly to Australian-owned companies. This is less than half the amount awarded to Australian-owned companies in 2010 and earlier years.<\/p>\n With respect to DMO contract award, the overwhelming winner is the US Government. In the period 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2015 the amount of DMO contracts (by value) placed directly with the US Government has increased by over 250%. Whilst there are some items of military hardware that can only be acquired through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) there\u2019s no clear reason why repeated FMS orders are needed for the sustainment of items that have been in the Australian inventory for many years.<\/p>\n The current trend with respect to FMS contracting is shown in the following graph, and one can\u2019t escape the conclusion that FMS is becoming the \u2018route of convenience\u2019, or maybe the path of least resistance, for defence contracting. (All data from Austender<\/a>.)<\/p>\n