Defence cancels 155mm forging commitment

In a positively-spun statement headlined “Defence’s commitment to domestic manufacturing of large calibre munitions”, the Department of Defence has effectively put a hold on domestic production of 155mm ammunition.

FILE PHOTO: 155mm rounds in the field. (Cropped) photo by Corporal Brandon Grey.

The 2024 National Defence Strategy and the 2024 Australian Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Plan highlighted the importance of establishing and uplifting Australia’s domestic missile and munitions manufacturing capabilities.

The 2024 Integrated Investment Program includes $16-21 billion over the decade to invest in guided-weapons and explosive-ordnance priorities.

“In 2023, Defence tendered for the establishment of a domestic forging capability to manufacture 155mm M795 artillery projectiles”, with the contract let [controversially?] to Thales in November last year.

“Since then, there have been notable changes in the global defence industrial base.

“This has included a surge in international demand for naval 5-inch and significant increase in global capacity to produce 155mm projectiles.

“This has required Defence to re-assess its manufacturing approach on 155mm projectiles.

“In addition, Defence will work with industry to accelerate production of naval 5-inch for the Australian Defence Force, and explore export opportunities to support international partners.

“As a result, Defence has decided to cease the current procurement activity and will refine its 155mm projectile requirements prior to re-approaching the market.

“Defence remains committed to working with industry to deliver a 155mm M795 forging capability by 2028, producing 15,000 rounds each year with further additional capacity that will be determined as part of the re-approach to market.”

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: The above statement reads to me like a cover story for, perhaps, a breakdown in negotiations with Thales. If ‘greater capacity’ was the real requirement, then a contract variation with the already-selected preferred tenderer would be the obvious solution – especially with an unchanged stated delivery goal of 2028.  
So, essentially, Defence has ‘ceased current procurement activity’, have yet to ‘refine their requirements’ before commencing a new ‘approach to market’ [which took more than a year the first time around], yet somehow still ‘remain committed’ to a 2028 production schedule. Defence procurement history supports that confidence? Yeah right! 

.

.


.


.