RAAF CAF slams 'his' Air Force!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: so far south of blighty its untrue!!!!!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF CAF slams 'his' Air Force!
Awesome........comparing the bureaucracy of Defence to a bucket of corks!, and stating that when he DOESN'T want something to happen, he sends it through all the designed processes, as that is an absolute guarantee it will NOT succeed!
Too Easy!
RAAF chief hits out at defence bureaucracy, warns F-35 fighter may not be properly integrated | News.com.au
Speaking to an audience of military and industry leaders at a Williams Foundation air power dinner, Air Marshal Brown said getting something done in Defence was like dealing with a bucket of corks. He said each cork had to be held down, but if one popped up it was back to square one.
“If I don’t want something to happen in Defence my tactic is to send it on whatever process we have designed, because that is an absolute guarantee that it will not succeed,” Air Marshal Brown said.
Too Easy!
RAAF chief hits out at defence bureaucracy, warns F-35 fighter may not be properly integrated | News.com.au
Speaking to an audience of military and industry leaders at a Williams Foundation air power dinner, Air Marshal Brown said getting something done in Defence was like dealing with a bucket of corks. He said each cork had to be held down, but if one popped up it was back to square one.
“If I don’t want something to happen in Defence my tactic is to send it on whatever process we have designed, because that is an absolute guarantee that it will not succeed,” Air Marshal Brown said.
Last edited by back end o' the bus; 1st Jun 2014 at 06:53. Reason: Addition of quote
Good onya Geoff Brown! He is still displaying the common sense he showed when I taught him to fly helicopters back in 1981. Unfortunately he went on to fly fighters after that, but retained a brain - very unusual for a knucklehead.
Dealing with defence purchases is a highly political thing. The best item we want to buy will get watered down by some politician who wants his electorate to build some part under licence, and the demand to have a special "Australianised" version adds squillions in R&D and adds years and sometimes a decade to the delivery process. We are just too political to buy something off the shelf that already works.
Dealing with defence purchases is a highly political thing. The best item we want to buy will get watered down by some politician who wants his electorate to build some part under licence, and the demand to have a special "Australianised" version adds squillions in R&D and adds years and sometimes a decade to the delivery process. We are just too political to buy something off the shelf that already works.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love someone to do a study on all the "Australianisations" that have been done over the years versus $$$$ spent and just how useful / required they actually were.
I would also like to know why our requirements are just so different to the US requirements, particularly for helos and taking into account how much we work with the US, joint ops etc.
I would also like to know why our requirements are just so different to the US requirements, particularly for helos and taking into account how much we work with the US, joint ops etc.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When he does retire could you folks down under send him to Canada? One only has to spend five minutes around Ottawa to see its a carbon copy of the mess Canada has in procurement for all three of our services,{ which thank God are no longer totally merged into one ineffective abortion}
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems the UK, Aus and Canada seem to suffer the same thing.
I also noticed with a quick google that some other small countries
also suffer it !
Someone did point out that the main reason for MRH90 and Tiger was because they could be built here. I really do have to wonder whether the cost is worth it. Using defence as a job creation scheme is, IMHO the wrong way to procure things.
What are they going to do next, say to Boeing or Airbus that
they have to build the next lot of aircraft here in Aus ?
I also noticed with a quick google that some other small countries
also suffer it !
Someone did point out that the main reason for MRH90 and Tiger was because they could be built here. I really do have to wonder whether the cost is worth it. Using defence as a job creation scheme is, IMHO the wrong way to procure things.
What are they going to do next, say to Boeing or Airbus that
they have to build the next lot of aircraft here in Aus ?
The "shining light" for the RAF Pathfinders in WW2 was Don Bennett and he hailed from Toowoomba in Queensland as does the "shining light" for today's RAAF, Geoff Brown.
Well said Geoff and let's hope the pollies listen and act on his prophetic words.
Well said Geoff and let's hope the pollies listen and act on his prophetic words.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an end note to my previous post. During the years my wife and I owned a series of flight schools and a charter business we often employed military personnel who were "doing time" at national defense HQ in Ottawa, one of these chaps { Flt Lt} would fly for us in the evenings and weekends was in "procurement", he once stated to us, {on the day he quit and went full time civil flying} that in five years he had "not managed to purchase even a single pencil "as the civil service obstructed every attempted purchase, he now sits at the pointy end of a very big aircraft, is well paid and a very happy man!
Last edited by clunckdriver; 2nd Jun 2014 at 15:25.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,918
Received 2,839 Likes
on
1,212 Posts
While the original Spanish design LHD was capable of carrying the fighter jet, the Australian versions have been completed without the equipment necessary to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
Speaking to an audience of military and industry leaders at a Williams Foundation air power dinner, Air Marshal Brown said getting something done in Defence was like dealing with a bucket of corks. He said each cork had to be held down, but if one popped up it was back to square one.
Last edited by NutLoose; 2nd Jun 2014 at 19:06.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Yes it is weird how the RAAF insisted on buying an LHD or TWO with that skyjumpythingo on the front parts. Who'da thunk. How did they get that past the fwits otherwise involved. What secret plan does the BrownieBoys have for dat LHD? RAAFcrabs get the JUMP on the RANfishheads again.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it is just a typical Australian Def purchasing decision !
I think the saying is "fitted for but not with" !
I am surprised they weren't fitted out unless the option of the F-35 really isn't an option.
I think the saying is "fitted for but not with" !
I am surprised they weren't fitted out unless the option of the F-35 really isn't an option.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Here's hoping the days of 'fitted for but not with are over' - in the eye of beholder I guess - how long is a piece of string? I had thought that 'why Oz LDHs retained the ski jump' was stuff of legend now. There are many apocryphal stories I cannot confirm however one explanation proffered online in a few official places is that removing the ski jump (being part of the hull) was not feasible due the cost of redesign and whatnot. Much the same as fitting 'cats 'nFlaps' to the CVFs proved.
The official RAN LHD website lists two missions as opposed to the FOUR on the Spanish Navy LHD website (one of the missing for the RAN is the Spanish 'aircraft carrier' option). FLOG the DMO all you like - they probably deserve it - but - whatever. The RAN LHDs have been internally modified to carry out the two missions specified on the website. I guess I have to go look it up now.
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
&
The official RAN LHD website lists two missions as opposed to the FOUR on the Spanish Navy LHD website (one of the missing for the RAN is the Spanish 'aircraft carrier' option). FLOG the DMO all you like - they probably deserve it - but - whatever. The RAN LHDs have been internally modified to carry out the two missions specified on the website. I guess I have to go look it up now.
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
"
The ship's roles are to:
The ship's roles are to:
- embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and
- carry out/support humanitarian missions.
"The ship is a conventional steel mono hull design with the superstructure located on the starboard side of the flight deck..."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 2nd Jun 2014 at 22:46. Reason: AdMoreBUMPF
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of which must surely be to embark and disembark the newly created Amphibious Bn - can't remember which one it is but it isn't the Commandos.
Anyway, it's a far cry from the old rust bucket that used to be used for
Water ops and Landing craft.
Anyway, it's a far cry from the old rust bucket that used to be used for
Water ops and Landing craft.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
See INFO added above. As I recall this 'newish' website seems to mirror what is on the Spanish Navy website (can be found later). The SKYJUMP (as I recall on the Spanith Site) is 12 degrees - good for and designed for the F-35Bs - Bravo Olay! Whatever....
LHD JUAN CARLOS I (L-61) / Strategic Projection Vessel 04 Mar 2014
Displaying items by tag: Spanish Navy - Buques de Guerra
LHD JUAN CARLOS I (L-61) / Strategic Projection Vessel 04 Mar 2014
"...[LHD] is the largest ship ever built for the Spanish Navy, and she was designed to enable multipurpose operations both Marine and Army, plus serving as aircraft carrier. For that reason, the ship was designed to primarily four distinct roles. Four concepts of operations for which it was designed are the following:
Strategic Projection.
Amphibious Operations.
Alternative Aircraft Carrier.
Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW)...."
Strategic Projection.
Amphibious Operations.
Alternative Aircraft Carrier.
Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW)...."
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,918
Received 2,839 Likes
on
1,212 Posts
I wonder if there painting the name out or the ship is abdicating as well.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
<sarcasm on>Yeah I guess that will happen for the Queen Lizzie CVF also <sarcasm off>
Meanwhile back at the Oz LHD rancho F-35B compatabilo here is some more info for youse delectation:
www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publications/LHD_Fact_sheet..pdf (0.6Mb)
Meanwhile back at the Oz LHD rancho F-35B compatabilo here is some more info for youse delectation:
www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publications/LHD_Fact_sheet..pdf (0.6Mb)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
I have been told ad nauseam that our Oz LHDs have been internally modified to disallow some of the things the Spanith Navy can do with their LHD as described below (with an interesting insight into the 'sky jump' [referred to as this in illustrations therein] additional usefulness).
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/user...tia_ingles.pdf (2.3Mb)
Navantia | Strategic Projection Ship | LHD “Juan Carlos I” Spanish Navy
"...The “JUAN CARLOS I” is a single hull ship made of steel with the superstructure on the starboard side. Her design is based on a combination of military and commercial standards and specifications; the structure, equipment and materials follow Lloyd’s Register of Shipping’s civil standards, whilst her combat system, ordnance handling and stowage systems, systems of supply at sea, flight deck and the damage control system follow military standards.
The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:
AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.
FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).
HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.
...For its part, the runway has a 12° gradient or ski-jump afore to facilitate the takeoff of STOVL and to improve the loading capacity of fuel and weaponry....
...The flight deck has been designed to operate, launch, receive and provide support, both day and night, to planes and helicopters such as the third Squadron’s AB-212, the fifth Squadron’s SH-3D, and the ninth Squadron’s AV-8B Harrier II Plus. As well as the aircraft in service with the Navy, the ship is able to receive the Army’s CH-47 Chinook, Eurocopter Cougar and Tiger as well as the NH-90 when it enters into service with the Navy and with the Spanish Army.
In a significant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lightning II, if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane. A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the flight deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions and resistance) for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.
For the transfer of aircraft between the hangar and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook. The capacity of the hangar is variable depending on the mission profile. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available for an amphibious type profile. This surface area could be increased by a further 2,046 m2, using the upper garage to have greater capacity for the aircraft. This means the hangar would reach 3,000 m2 for an aircraft carrier type profile. The hangar itself, situated further astern, can house up to 12 medium-sized helicopters. In the case of the LHD operating as a temporary aircraft carrier, the vehicles and material would be substituted by between 10 and 12 STOVL planes, as well as the dozen helicopters previously mentioned. In order to provide support for airborne operations, it is estimated that the ship has sufficient fuel, spare parts and arms so that the embarked aircraft could carry out their operations without the ship needing replenishment for up to a maximum of 50 days.
The planned airborne capacity is for her to transport and operate up to 30 aircraft including medium-sized and heavy helicopters in amphibious operation profiles, or between 10 and 12 F-35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier mission profile at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is not operational...."
"...The “JUAN CARLOS I” is a single hull ship made of steel with the superstructure on the starboard side. Her design is based on a combination of military and commercial standards and specifications; the structure, equipment and materials follow Lloyd’s Register of Shipping’s civil standards, whilst her combat system, ordnance handling and stowage systems, systems of supply at sea, flight deck and the damage control system follow military standards.
The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:
AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.
FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).
HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.
...For its part, the runway has a 12° gradient or ski-jump afore to facilitate the takeoff of STOVL and to improve the loading capacity of fuel and weaponry....
...The flight deck has been designed to operate, launch, receive and provide support, both day and night, to planes and helicopters such as the third Squadron’s AB-212, the fifth Squadron’s SH-3D, and the ninth Squadron’s AV-8B Harrier II Plus. As well as the aircraft in service with the Navy, the ship is able to receive the Army’s CH-47 Chinook, Eurocopter Cougar and Tiger as well as the NH-90 when it enters into service with the Navy and with the Spanish Army.
In a significant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lightning II, if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane. A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the flight deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions and resistance) for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.
For the transfer of aircraft between the hangar and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook. The capacity of the hangar is variable depending on the mission profile. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available for an amphibious type profile. This surface area could be increased by a further 2,046 m2, using the upper garage to have greater capacity for the aircraft. This means the hangar would reach 3,000 m2 for an aircraft carrier type profile. The hangar itself, situated further astern, can house up to 12 medium-sized helicopters. In the case of the LHD operating as a temporary aircraft carrier, the vehicles and material would be substituted by between 10 and 12 STOVL planes, as well as the dozen helicopters previously mentioned. In order to provide support for airborne operations, it is estimated that the ship has sufficient fuel, spare parts and arms so that the embarked aircraft could carry out their operations without the ship needing replenishment for up to a maximum of 50 days.
The planned airborne capacity is for her to transport and operate up to 30 aircraft including medium-sized and heavy helicopters in amphibious operation profiles, or between 10 and 12 F-35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier mission profile at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is not operational...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 3rd Jun 2014 at 05:36. Reason: addd graphico + broken PDF URL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
From our point of view AM Brown is on the far right of the table (facing Senators). Brownie gets his freak on from minute 22 or so....
Senate estimates: F35 Joint Strike Fighters Published on Jun 2, 2014
Senate estimates: F35 Joint Strike Fighters Published on Jun 2, 2014
"In senate estimates, Scott Ludlam asks Australia's Chief Air Marshall about our plan to buy 58 F35 Joint Strike Fighters, but where's the money and are they worth it?"
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 3rd Jun 2014 at 04:23. Reason: Ooops AM Brownie
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAF rightly smacked down Senator Ludlam at the 25:50 mark...
Ludlam was doing the old teacher and naughty schoolboy routine, and obviously had done little pre-reading/research and had no briefs to any worthwhile level before hand. He was clearly fishing for that political 'gotcha'!
The way members of these Senate committees treat our senior military leadership is disgraceful!
Ludlam was doing the old teacher and naughty schoolboy routine, and obviously had done little pre-reading/research and had no briefs to any worthwhile level before hand. He was clearly fishing for that political 'gotcha'!
The way members of these Senate committees treat our senior military leadership is disgraceful!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox
"The way members of these Senate committees treat our senior military leadership is disgraceful!"
In the last few years, especially the last year, our senior military leaders have smacked down pollies regularly and even got apologies from them.
The days of taking crap by them is over and they know it.
"The way members of these Senate committees treat our senior military leadership is disgraceful!"
In the last few years, especially the last year, our senior military leaders have smacked down pollies regularly and even got apologies from them.
The days of taking crap by them is over and they know it.