Hi oldpinger. I reckon I said that defence expenditure is largely a consequence of lobbying. There are over 4,000 registered lobbyists in Canberra and both of the major political parties recently declined to implement tighter controls on their activities.
I have difficulty abiding the big defence spend cheer squad (which includes some former and incumbent military chiefs) pushing for increased defence outlay when they have been complicit in bad acquisition planning decisions that have squandered tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. If somebody was to run an objective operational evaluation of all 3 Australian armed forces, I assure you the outcome would be truly alarming.
Hello 500N. DWP2009 has this to say re Interoperable Capability:
'8.65 Interoperability is principally concerned with the ability of personnel and systems of different nations and agencies to work effectively together, safely and securely. Where it makes sense to do so, and it is cost-effective and in keeping with the policy settings in this White Paper, capabilities and systems should be designed to be interoperable from conception, not as an afterthought in the capability development process.'
Interpreted sensibly, this points to meshing of operating doctrine for combined and joint operations, communications means and procedures, advantaging military and manufacturer supply chains throughout the world, ammunition standards and so forth.
It does not mean operating exactly the same platforms as other forces with which Australia might become involved, as is trumpeted by many in support of acquiring say US-sourced hardware. Consider for example various RAN warships which are platforms from non-US sources but fitted out to have some commonality of weapons systems with US forces.
Some of the platforms Australia has and will shed (on present planning) could have been very cost-effectively put through US manufacturer upgrade programs; yet DoD planners have forfeited them. I would argue that neither the Abrams tanks, Tiger (or Hueycobra or Apache), MRH-90, MH-60R have the versatility necessary for an ADF that might soon find itself having to shed or mothball some capabilities because it is trying to be too diverse for a pretty small force.
All 3 Services ought really only have what can be properly manned and operated effectively within affordable defence spending.
Some defence debate is now bending more toward focus on the Indo-Pacific and need for deterrence against interference with sea corridors to be Australia's primary focus,in lieu of unachievable defence of Australia against armed attack. If that thinking gets cast into DWP2013 (as I believe it should), then the whole Force 2030 vision might be duly consigned to the shredder. Year 2013 might bring a big reality check for Canberra in terms of what is affordable.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 29th Nov 2012 at 07:44.