Sea Sprites Grounded [Archive]

Hugh Jarse

15th May 2006, 07:17

Just saw on the news that the Navy's Super Sea Sprites have been grounded.

From news.com.au: 16 May 2006:

THE Howard Government is set to abandon $1 billion worth of new navy helicopters and to sue the American supplier for damages.
The navy was buying 11 Super Seasprite helicopters from Kaman Aerospace to deploy on to its eight Anzac frigates, but the machines are unable to fly.

More than $980 million of the Budget has already been spent, nine machines have been delivered and the overall project for the anti-ship/anti-submarine choppers is running almost six years late.
It would cost up to $200 million to fix them and morale in the chopper squadron has hit rock bottom.
The helicopters, based with 805 Squadron at HMAS Albatross at Nowra in NSW, were grounded on March 29 and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has declared "enough is enough".
"I have asked the Department of Defence to consider all options including, if appropriate, legal action against the contractors who have not fulfilled their obligations to Australia and to Australian taxpayers," Dr Nelson said.

[Advertisement:]

"We have had delays and essentially as far as I am concerned the software failures we faced in late March have been the straw that's broken the camel's back."

Dr Nelson has vowed to resist "throwing good money after bad" on defence projects that he believes are wasting taxpayer funds.
He is taking a very close look at other projects including those to provide new army helicopters, upgraded armoured personnel carriers, navy frigate upgrades and the modernisation of the F/A-18 Hornet fighter fleet.
There are also major concerns over the delivery schedule for new US-supplied M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks for the army.
The Minister has drawn a line in the sand on the Seasprite debacle and defence chiefs were ordered to go to Nowra last week to assess the project.

They will report to Dr Nelson later this week and he will then take a proposal to Cabinet's National Security Committee.
Apart from 1950s vintage airframes, the Seasprites have had huge software-integration problems.
The latest computer glitch directly affected flight safety.
The last of the navy's six Anzac ships will be delivered next month and a decision will be needed by then to equip them with a different helicopter.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Seasprites were operating successfully in New Zealand. "The Kiwis can get the Seasprite right, but we can't and that seems to be the theme of the bungling character of this Howard Government," he said.

On another note, I also heard cracks have been found in the airframe. Something which was not mentioned in the report.:eek:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i6/HugeArse/ChopperCracks.jpg

Capn Bloggs

15th May 2006, 07:30

A few of your namesakes there, Jarse! :}

No Further Requirements

15th May 2006, 09:31

No wonder they don't work properly - they were assembled by plumbers! :ok:
Sorry to all the plumbers out there....

satmstr

15th May 2006, 09:42

ha ha , nice one , very creative , thanks you made my day :D

Hugh Jarse

15th May 2006, 10:26

That's me in the inter-stage section.:ugh:

I noticed you up on the mast tightening the Jesus Nut:p

Capn Bloggs

15th May 2006, 11:09

Jarse,

inter-turbine

WTF is that? The only "turbines" I know have an effing big hole at the front and a very loud, very hot smaller hole at the back! None of those silly long fan thingees whizzing around! :E :ok:

Gnadenburg

16th May 2006, 02:42

slice

16th May 2006, 02:53

Gnad - the Seasprite as I understand it was orginally selected because it had a footprint small enough to operate from the proposed OPC vessel (later cancelled). Effectively they were trying to shoehorn Sea Hawk type capabillity into the smaller airframe - hence the requirement for the systems to be designed from scratch. Defence have never provided an adequate answer as to why the Seasprite wasn't cancelled when the OPC was - probably mostly bureaucratic inertia.:ugh:

Like This - Do That

16th May 2006, 09:04

Can anyone explain why the Sea Hawk was not used on the ANZAC frigates? It has some seemingly obvious advantages- in service already, US Navy has integrated the missile and torpedo that Australia must have spent a fortune in doing with the Sea Sprite, infrastructure and simulator in place etc etc.
Another lazy billion down the drain courtesy of defence. Who are these people?

Gnadenburg the ANZACs have all gone away with S-70 on board. So the Sea Sprite is redundant. Mind you the ANZACs were fitted Beazley-style "for but not with" so required the ASM capability. I don't think the S-70 has (eg) Penguin capability, now they're carrying Harpoon the OTH anti-surface requirement has disappeared.

Bin the friggin lot of 'em and litigate litigate litigate!

Erin Brockovich

16th May 2006, 10:00

More than $980 million of the Budget has already been spent, nine machines have been delivered and the overall project for the anti-ship/anti-submarine choppers is running almost six years late.
It would cost up to $200 million to fix them and morale in the chopper squadron has hit rock bottom.That’s what you get with no accountability, nest feathering and arrogant/ignorant senior Officers writing contracts instead of Lawyers. 980 mil - makes me sick. What a f#cking waste. :mad:

karrank

18th May 2006, 00:16

the Seasprite as I understand it was orginally selected because it had a footprint small enough to operate from the proposed OPC vessel (later cancelled). Entirely correct. Once these ships were cancelled the Seasprite was not required.

Those 'senior military' somebody was mouthing about wanted Seahawks, they got (well they haven't) Seasprites. The Seahawk fits in the hangar, and on the recovery thingie (which the Seasprite DOESN'T!) I think the problem is bureaucrats not listening to the "I want THAT one" part of the military.

scran

18th May 2006, 04:11

Erin Brockovich.........you are a stupid t**t......:rolleyes:

ALL contracts for Defence acquisition are written with the assistance of not only the Defence contracting people (NON MILITARY) but the Attorney General's Department as well....

If you don't know the facts - try :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Willi B

18th May 2006, 05:02

Scran

It's not who writes the contracts, it's the quality of the drafting that counts.

And it's not only the quality of contract drafting that leaves a lot to be desired in the Department of Defence.

These days, Defence is a haven for indolent left handed basket weavers; where regression to mediocrity is preferred to the pursuit of individual excellence; where individual worker ‘rights’ ‘permanency’ and ‘entitlements’ take precedence over the duty to do a fair days’ work for a fair days pay; where commercial experience and business acumen is vilified; and where poor performers are retained and even promoted because of an inability to terminate employment without endless counselling, letter writing and other warnings

I used to believe in permanence for public servants to ensure 'frank and fearless advice'. But these days, all permanence seems to represent is a senior bureaucratic 'sheltered workshop' in Canberra, where, in a restricted gene pool, ethical standards of public administration and concerns/accountability for taxpayers' funds have reached a new low.

prospector

18th May 2006, 05:15

Willi B,
And the only consolation, if it can be so called, is that the same system is prevalent on our side of the ditch, and for the same reasons!!!

Prospector

Erin Brockovich

18th May 2006, 05:50

Dear scran,

I might assume going by your location being Canberra and your touchiness, you yourself may have been involved with some of the acquisition debacles.

A defence contractor, Danny Crane or anyone else non military probably wouldn’t know or care about operational specifics for an acquisition other than what is specified to them. Who is ultimately responsible for signing the cheques?

Who would have thought that we would want the Collins Class Subs to be silent in cruise as well. Can’t wait for the JSF (Joint Sh!t Fight). Those income tax cuts will be short lived.

Arm out the window

18th May 2006, 07:14

I s'pose it things were a lot different when you were a lad, eh Willi B?
None of them left handed basket weavers would've been let in, and if any slipped through the net they'd've been taken out and used as target practice for the others.
Tell that to kids these days, and they just won't believe you!
But isn't it easy to make a few sweeping throwaway statements to stir up an argument, eh?

Willi B

18th May 2006, 07:32

Arm out the window

Actually, if you read my post, I'm referring to public servants, not ADF members.

What's so refreshing about Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston is that he immediately understood the gravity of the latest developments in the Private Kovco affair, and took full responsibility.

He could have made any number of excuses, or just not fronted. But instead he accepted that the buck stops with him.

If only government ministers and senior public servants, such as the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Head of the Defence Materiel Organisation, were as quick to accept their responsibilities, and as slow to blame their underlings when things go wrong.

prospector

18th May 2006, 07:48

Willi B,
It would appear many others share your views.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/audit-finds-half-of-defence-explosives-unserviceable/2006/05/17/1147545393043.html

Prospector

wing surfer

18th May 2006, 09:12

i saw this as well , it made me think that maybe the RAN should have gone the way of the RNZN.

The helos were brought from the states as a oin venture between the two goverments. the RAN went for the upgrades these were always going to test the technology that was promised on these Helos.

the RNZN went the way of Zero hours on the airframe, after working on the airframes and hearing the stories from the guys at SAFE air in New Zealand (sub contracted for the Airframes upgrades)

It would not surprize me if it was the airfames that might be the problem with the RAN helos, if i am wrong i would be intrested in hearing the reasons why the Helos were grounded for.

Arm out the window

18th May 2006, 09:15

Your post wasn't as clear as you may think, Willi B - my tax returns used to name 'Department of Defence' as the employer in my service years.
That's why I took issue with you, as I know a lot of good people who work or have worked within the Dept in uniform.
It would also be quite arrogant to make comments like yours about the civilian side of the organisation without a good knowledge of the intimate workings of it. Do you have that? If so, well and good, but it annoys me to see inflammatory comments like 'haven for indolent left handed basket weavers' rather than useful argument backed up with evidence.

roger_ramjet

18th May 2006, 09:36

Willi B - I can share your frustrations on DoD employees. Granted there are a few very bright sparks and some extremely ambitious and intelligent people near the top trying to steer the ship, but unfortunately being a government department they have a proportion of "driftwood" that the private sector can purge far more easily. :ugh:

Willi B

18th May 2006, 10:01

Arm out the window

If memory serves me correctly, there have been eight major reviews into the structure of the Defence Department in as many years; and five recent reviews into equipment failures and cost blow outs.

The total cost to the taxpayer of the various procurement bungles alone must now run into the several billions - funds that might have been used to address some major inequalities in our society.

Yet those responsible for such largesse with taxpayers' funds remain on the public payroll, seemingly immune from retribution.

If the situation were replicated in private enterprise, the corporation would have gone to the wall, with the shareholders and ASIC baying for the directors' blood.

And you've obviously not walked around the Russell complex in recent times, and noted the number of people in plain clothes standing outside buildings, smoking, gossiping and generally not attending to the duties for which the taxpayer shells out generous recompense.

Apparently, Minister Nelson now shares this view, and has commissioned an independent inquiry into the Department. I hope Sir Humphrey hasn't drafted the Terms of Reference.

Arm out the window

18th May 2006, 10:30

Fair enough, Willi B. You're right, I haven't had much to do with the inner workings of Russell.
Seems that the problem of waste and incompetence in Government agencies is by nature a particularly hard one to root out, in that no matter which side's in power, the same public servants generally continue in their roles and can cover their arses effectively, even if they're not performing.
To put a rocket under poorly performing groups would require the will to actually do it rather than just talk about doing it to placate the taxpayer, a clear understanding of the inner workings of the system, and enough time in office to put a plan into effect - conditions that are probably not met very often in our system of government.
So, will things ever change, I wonder?

Disguise Delimit

18th May 2006, 11:01

Bad contract writing isn't unique to the Dept Defence. Look at the NSW RTA and their cross city tunnel / epping tunnel / any toll road, and the sale of our airports to ******ports, who sell off anything that looks like it would make more money with a supermarket on it instead of an aeroplane.

But the Seasprite is certainly a flustercluck. Angus, a chopper pilot originally, would understand it better than most. And he isn't the sort to duck and weave.:ok:

Chronic Snoozer

18th May 2006, 12:02

Haven't some of the recent changes to the DMO brought about a new level of accountability in Defence? Unless there are more project management' trained, financially trained and resource management trained personnel put in uniform this sort of wanton destruction of shareholder i.e. taxpayer value will continue!

Luckily for this government it is able to claim it is a 'legacy' project. Hats off to Lord Nelson for having the bollocks to actually cancel it.:D

scran

18th May 2006, 23:22

No Erin - wrong again (that appears to be one thing you are good at). :hmm:

I'm Air Force, never worked in the DMO.

However, I was invovled in the acquisition process in a previous job that supported the major committees. My main "win" was the decsision to buy the "additional" NH-90's rather than refurb the Black Hawks..........

If it's any consulation, i think that Sea Sprite project was screwed - a perfect case of "Australianizing" an aircraft - I agree with the statement about the RNZN aircraft - they work - why won't ours?

Don't ask me about the Abram's tanks...........:=

DutchRoll

19th May 2006, 00:24

Heh heh, the Abrams tanks. Yes indeed. Kinda reminds me in principle of the F-111G buy.

(Minister)'Hey guys, look what I bought you for a pressie at a bargain basement price while I was sipping a chardy with the good ol Pres of the USA!'
(RAAF)"Oh, err well, we didn't really want, err need, err have the resources, err there are compatibility issues, err support problems, err they don't have pave tack, err....'
(Minister)"Listen here you ungrateful sods. You've got 'em, now you'll bloody well figure out a way to use 'em - capiche? We got bloody good PR through buying these things, and the yanks love me."

The whole acquisition project thing in Defence circles is fundamentally flawed. As is the allocation of both uniformed and civilian people to said projects. As is the political interference in said projects. As is the trust placed in major contractors for said projects. As is the pathetically loose contract writing for said projects. To be fair there are some that have been managed OK, but I'd be scratching to think of more than a small handfull.

Chimbu chuckles

19th May 2006, 01:06

Evidence....hmmmm...lessee...Collins Class Sub and Seasprite..and what was that ship some years ago that had problems?:ugh:

I worked with a freshly retired Lt Col a few years ago.:uhoh: :ugh:

It is just terrifying to imagine that moron in charge of people who couldn't answer back in terms other than "YES SIR!". He was the living, breathing embodiment of "this officer is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot".:}

Gnadenburg

19th May 2006, 01:19

My main "win" was the decsision to buy the "additional" NH-90's rather than refurb the Black Hawks..........

The way many projects seem to run Scran, we may need to refurb the Blackhawks anyway. :uhoh:

By the way, what's up with the army getting tanks?

Andu

19th May 2006, 01:24

Anyone old enough to remember the Bloodhound missile debacle?

I think it was John Gorton who, during a visit to Cyprus way back when, (around ‘69-‘70? – it may even have been a year or two earlier), was talking to his counterpart in Cyprus during an official visit there and somehow the subject of the Cypriot Bloodhounds came up and the trouble the Cypriots were having maintaining them.

"We have – or at least had Bloodhounds." says either Gorton (or far more likely, one of the many Sir Humphries accompanying him), “We can give you some of our expert RAAF missile experts on secondment to maintain them.” (Obviously as part of a foreign aid package totally paid for by the Australian taxpayer and not on commercial grounds.)

So a deal is struck, without anyone in the know within the RAAF being approached in any way, and Australia commits to a multi squillion dollar aid package to maintain the Cypriot Bloodhounds and train their crews and techs for ‘x’ years.

The only problem was that the RAAF Bloodhounds were (let’s say) steam driven Mark 1 models, (and I think long gone from service by then, but I’m ready to stand corrected on that point), and had about as much in common with the Mark 7 or 12(?) the Cyrpiots were(n’t) operating. [I have no idea what the real Mark numbers were for either case, but you get the idea.]

The two different models had about as much in common as a DC3 and a DC9, so for the next few tears, at great expense, the RAAF was sending missile techs to the UK to be trained on the Cypriot model so they could then be posted to Cyprus to maintain the Cypriot missiles and train their techs. (But it was a great little posting for a few avionics techs who otherwise would have spent their Service lives buried in the back rooms some A.D.)

It would have been about half the price had the Australian taxpayer simply paid for the Cypriots to send their own people to the UK.

And don’t get me started on
- the CT4,
- the PC9/Warina,
- the Steyr rifle buy for the Army.
- the Tiger helicopter,
- or, (time will only tell, but I ‘d be willing to bet a large sum it will maintain the usual standard of massive cost overruns, inability to operate in the heat of the far north, delays, incompatibility with everything else in the RAAF inventory and failure to meet performance targets). the A330 tanker.

Erin Brockovich

19th May 2006, 02:08

scran,

You don’t have to justify your job to me (although I was pretty close to the mark).

Why don’t you spend less time playing ‘Music Quiz’ on Jet Blast (probably during work hours) and help the DoD get it right.

I am ex RAN and when I think back I am torn between being proud and ashamed about the outfit. I hope we receive some good press soon because the general public doesn’t think we need a Defence force. There is more at stake than just wasting more of their (my) money. We actually need a competitive capability. The best trained pilot in one of our F18s is sill no match for a 3rd world trained gimp in a F22.

scran

19th May 2006, 02:13

Your tax dollars? Don't you live in the US?

Your ex-RAN....YOU fix up your service..............or were you an ex sailor/troop who just has an opinion??

As I said, the problem is we try for too much. We want Rolls Royce performance from our Holden Kingswood......

The list is long. Until we realise that we can't do everything we want to with our limited resources, issues like Sea Sprite will continue.

Anyone who thinks that you will be able to buy an F22 with anything like the USAF capabilities from the US should give up right now. So far, they have not offered them to anyone - why would you sell the best fighter ever to the potential opposition?

JSF will be the same.....we will get a B version.

Erin, if we can't buy F22 (who have the US agreed to sell them to? Who could afford more than one?) how will a 3rd world gimp get one?

You ain't worth arguing with................................:rolleyes:

Gnadenburg: other than the fact we can't carry them with anything currently (without modification/strengthening), they guzzle fuel, and they way the deal came around in the first place.........

Arm out the window

19th May 2006, 02:39

What was the problem with the CT4, Andu? I thought they did a very good job in service.

Erin Brockovich

19th May 2006, 03:17

or were you an ex sailor/troop who just has an opinion??You just proved my original point. I’m an Officer my sh!t doesn’t stink attitude :rolleyes:
And yes I was commissioned (am I now allowed to talk and give opinions your highness).

It is not my service anymore to fix and I was never involved in any of the acquisitions. I live in Aus and I’m not even a woman….:eek:

Ok, ‘3rd world trained gimp in a F22’ was a stretch (if you take it literally). I was just trying to make a simple, general point. If it makes you feel better – swap F22 for SU-27/30. Still the same outcome. I just want bang for my buck and my family protected if it all goes to hell.

Andu

19th May 2006, 03:36

What was wrong with the CT4…

God, where do I start?

The original, incredibly innovative and affordable design, (the Victa Airtourer), was 100% Australian, (as was the fantastically successful motor mower the same inventor came up with some years earlier). In its time, it was about the best compromise light trainer ever to see production that offered aero clubs and private owners an affordable aircraft for private flying and initial flying training. It should have sold in the thousands worldwide, (and would have, if it had been American).

This was killed off - made totally uneconomical - by inexplicable decisions on tariffs by some Australian politicians of the time. Libel laws prevent me from saying what I really think happened, but suffice to say that to many observers at the time, those decisions seemed to favour the products of American light aircraft manufacturers.

So, unable to compete, its producers sold the plans, the jigs and the manufacturing rights to New Zealand. (A sort of practice run on the ‘sale’ (read ‘giveaway’) of the RAN’s A4’s to the RNZAF some years later.)

And just as with the A4 ‘sale’, not long after we’d given the Airtourer away, we found we needed almost the same aircraft for the RAAF. (For those who aren’t familiar with that little debacle, within an indecently short time after virtually giving the A4s and all their spares to the Kiwis, we wet leased them back from the New Zealand Government at great expense and based them at the very same airfield they’d flying from with the RAN. But the (Labor) Government of the time had achieved its purpose of ensuring a later Australian Government could not resurrect a Fleet Air Arm that would be seen as threatening to our near neighbours to the north.)

So, with parallels on the Sea Sprite, we bought an ‘Australianised’ CT4 that needed extensive, expensive work after it was delivered to make it even half way suitable as a trainer. One example comes to mind. The ‘Australianised’ CT4 came with a bigger engine (210HP) than the aircraft was designed to mount, so much so that the fuel lines couldn’t handle the required fuel flow at high temperatures. They had to be replaced – not a small job.

I forget the details, but the propeller had major problems during aerobatics, (with overspeed? I forget) because it was designed with civilian use in mind and was not configured for an aerobatic aircraft.

When it first arrived, it was found that it wouldn’t spin, at least not without quite amazing control inputs on the part of the pilot. And when it did, every aircraft in the fleet spun somewhat differently. Some would spin only to the right, some only to the left, and in most, how it reacted in (and getting into) the spin, depended upon whether there were two pilots or only one on board. (Just great for checking out a low time stud before sending him off to do the same exercise solo.)

While this stability could be considered a great trait for a family touring aircraft, it was a serious shortcoming in an initial military trainer that hoped to teach a student aerobatics and ‘full on’ manoeuvering.

Originally, it had a major problem with carbon monoxide levels in the cockpit.

On one occasion, the whole rudder pedal assembly FELL OFF when a student did the ‘full and free’ control check just before take off.

I’m sure there are other ex ‘plastic parrot’ drivers out there who could add to the list.

scran

19th May 2006, 04:14

Erin...making excuses already - never involved in acquisitions.........:rolleyes:

Speak freely....also read my posts - there is a lot wrong with some of our acquisitions - I'm not denying that.............

In Oz are you? Wonder why your side profile says from the USA, or are you trying to hide?

SU-27/30? Sure........just find me a 3rd world country who: a) has them and then can: b) keep them serviceable..........

Having something don't make it a capability (as you argue for the Sea Sprite.............)

Like I said...ain't worth the argument.....

bye :D

Arm out the window

19th May 2006, 04:56

Andu, whilst not disputing the sad situation of letting our good ideas go elsewhere, I must say that in my couple of years on Parrots I found them to be honest, useful in teaching aerobatics and pretty much any of the sequences you want in a trainer (although spinning was incipient only - 2 turns then recover), strong and reliable (except for a run of oil pump drive shafts shearing, which was an engine thing, not airframe / design).
No problems with the prop in aerobatics - you just couldn't fly them inverted for too long as the CSU would run out of oil and the prop start to overspeed. Solution? Roll the right way up and reduce power. Plenty of time to do a slow roll, though.
Manoeuvering on the buffet - no problems, but height lost quickly, as it would be in any similar machine. That stuff was more appropriately done in the Macchi or PC-9. CT-4s - I liked 'em.
I do agree with you about the shambolic nature of the abortive Wamira program, and the ridiculous chopping and changing when Point Cook had millions spent on it to make it suitable for an advanced trainer, PC-9s had grass-capable undercarriages fitted, etc. - an almost unbelievable series of flip-flops on what was going to be flown by who and where.

Erin Brockovich

19th May 2006, 05:55

Scran, I give up. You’re not too sharp on the subtleties are you. Erin Brockovich (a film also) lives in the USA. I just use her name. The 1950s Sea Sprite is hardly an SU-30. Stop wasting time on prune and go back to work. there is a lot wrong with SOME of our acquisitionsSome?

Andu, I suppose the CT4 worked out well in the end. I had a ball during my training in it (apart from throwing up during aero sorties). I remember being briefed against doing solo spins as the lateral balance would somehow blanket the tiny rudder during recovery. The full flap glide approach attitude was incredible.
I wish we had the 300hp version.

Milt

19th May 2006, 05:57

F-22s

Don't be surprised if our PM brings home an option on some F-22s and the makings of a new mutual support treaty not including New Zealand.

DutchRoll

19th May 2006, 06:10

scran

19th May 2006, 06:25

No Erin, I picked up on the fact that you ain't smart enough to come up with your own Pprune tag......:eek:

And yes, some acquisitions do work out. Very easy to be on the outside slagging everything isn't it?

The concept of accelerating the Sea King retirement by diverting some of the early NH-90's and painting them grey instead of green will hopefully come off and help the Navy enormously.

Or do you think thats a dumb idea?? := :=

Agreed, the Sea Sprite isn't an SU30 - who said it was? (Oh -that was you....) What drug are you on????? :ugh: :ugh:

Seems you have a chip on your shoulder mate.........:hmm: :hmm: By all means...please give up :ok:

Dutch Roll - well said - covers the point exactly. :E :E

Erin Brockovich

19th May 2006, 06:58

Agreed, the Sea Sprite isn't an SU30 - who said it was?Actually it was you that drew the parallel SU-27/30? Sure........just find me a 3rd world country who: a) has them and then can: b) keep them serviceable..........
Having something don't make it a capability (as you argue for the Sea Sprite.............)Apples and oranges (do I need to spell it out for you).
Very easy to be on the outside slagging everything isn't it?As a tax payer it is my right to question my government’s actions. I am sorry if disagreeing with you gives me a chip.

Ok, happy thoughts.

Gnadenburg

19th May 2006, 07:14

Nothing at all is wrong with the army getting replacement tanks, Gnadenburg. It's just that they got the one the pollies wanted, rather than the one the operators & tank people wanted. Or should I say, they were told from upon high: "we have agreed that despite your objections and reservations, we politicians know which tank is best for you, and it is the M1 Abrams, which our very dear friends have strongly hinted we should buy from them. Besides, the ranch in Texas is much more hospitable than some cramped little residence in Berlin. And we like Texas steak. Yum. And we hate schnitzel. Yuk. And they are selling them to us at a price we cannot resist, and we get lots of reward points. So we've taken the liberty of signing off on this project. You shall enjoy them, and you shall not complain about them in any way shape or form".:ugh:

And what are the chances of ever fighting with the Germans? If the Yanks want our tanks in a theatre for political back-up, they will help move them.

If defence was a commercial propostion ( bang for buck ), history would teach you to buy in service, B model American equipment. That's who we've fought with for the last 50 years and at a guess who we will be fighting with for the next.......

Woomera

19th May 2006, 07:15

Okay, you lot cut the pissing competition and personal broadsides:suspect:

Let's stick to the facts, keep the personal garbage out of it, or the thread goes:=

Woomera (Eastern States)

Erin Brockovich

19th May 2006, 07:32

Sorry Sir but he started it :8 :oh:

Ok pissing completed. It did make my boring day go quite quickly though. No hard feelings aye scran.

We should just by some ex Iraq tanks. Then we could just drive them over the border to Iran when we next help out the US of A. ;)

griffinblack

19th May 2006, 08:21

Scran,

I hope we pick up the MRH90 for phase 4 and 6 or the training you are talking about on the phase 2 aircraft won’t happen. As you know we didn’t have enough money to purchase all the ......, ........ and a ....... Without a ....... –no training. Also don’t have an instrumented aircraft – no instrumentation, no ......... for instance.

Pieces of kit deleted due comsec, but you get the idea.

OhForSure

20th May 2006, 00:53

I also read a report recently that the Tiger choppers need to be re-engined along with having considerable problems with weapons integration and other assorted dilemmas... Anyone care to comment? What's the go?

P.S. - The report was the result of a government audit.

DutchRoll

20th May 2006, 04:50

Gnadenburg, you appear to confuse 'bang for buck' with 'piece of equipment most suited for the task'. No, in service 'B' model american equipment is not necessarily a good idea. Navy ships a classic example: 'Oh, errr, we're sorry our aussie friends, did we forget to tell you about the structural condition? Then again, you never really asked. Hey, nothing a few million dollars and a few thousand man-hours labour won't fix! Enjoy! You have our full support! Dang-nab it, how 'r them kangaroos goin' over there?'

OFS, a communication from the spirit world tells me that the Tiger chopper may suffer from the 'We want that helicopter but we don't want that equipment. We want this equipment. What do you mean it can't carry as much of this equipment? What? That equipment is lighter? Oh bugger, we didn't think of that!' syndrome, or something similar. I don't know if there are other potential problems.

Please people. Stop talking about defence projects and major equipment acquisitions. You are forcing me to triple my intake of valium and prozac, after leaving the military had allowed me to reduce it to safe levels. Think of my health here. And nobody say 'C-17'. := :ugh:

Gnadenburg

20th May 2006, 08:19

Dutch Roll

B model as in an evolved development from an A model. Not 2nd hand equipment. The Singaporians seem to have success with this approach.

A mixed bag of unknown European helicopters? What about simply more American Blackhawks, Chinooks & new buy Apaches?

ANZAC frigates? Would simply buying more FFG's and another squadron of Seahawks been simpler?

Upgraded F111's & Israeli missiles? Instead leased F15E's a decade ago.

Bang for buck? In service American equipment has to win in hindsight?

Chronic Snoozer

20th May 2006, 14:35

Look folks, anyone can put the boot into Defence, its a cheap spectator sport.

Whether its Labor or Coalition, Defence procurement debacles have been regular part of the landscape over the last 50 years.

More often than not the reasons are never simple, politics have much to do with it, and the systemic problem of a combining defence civilians and serving military in one organisation/department is the root cause of much of this. (that is from the Minister down)

Todays article in the Smage (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/in-the-firing-line/2006/05/19/1147545529193.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1) sums up the situation better than many of the articles I have seen.