Australia Defence Expenditure equal worst "Bang for Buck"

[rjtjrt]

Report: U.S. Last in Combat Gear Output Per Spent Dollar - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4540160&c=EUR&s=TOP)
""In a study due out March 15, consulting firm McKinsey & Co. examined how efficiently 33 nations that account for 90 percent of worldwide defense expenditures perform a range of functions. The study looked at how these militaries go about doing certain tasks in three key areas: personnel, maintenance and weapon buying.
"The United States and Australia are the lowest performing countries with regard to equipment output for every dollar spent," McKinsey concludes.""

John

[Cap'n Bunghole]

No surprises here.

Government buys Australian made no matter the risk or cost (C-17 and Supers a minor aberration).

DMO couldn't manage its way out of a wet paper bag and a posting cycle so fast that nobody in the military can be held accountable for a project's mis-management. :ugh:

[dat581]

I wonder how we would score without the Seasprite episode. Also I wonder how much extra it cost to build 75 Hornets in Melbourne instead of St Louis. The aircraft itself was minimum change from the USN model with an ILS instead of ACLS and the launch bar not installed. Oh and much nicer paint jobs until recently....

[Tourist]

"Government buys Australian made no matter the risk or cost (C-17 and Supers a minor aberration)."

F-18, Chinook, UH-1, King Air, BlackHawk, Tiger, F-111, C-17, Super SeaSprite, Boeing 737 Wedgetail, P-3,
Hardly a minor aberation.............

[BentStick]

A specious headline covering a story that states the bleeding obvious.

"In general, countries that make it a point to support their domestic defense industries have higher procurement costs than those that rely on imports.


John Dowdy, head of defense and security for McKinsey, said there is no question, however, which nation's military brings the biggest punch to any given fight: the United States. "The American military is very high quality, but that comes at a very high cost," he said.

[nice castle]

The devil in that report is probably in the detail. Bang for the buck is a massive simplification. How big a bang, is that what they mean, or how sustainable a bang in the long term. Define bang? Tooth to tail?

Goodness me.

All researched by experts with years of experience at the sharp end, sorry, tooth end?

Hmmm, it didn't say actually who shelled out their hard earned to commission this report. It says why it is being written, but the final bill lies with.....

It's like statistics in that these results can be spun in many ways, depending on which criteria are given high importance.

It seems that the quality of the personnel, and their morale, didn't get a mention; it will be interesting to see if that features at all when the report is published, as after all, they both have a massive impact on bang, however that was defined.

Sounds like a headline catching load of guff for those with a beef about US defence expenditure.

Now, my (massive) fee please!

[spoz]

Quite agree; particularly as the countries noted as doing well include Russia (plenty of open source info available there on which to make a judgement) and Egypt, that well known superpower.