Sea Sprites Grounded
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: GIRT, BY SEA
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Erin - wrong again (that appears to be one thing you are good at). 
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...........
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...........
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
(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.
Grandpa Aerotart
Evidence....hmmmm...lessee...Collins Class Sub and Seasprite..and what was that ship some years ago that had problems?
I worked with a freshly retired Lt Col a few years ago.
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".
I worked with a freshly retired Lt Col a few years ago.
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".
Originally Posted by scran
My main "win" was the decsision to buy the "additional" NH-90's rather than refurb the Black Hawks..........
By the way, what's up with the army getting tanks?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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................................
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.........
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................................
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.........
Last edited by scran; 19th May 2006 at 02:49.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or were you an ex sailor/troop who just has an opinion??
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….
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erin...making excuses already - never involved in acquisitions.........
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Some?
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.
there is a lot wrong with SOME of our acquisitions
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".