Everyone thought tanks were obsolete prior to gulf war one !

And look what happened.

Infantry like tanks and tank support - and all the add ons that can be added on - especially if we give control of the air.


Dom - I just had a look at the demo web site, they gave a few senior def people, I am surprised by his much things get bogged down.

Don’t waste your time mate. They’re Red T-Bar/Matt Grey/Lex Talionis et al re-badged.
I don’t think one can lay the blame for that at the feet of any government. The APS seem to be an entity unto themselves. Now that the current government is trying to do something about it, I foresee a few ‘Yes, Minister’ moments coming.

They won't begin to fix it until they 1. Reform the promotion system and 2. Stop crucifying managers for making decisions.
These two issues have led to an APS management that's dominated by grovellers, yes men and spineless wonders. Many of them would rather be chased by starving lions than put their name to a decision.

Unfortunately the current government are showing no signs of doing either. There's plenty of talk about slashing budgets and cutting jobs/services but little talk about genuine structural reform. Personally I don't think they have the ticker, and without it the public service will continue to be inefficient.

War in Australia (any Oz Politics)
 

My main memory of (then Cadet) Geoff Brown was the noticeable tic in his eye. It didn't seem to limit him in his flying. So good to see someone in his position saying it like or is. What a pity Angus never saw fit to do so. Too busy being "lurved" by Our Joolia?

I certainly don't think tanks are obsolete, just great stupid big ones that are even too wide for the playground in the territory useless in any other theatre than a large desert,
Collins class is another
big embarrassment , I remember on the first maiden sea trial they realised that there was no provision for food storage, it all had to be stored on bunks until cupboards were designed,
F35 watch this space!

I see the Bolt, Blair and Ackerman sites all remain 'access denied'. A case of selective free speech by our GetUp! brethern?

. and dont forget the Super Sea Sprite debacle ( $1.1 bil) for a 1960s airframe and some modern computer wizardry.

Military contracts seem to attract the money grabbers who have the ability to 'pull the wool'.

The M1 is perhaps the most proven platform in existence at the moment. Its survivability and protection of the crew is well worth some of its other short comings.

And we got a good deal.

The sea sprite was the one that got me. Little aus thinking they could build something better than buying new off the shelf.

Or maybe they haven't paid their bills? :E
Or maybe they're getting unprecedented levels of traffic? That could either be :ok: or :( depending on the reason....:} Or you've got exploratory NBN teams in your vicinity and they've dug up something important. Gold Coast internet has been very wobbly since the little vans appeared.
When it comes to government spending there's a lot of this, and it doesn't always end well. The idealistic part of me likes to think 'well of course we can build what we need; that will create jobs and we'll get a great product.' The cynical part of me says 'whatever we need, someone will probably have built it already, because our needs aren't unique. Let's hit google, do some CBAs and buy one off the shelf that's already proven'.

The problem is that sometimes the home built version is exactly the right product and craps all over the established models, but other-times the off the shelf British/American/French product would do exactly what was required without going through the pesky 'build it from string and bolts and get an inferior, buggy model' process. :sad:

Decisions, decisions...

Either way, the current selection process seems to fail fairly regularly; all too often we end up with a mix of crappy foreign stuff paired with crappy local stuff. The other way around would be so much better...:}

All too often-almost always, in fact - we end up with your option 'B', Worrals, and with the inferior and sometimes damn near useless product costing four times more than the off the shelf product, most of that money going to foreign owned companies. And the product arrives four to ten years late.

The Navy paid millions for inferior computer RAM in one program because the contract specified 286 IBM RAM, which, by the time the kit arrived, had been long replaced by faster, cheaper and infinitely better 486 RAM. But the contract specified 286 RAM, so it was specifically built, at huge expense, rather than the more modern, faster and so much cheaper current RAM..

Off the shelf should be the first option which everything else is judged by.

I am night sure thus is the case, sea sprit being one example.

It stunk of jobs for aus plus project that meant people justifying their own job long term.

This is a good summary of the Seasprite debacle and shows why Australia shoots itself in the foot.

ADM: Defence Business: Seasprite ? what went wrong? | ADM Nov 08

For the want of saving money by making it a 2 crew helo (one of the reasons),
the flow on effect was disastrous !


Another very similar article
Super Seasprite - What went wrong? | Rumour Control

The PC9 (now the subject itself of a far too long delayed decision for its replacement) was another case in point. Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation came up with an Australian tandem design looking very much like a Turcano or a PC9 to replace the Winjeel and Macchi, then someone in Canberra insisted the new design would have to a two abreast configuration. Huge expense attempting to re-design the tandem aircraft (and the two abreast design looked like a real dog). Could not be made to work, so they went with the PC9.

I often wonder how many of these people who come up with impossible "Australianising' demands for these projects find themselves working, post retirement, for the overseas companies who win the contract.

I often comment on the 80 percent vs 100 percent.

Someone made a good comment re the 80 us useless if the 20 is what you want but IMHO, we chase the 20 percent when you gave to ask his important is it ?

Fubaar ..." find themselves working post retirement for the overseas companies", etc.
Think that you may have it in one there.


500 ... read it all the way through. Only one nit pick, the B.707 that went in off Sale was not a tanker.
I remember myself and others being somewhat distressed when we heard of the crash as we had just delivered the first B.707 tanker to the RAAF and thought the lost aircraft was that one before we finally heard what tail number it was.

I take it all back. I think Mr Bolt is a person of good standing and character. What a great asset to the team at downturn Abbott

bosnich

You lost me with that comment re the 707, can't see how it applies to anything I have posted prior - although understand you are correcting fact, where is it relevant to me and my posts ?

Tony Abbott's D-Day tour social media announcement - YouTube,
can you get any lower, peddling his disastrous wares during a D Day veteran tour announcement ,

500 .... not correcting you.
I was referring to the article you linked to ref. the Sea Sprout which incorrectly referred to the B.707 which crashed off East sale as a "Tanker" which it wasn't. Those who had something to do with the conversion of four RAAF 707s' to tankers wouldn't wish their efforts to be allied to the loss of the one that wasn't.