The ADF buys another Lemon
, but at least it has an excuse!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading all this dribble, some people would like our RAAF to still fly the tried and tested Sopwith Camel and our cavalry to go back to horses!
This same arguments come up year after year...when the Blackhawks were procured, a whole host of UH1 pilots came out with the same dribble, too much expensive technology, will not work in the heat, too expensive, untested technology, why dont we just keep re-engining the Iroquois.. blah blah blah....when the Hornets were chosen, same thing, too expensive, too much technology, will never do what it says it would do, slower than the mirage, why didnt we get second hand F-5s and upgrade them for a fraction of the cost, blah blah blah...it really will never end.
When the Seasprite was purchased....why did we buy old helos when there are new models out there.....when we buy off the shelf ones.....why did we buy new technology when we could have upgraded an older one and keep it going for a little bit longer...
The thing is, technology and times go past whether we llike it or not. A commercial, political and field decision has to be made on procurement and some you get right and some you don't. The trick is recognise the ones that wont work and back out (Seasprite) in good time, and recognise the ones with potential despite the detractors and stick with it (F-111 and Blackhawks).
This same arguments come up year after year...when the Blackhawks were procured, a whole host of UH1 pilots came out with the same dribble, too much expensive technology, will not work in the heat, too expensive, untested technology, why dont we just keep re-engining the Iroquois.. blah blah blah....when the Hornets were chosen, same thing, too expensive, too much technology, will never do what it says it would do, slower than the mirage, why didnt we get second hand F-5s and upgrade them for a fraction of the cost, blah blah blah...it really will never end.
When the Seasprite was purchased....why did we buy old helos when there are new models out there.....when we buy off the shelf ones.....why did we buy new technology when we could have upgraded an older one and keep it going for a little bit longer...
The thing is, technology and times go past whether we llike it or not. A commercial, political and field decision has to be made on procurement and some you get right and some you don't. The trick is recognise the ones that wont work and back out (Seasprite) in good time, and recognise the ones with potential despite the detractors and stick with it (F-111 and Blackhawks).
I think the argument is whether, as a small nation with a limited defence budget, you should be looking at technology being ironed out by other countries ie: obviously the US services.
Buying in production, in service and probably combat proven equipment seems logical. Especially if it's American as they are the folks we seem to always be going to war with.
Super Hornet and the C17 would be good examples.
Ceremonial swan song for the F111's? And the political rumors were the RAAF's ability to deploy to Afganistan wasn't always the case.
Buying in production, in service and probably combat proven equipment seems logical. Especially if it's American as they are the folks we seem to always be going to war with.
Super Hornet and the C17 would be good examples.
Quote:Seems ludicrous that the RAAF doesn't have the ability to deploy fast jets in a close air support role ( Afgan' )...
Well, we do, but only if we can find a tanker to get us there! Don't even ask me why the Pigs are going to Red Flag next month and not us...
Well, we do, but only if we can find a tanker to get us there! Don't even ask me why the Pigs are going to Red Flag next month and not us...
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willoz269 you hit the nail on the head. The other common thing I see in these discussions is people comparing the selected system against their own personal wants not against what the system was purchased for. Trade offs need to be made in any selection and the only way this can be done is by having well established requirements. Sadly even when these are available many don't read them. When the selected system then doesn't meet their own personal requirements they then assume incompetance, political interference etc as the reason behind the choice.
In this case both Blackhawk and MRH 90 have strengths and weaknesses. Which ones are important depend on what the Govt want done with it.
In this case both Blackhawk and MRH 90 have strengths and weaknesses. Which ones are important depend on what the Govt want done with it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willoz,
No arguement, some resist change for the sake of resisting change.
What I find concerning is change for the sake of change, this is tax payers money, ours, and often decisions are made regarding procurements that are purchased from the shiney brochure without talking to those that are in the know.
For example, a Minister makes a decision, is this Minister more in the know than the CDF, is the CDF more in the know that the CO of the present Squadron ?.
Change is a hard thing to manage, risk is more controllable, buying a product off a drawing board IMHO is very very risky.
No arguement, some resist change for the sake of resisting change.
What I find concerning is change for the sake of change, this is tax payers money, ours, and often decisions are made regarding procurements that are purchased from the shiney brochure without talking to those that are in the know.
For example, a Minister makes a decision, is this Minister more in the know than the CDF, is the CDF more in the know that the CO of the present Squadron ?.
Change is a hard thing to manage, risk is more controllable, buying a product off a drawing board IMHO is very very risky.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just yet again proves that the biggest column in the risk matrix has to be pollie intervention and the unwillingness of the Dept Heads to tell their masters that they are wrong.
'Yes Minister' in reverse......
'Yes Minister' in reverse......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTEGnadenburg I think the argument is whether, as a small nation with a limited defence budget, you should be looking at technology being ironed out by other countries ie: obviously the US services.][/QUOTE]
The thing is that our budget isn't that small. Apparently the ADF has the 12th largest defence budget in the world, I can apreciate that the wages of our personel are considerably higher (as well as all the other deserved expenses that the men and woman should get) but for the 12th largest budget in the world, shouldn't we be getting a little more bang for our bucks!!
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The thing is that our budget isn't that small. Apparently the ADF has the 12th largest defence budget in the world, I can apreciate that the wages of our personel are considerably higher (as well as all the other deserved expenses that the men and woman should get) but for the 12th largest budget in the world, shouldn't we be getting a little more bang for our bucks!!
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by wessex19; 7th Jan 2009 at 21:57.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Wessex, which is why I understand "most" of the decisions taken.
We tend to go out and spend the money NOW on stuff that will be effective in the battlefield and support mechanisms of today and tomorrow.
Hence the F-111 was chosen, large scale high level bombing was the norm for the Brits and French, but we saw it differently. We were right.
The Fa-18 was chosen because it is a multirole fighter, no need to purchase dedicated fighters and dedicated attack aircraft, hence we did not choose the F-15, F-14 or any other. The Blackhawk was chosen because it was a new and expandable platform, we could have bought more Chinooks or more Sea Kings or more UH1s but again we were vindicated, it is an extraordinary front line transport chopper.
Lessons in support operations are being learnt, our ADF is required in Afganistan, Iraq and throughout Asia in a multirole requirement. So we buy the best multirole platform there is in the market at the moment, upgradeable, improveable, etc. it does not do ONE role exceptionally well, but it is able to do a LOT of roles in an acceptable manner, and we can modify it in the future.
Risk management is done at a level different to the people in the coal face, and this needs to be so. It does not mean that their opinion is not regarded, it simply means that there are far more angles to look at. If you ask chopper pilots, they would like the Apache, and a Blackhawk...we don't need something that big that needs so much on field support when we tend to stretch our support mechanisms through Asia, so we go for something smaller, less capable, but supportable. If you ask the Fighter Pilots they would like the latest and greatest, an F-22 or similar, and maybe even a B-2! why would we do that? we could only afford a small fleet of aircraft so we have to make sure they are effective in the battlefield for the next 20 years (the battlefield of tomorrow will always change tomorrow!) and they can do a wide variety of roles.
The funny thing is, the one aspect of Risk Management that is always forgotten is Change Management!!!
We tend to go out and spend the money NOW on stuff that will be effective in the battlefield and support mechanisms of today and tomorrow.
Hence the F-111 was chosen, large scale high level bombing was the norm for the Brits and French, but we saw it differently. We were right.
The Fa-18 was chosen because it is a multirole fighter, no need to purchase dedicated fighters and dedicated attack aircraft, hence we did not choose the F-15, F-14 or any other. The Blackhawk was chosen because it was a new and expandable platform, we could have bought more Chinooks or more Sea Kings or more UH1s but again we were vindicated, it is an extraordinary front line transport chopper.
Lessons in support operations are being learnt, our ADF is required in Afganistan, Iraq and throughout Asia in a multirole requirement. So we buy the best multirole platform there is in the market at the moment, upgradeable, improveable, etc. it does not do ONE role exceptionally well, but it is able to do a LOT of roles in an acceptable manner, and we can modify it in the future.
Risk management is done at a level different to the people in the coal face, and this needs to be so. It does not mean that their opinion is not regarded, it simply means that there are far more angles to look at. If you ask chopper pilots, they would like the Apache, and a Blackhawk...we don't need something that big that needs so much on field support when we tend to stretch our support mechanisms through Asia, so we go for something smaller, less capable, but supportable. If you ask the Fighter Pilots they would like the latest and greatest, an F-22 or similar, and maybe even a B-2! why would we do that? we could only afford a small fleet of aircraft so we have to make sure they are effective in the battlefield for the next 20 years (the battlefield of tomorrow will always change tomorrow!) and they can do a wide variety of roles.
The funny thing is, the one aspect of Risk Management that is always forgotten is Change Management!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: my happy place....
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willoz, all good points but we need to pay a little more attention to CAPABILILITY. Agreed that the decision makers have a mountain of priorities but the thing that seems to be slipping out of focus is the end state. Can this machine do what it is desigend for and fit into our doctrine as advertised in a timely manner?
Sure thats sensible, but are we focussed too much on tomorrow at the detriment of today? The most disapointing thing is the contractors who make a mountain of money out of defence and provide a whole bunch of promises, thats it. At the end of the day they drive home and defence is left without its tools of the trade.
Yep fair enough, but it still needs to work before its outdated by the next latest and greatest.
Yep we all have our own idea's and preference. Smaller, less capable and supportable is smart thinking, get something that is proven and we can handle with our flimsy logistical system, (and heavy reliance on contractors) I don't think the French are going to bend over backwars to rush parts to us when we are stuck in the sand pit with a blown fritz. They will take their sweet time and sting us mega $$ for the pleasure. Personally I would rather not be stuck on the ground while our troops are getting smashed begging for AAVN support. 
Rant over... time for a cup of tea or something..
We tend to go out and spend the money NOW on stuff that will be effective in the battlefield and support mechanisms of today and tomorrow.
Lessons in support operations are being learnt, our ADF is required in Afganistan, Iraq and throughout Asia in a multirole requirement. So we buy the best multirole platform there is in the market at the moment, upgradeable, improveable, etc. it does not do ONE role exceptionally well, but it is able to do a LOT of roles in an acceptable manner, and we can modify it in the future.
If you ask chopper pilots, they would like the Apache, and a Blackhawk...we don't need something that big that needs so much on field support when we tend to stretch our support mechanisms through Asia, so we go for something smaller, less capable, but supportable.
Rant over... time for a cup of tea or something..
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you can't.
It's not civilian type certified anywhere, so paint it pink and you still can't use it.
Tell us all, how is it merely built to civilian standards and how does it become inadequate in military use?
So far, 14 countries have been hoodwinked into going into combat with a supposedly inadequate aircraft. I'm interested in what your bagging of it is based on.
It's not civilian type certified anywhere, so paint it pink and you still can't use it.
Tell us all, how is it merely built to civilian standards and how does it become inadequate in military use?
So far, 14 countries have been hoodwinked into going into combat with a supposedly inadequate aircraft. I'm interested in what your bagging of it is based on.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Age: 51
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no fan of the new helo (it looks cool though) but I was just wondering if Blackhawks in general have a background of making it home or landing safely with damage that the MRH couldn't sustain?
Haven't seen any pics like I have of things like the A-10 getting home full of holes and with broken wing spars.
If anyones got any links to photos of shot up Blackhawks I'd really like to see them.
Haven't seen any pics like I have of things like the A-10 getting home full of holes and with broken wing spars.
If anyones got any links to photos of shot up Blackhawks I'd really like to see them.
besides, you are clearly not my target audience). Clearly you know more than AAAvn and all the Army pilots who work on this project.
Unless you are involved in the project, how would you know how the figures are shaping up? I imagine the personel involved would be keeping the numbers pretty quiet until they are ready to deliver the product.