Why no helo transport? Are we condemning our diggers to an easy victimology?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Age: 83
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently promoted Maj Gen Tony Fraser should be the one on trial for driving this stu
People with their snouts in the trough.
Anyone heard of a retired Aust Avn Brigadier named Mellon or similar?
Heard he has a "consultancy" peddling wares back to the Aust Defence dept?
Anyone got any info?
Anyone heard of a retired Aust Avn Brigadier named Mellon or similar?
Heard he has a "consultancy" peddling wares back to the Aust Defence dept?
Anyone got any info?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another article in the Australian re the ship building debacle
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/overdue-and-over-budget-8bn-destroyer-plan-in-crisis/story-fn59niix-1226063739830
Overdue and over budget: $8bn destroyer plan in crisis
BITTER infighting has erupted between government and industry over the nation's largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, which is two years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The government was yesterday forced to admit publicly that the flagship project was badly behind schedule after it became aware The Australian had the story and was planning to publish it today.
Insiders say the plan to build three 6500-tonne destroyers is in crisis barely a year after construction of the ships' steel hulls began in Melbourne, Newcastle and Adelaide. They warn that the AWD project threatens to become the biggest defence industry bungle since the Collins Class submarine construction in the 1990s.
Unless rectified quickly, it could cruel the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia.
A series of engineering mistakes, poor project management and lack of naval shipbuilding expertise has delayed the construction of the first warship, HMAS Hobart. And it has sparked a heated internal dispute between the government's Defence Materiel Organisation and one of the AWD sub-contractors, BAE Systems, over who should be blamed for the debacle.
The Australian understands BAE has accused DMO chief Stephen Gumley of making exaggerated claims about BAE's culpability, and that relations between several key partners in the project have become badly strained.
BAE has accused the main AWD shipbuilder - the Australian Submarine Corporation - and the ship's Spanish designer, Navantia, of contributing to the mistakes by providing poor-quality drawings and information about the hull construction. The government has tried to conceal its problems with the AWD project, refusing to place it on Defence's public "projects of concern" list, despite knowing for months the project was in deep trouble.
The Australian last October revealed the AWD project's first serious setback when BAE's Melbourne shipyard in Williamstown botched the central keel block of the first warship. The 200-tonne central keel block was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding. At that stage, the projected delay was only six months. Since then, the project has continued to slip, with BAE now predicting a 12-month delay on its hull blocks. Mr Gumley insists BAE's actions have caused a two-year delay on the project.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith moved yesterday to prevent further delays by stripping BAE of some of its AWD work.
"The advice of (project manager) AWD Alliance is that if no action is taken to relieve the pressure on the Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard, the first ship would be two years late, approximately 25 per cent over schedule," Mr Smith said.
He said up to 13 steel hull blocks would be reallocated among the Australian shipyards, and up to five more would be reallocated to Navantia's shipyards in Spain.
"The AWD Alliance has advised that this action will reduce the delay of the completion of Ship 1 by up to 12 months, and of all three AWDs by up to 12 months," Mr Smith said.
The long delay means the three destroyers, based on the Spanish F111 boats, will not enter service from 2014 as planned.
Mr Smith said the decision, which will be widely viewed as a punishment of BAE, would have minimal impact on about 300 workers at the Williamstown shipyard because the yard is also helping to build the navy's Landing Helicopter Dock ships.
The AWD Alliance includes the government-owned ACS, the DMO and Raytheon Australia. Its critics say the structure is cumbersome and ineffective, with no clear lines of responsibility.
The AWDs will be the most potent warships built in Australia and will be armed with Aegis combat systems, allowing them to provide theatre ballistic missile defence over a wide area.
Overdue and over budget: $8bn destroyer plan in crisis
BITTER infighting has erupted between government and industry over the nation's largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, which is two years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The government was yesterday forced to admit publicly that the flagship project was badly behind schedule after it became aware The Australian had the story and was planning to publish it today.
Insiders say the plan to build three 6500-tonne destroyers is in crisis barely a year after construction of the ships' steel hulls began in Melbourne, Newcastle and Adelaide. They warn that the AWD project threatens to become the biggest defence industry bungle since the Collins Class submarine construction in the 1990s.
Unless rectified quickly, it could cruel the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia.
A series of engineering mistakes, poor project management and lack of naval shipbuilding expertise has delayed the construction of the first warship, HMAS Hobart. And it has sparked a heated internal dispute between the government's Defence Materiel Organisation and one of the AWD sub-contractors, BAE Systems, over who should be blamed for the debacle.
The Australian understands BAE has accused DMO chief Stephen Gumley of making exaggerated claims about BAE's culpability, and that relations between several key partners in the project have become badly strained.
BAE has accused the main AWD shipbuilder - the Australian Submarine Corporation - and the ship's Spanish designer, Navantia, of contributing to the mistakes by providing poor-quality drawings and information about the hull construction. The government has tried to conceal its problems with the AWD project, refusing to place it on Defence's public "projects of concern" list, despite knowing for months the project was in deep trouble.
The Australian last October revealed the AWD project's first serious setback when BAE's Melbourne shipyard in Williamstown botched the central keel block of the first warship. The 200-tonne central keel block was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding. At that stage, the projected delay was only six months. Since then, the project has continued to slip, with BAE now predicting a 12-month delay on its hull blocks. Mr Gumley insists BAE's actions have caused a two-year delay on the project.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith moved yesterday to prevent further delays by stripping BAE of some of its AWD work.
"The advice of (project manager) AWD Alliance is that if no action is taken to relieve the pressure on the Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard, the first ship would be two years late, approximately 25 per cent over schedule," Mr Smith said.
He said up to 13 steel hull blocks would be reallocated among the Australian shipyards, and up to five more would be reallocated to Navantia's shipyards in Spain.
"The AWD Alliance has advised that this action will reduce the delay of the completion of Ship 1 by up to 12 months, and of all three AWDs by up to 12 months," Mr Smith said.
The long delay means the three destroyers, based on the Spanish F111 boats, will not enter service from 2014 as planned.
Mr Smith said the decision, which will be widely viewed as a punishment of BAE, would have minimal impact on about 300 workers at the Williamstown shipyard because the yard is also helping to build the navy's Landing Helicopter Dock ships.
The AWD Alliance includes the government-owned ACS, the DMO and Raytheon Australia. Its critics say the structure is cumbersome and ineffective, with no clear lines of responsibility.
The AWDs will be the most potent warships built in Australia and will be armed with Aegis combat systems, allowing them to provide theatre ballistic missile defence over a wide area.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See my post # 77 on this same thread, dated 17 Oct 10.
TBM-Legend, if what a Navy friend has told me is true, there's much more to be uncovered about the Spanish Air Warfare Destroyer than just what you have mentioned. Much, much more. And it's going to cost many, many millions to fix (if indeed it's fixable).
The way he tells it, it's a classic example of the people doing the purchasing never having once stepped aboard a warship in their lives and if the Navy could get away with doing day cruises, and put the crew to beddybyes ashore every night - or crew it with pygmies who are happy to bunk up in racks four bunks high, they might be able to get it up and running - one day. However, most agree that that isn't a very practical option for a country with a 12,000 NM coastline.
The way he tells it, it's a classic example of the people doing the purchasing never having once stepped aboard a warship in their lives and if the Navy could get away with doing day cruises, and put the crew to beddybyes ashore every night - or crew it with pygmies who are happy to bunk up in racks four bunks high, they might be able to get it up and running - one day. However, most agree that that isn't a very practical option for a country with a 12,000 NM coastline.
AWD Chaos is old news
Sorry, not exactly aviation but....
QUOTE: The Australian , 25th Oct 2010
AUSTRALIA'S largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, has had its first serious setback.
A Melbourne shipyard has botched the construction of the central keel block of the first warship.
The multi-million-dollar bungle could delay the project by up to six months and is believed to have triggered a rift between the Williamstown shipyards, where the hull block was built, and the warship's Spanish designer.
The setback has alarmed the Defence Materiel Organisation, which sees the AWDs as its flagship project and a key test of whether Australia can sustain a viable naval shipbuilding industry.
The three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.
The Australian understands that the central keel block of the first AWD warship, HMAS Hobart, was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding and inadequate quality control at the Williamstown shipyards, operated by an AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems Australia.
Nothing's changed from last year. Another DMO/ADF f4ck-up with our $$$$$$$
QUOTE: The Australian , 25th Oct 2010
AUSTRALIA'S largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, has had its first serious setback.
A Melbourne shipyard has botched the construction of the central keel block of the first warship.
The multi-million-dollar bungle could delay the project by up to six months and is believed to have triggered a rift between the Williamstown shipyards, where the hull block was built, and the warship's Spanish designer.
The setback has alarmed the Defence Materiel Organisation, which sees the AWDs as its flagship project and a key test of whether Australia can sustain a viable naval shipbuilding industry.
The three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.
The Australian understands that the central keel block of the first AWD warship, HMAS Hobart, was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding and inadequate quality control at the Williamstown shipyards, operated by an AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems Australia.
Nothing's changed from last year. Another DMO/ADF f4ck-up with our $$$$$$$
OK TBM
Explain how the ADF is responsible for the companies who are contracted for this job not being able to read some plans and do the job they said they could?
The ADF seems to cop a lot of blame for these things when its the companies involved not being able to complete the job as THEY said they could.
I'm sure the Navy wanted off the shelf American DDGs
I'm sure the army wanted off the shelf American choppers (to bring it back on to topic).
The blame here lies with companies who can't complete contracts as promised and politics choosing platforms for jobs/votes and not proven records.
If the ADF has any blame here it is for not standing up to those decisions.
Explain how the ADF is responsible for the companies who are contracted for this job not being able to read some plans and do the job they said they could?
The ADF seems to cop a lot of blame for these things when its the companies involved not being able to complete the job as THEY said they could.
I'm sure the Navy wanted off the shelf American DDGs
I'm sure the army wanted off the shelf American choppers (to bring it back on to topic).
The blame here lies with companies who can't complete contracts as promised and politics choosing platforms for jobs/votes and not proven records.
If the ADF has any blame here it is for not standing up to those decisions.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The blame lies with the politicians and bureaucrats that decided on the AWD, and then giveo the job to the AWD alliance who in turn gave the most of job to the ASC. The same people that gave us the Collins class submarines. This all comes back to learning from the past.
Just wait and see what happens when the LHDs arrive here, and BAE try and put the islands on top. The whole thing has gone swimmingly so far because Navantia has been there and done it before with Juan Carlos. Now with the AWD, Navantia could have pretty much built the whole thing, but no, lets build a bit here and a bit there, and hope it all comes together.
Really why haven't they learnt;
1. Don't buy the first of anything
2. Don't buy European
3. Buy off the shelf
Back to aviation;
Delay the JSF 15 years, ask Boeing for 70 more Supers and 30 F15SG, bin the MRH90 now, buy the Blackhawks and a HueyII so BR71 is happy. All sorted.
The real travesty is the amount of funding that has been wasted over the past 10 years, and Defence's inability to manage this funding. Can't see the opportunity they had coming back around anytime soon. You really can't blame the current government for cutting back funding, given the appalling management.
Just wait and see what happens when the LHDs arrive here, and BAE try and put the islands on top. The whole thing has gone swimmingly so far because Navantia has been there and done it before with Juan Carlos. Now with the AWD, Navantia could have pretty much built the whole thing, but no, lets build a bit here and a bit there, and hope it all comes together.
Really why haven't they learnt;
1. Don't buy the first of anything
2. Don't buy European
3. Buy off the shelf
Back to aviation;
Delay the JSF 15 years, ask Boeing for 70 more Supers and 30 F15SG, bin the MRH90 now, buy the Blackhawks and a HueyII so BR71 is happy. All sorted.
The real travesty is the amount of funding that has been wasted over the past 10 years, and Defence's inability to manage this funding. Can't see the opportunity they had coming back around anytime soon. You really can't blame the current government for cutting back funding, given the appalling management.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labor warned of air warfare destroyer delays and blowouts | The Australian
Submarines, helicopters, air warfare destroyers, basic infantrymen's webbing (FF'sSake!!!) ... There's a pattern to be found here, which should lead any observer to look for the common denominator. It reads, in part, Dee... eeM... Oh...
The media loves to blame 'Defence' for all these incredibly expensive screwups, and somehow that always translates (in Joe Public's mind, at least) to senior military officers in Defence. I'll admit that the military officers who've occupied those senior positions within Defence over the last decade or more are not without blame, but such people are merely 'passers through'. The real culprits are the set in stone civilian mandarins within Defence (ably abetted over many years by a succession of self-serving politicians from both Labor and the Lib/Nats) who've overseen (to use Bushranger 71's apt term) turning the Department of Defence into the Department of Defence Industry.
The provision of jobs and big defence projects (usually in favoured electorates) - all too often temporary in nature and almost always hugely uneconomic in the long run - have long ago overtaken the provision of realistic and timely defence capability to the long-suffering ADF as the primary aim of the people deciding upon many if not most of the major defence projects.
That, and the always present 'nigger (am I allowed to use that word?) in the Canberra woodpile' - "who's going to be offering the best well-paid consultancy after I retire?"
Andu has already mentioned that the seamen's bunks in the Spanish AWDs are four high - adequate, apparently, for Spanish conscripts who'll maybe do the odd night at sea every year but whose ship will almost always return to port every night, but totally inadequate for the average Australian volunteer seaman who might well spend months at sea each year.
I heard recently from someone who should know that those same bunks are 1.8m long and positioned between structural bulkheads that can't be extended without a major re-design of the ships. (Would you would fit into a 1.8m bed space, let along one stacked four high?)
The same source told me that there are major, major issues marrying the American radar and comm. gear into the space available in the Spanish ship.
FF'sS, they couldn't even get the dimensions of the bloody keel right.
Submarines, helicopters, air warfare destroyers, basic infantrymen's webbing (FF'sSake!!!) ... There's a pattern to be found here, which should lead any observer to look for the common denominator. It reads, in part, Dee... eeM... Oh...
The media loves to blame 'Defence' for all these incredibly expensive screwups, and somehow that always translates (in Joe Public's mind, at least) to senior military officers in Defence. I'll admit that the military officers who've occupied those senior positions within Defence over the last decade or more are not without blame, but such people are merely 'passers through'. The real culprits are the set in stone civilian mandarins within Defence (ably abetted over many years by a succession of self-serving politicians from both Labor and the Lib/Nats) who've overseen (to use Bushranger 71's apt term) turning the Department of Defence into the Department of Defence Industry.
The provision of jobs and big defence projects (usually in favoured electorates) - all too often temporary in nature and almost always hugely uneconomic in the long run - have long ago overtaken the provision of realistic and timely defence capability to the long-suffering ADF as the primary aim of the people deciding upon many if not most of the major defence projects.
That, and the always present 'nigger (am I allowed to use that word?) in the Canberra woodpile' - "who's going to be offering the best well-paid consultancy after I retire?"
Andu has already mentioned that the seamen's bunks in the Spanish AWDs are four high - adequate, apparently, for Spanish conscripts who'll maybe do the odd night at sea every year but whose ship will almost always return to port every night, but totally inadequate for the average Australian volunteer seaman who might well spend months at sea each year.
I heard recently from someone who should know that those same bunks are 1.8m long and positioned between structural bulkheads that can't be extended without a major re-design of the ships. (Would you would fit into a 1.8m bed space, let along one stacked four high?)
The same source told me that there are major, major issues marrying the American radar and comm. gear into the space available in the Spanish ship.
FF'sS, they couldn't even get the dimensions of the bloody keel right.
What the ADF lacks at the highest level is a clear picture. DMO is incompetent but so are many of those from Defence having inputs like Tony Fraser.
The Navy [and others] wish-list often confuses the issue where they spec something for DMO to buy on their behalf that hasn't been built. Somehow the air, water and land here are unique!
If indeed senior ADF master are true to their beliefs then they should stand up [publicly if necessary] and be counted. I would expect that of them.
The Navy [and others] wish-list often confuses the issue where they spec something for DMO to buy on their behalf that hasn't been built. Somehow the air, water and land here are unique!
If indeed senior ADF master are true to their beliefs then they should stand up [publicly if necessary] and be counted. I would expect that of them.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MTOW
The same source told me that there are major, major issues marrying the American radar and comm. gear into the space available in the Spanish ship.
This is NOT a first of type people!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defending homegrown costs | The Australian
Can't find a link to the report on this morning's ABC news of a US Colonel addressing the Lowey Institute and basically saying we're getting it very, very wrong with our high tech, all too often one off defence acquisitions. It would be interesting to read that report in full.
In the end, some hard decisions need to be made about the comparative benefits of buying tried and tested equipment off-the-shelf from overseas, especially with more projects on the books, including the $36bn plan for 12 next-generation submarines.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith should concentrate on rigorous consideration of these issues, instead of resorting to unfortunate media-management ploys to try to stifle our stories and minimise public scrutiny.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith should concentrate on rigorous consideration of these issues, instead of resorting to unfortunate media-management ploys to try to stifle our stories and minimise public scrutiny.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it the one tommorrow ?
Wednesday
1 June 2011 Dangerous Luxuries: Australia’s Flawed Defence Strategy
Colonel John Angevine
US Army Colonel and the Federal Executive Fellow,
Brookings Institution
Upcoming Events - Lowy Institute for International Policy
I also read with the rise of China and India, our relationship with the US and the US with us will become even more important in the future, more so even than NATO.
Even more reason to buy "off the shelf" US Equipment if we are going to operate with them even more.
Further to that, doesn't the US want to pre-position equipment here in Aust
like they do in Israel and other places ?
.
Wednesday
1 June 2011 Dangerous Luxuries: Australia’s Flawed Defence Strategy
Colonel John Angevine
US Army Colonel and the Federal Executive Fellow,
Brookings Institution
Upcoming Events - Lowy Institute for International Policy
I also read with the rise of China and India, our relationship with the US and the US with us will become even more important in the future, more so even than NATO.
Even more reason to buy "off the shelf" US Equipment if we are going to operate with them even more.
Further to that, doesn't the US want to pre-position equipment here in Aust
like they do in Israel and other places ?
.
bit like the sad events of today. The Chinook lost was embedded in a US Army unit. With our few numbers of everything it ain't rocket science to be able to work out the rationale for buying US equipment 'off the shelf' with no Oz mods unless minor.
* RIP those lost today in A/Stan
* RIP those lost today in A/Stan
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 500N. That's the one. http://www.lowyinstitute.org/events-...n-Angevine.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"With our few numbers of everything it ain't rocket science to be able to work out the rationale for buying US equipment 'off the shelf' with no Oz mods unless minor."
I agree re buying OTS.
It wouldn't worry me if we had 1 or 100, they are only metal machinery and it's only money. Even though we only have a few, more can easily be purchased. Plus the fact that losing one or more should have been factored into the war attrition tables.
The above is not the case for the people.
.
I agree re buying OTS.
It wouldn't worry me if we had 1 or 100, they are only metal machinery and it's only money. Even though we only have a few, more can easily be purchased. Plus the fact that losing one or more should have been factored into the war attrition tables.
The above is not the case for the people.
.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That unnamed senior executive at Sikorsky who tried to squeeze Australia unreasonably over the replacement for the Blackhawk, refusing to budge on price or offsets because he could see that Australia had no other option than to buy American certainly has a lot to answer for.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andu
Why does he have a lot to answer for ? Why should he budge on price ?
It's cost us (Aust) a lot more than them.
Australians are tight arses and are becoming like Asian's in always "wanting a deal" (I am NOT being racists, just pointing out how they operate) as opposed to buying the gear and getting on with the job.
We (Aust) might punch above our weight in a few things but not when
it comes to buying gear as we just don't have the numbers so we need to
wear it.
Just my HO.
Why does he have a lot to answer for ? Why should he budge on price ?
It's cost us (Aust) a lot more than them.
Australians are tight arses and are becoming like Asian's in always "wanting a deal" (I am NOT being racists, just pointing out how they operate) as opposed to buying the gear and getting on with the job.
We (Aust) might punch above our weight in a few things but not when
it comes to buying gear as we just don't have the numbers so we need to
wear it.
Just my HO.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US colonel dismisses defence paper as myopic
Deborah Snow, Dan Oakes
June 1, 2011
THE Rudd government designed its 2009 Defence white paper in a ''myopic'' way that ''hobbles'' the army, potentially compromises its contribution to the US alliance and puts too much emphasis on sea and air power, a leading US army critic says.
And it might have done so deliberately to avoid being drawn into more deployments such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a penetrating critique to be presented in Sydney today, Colonel John Angevine detonates many of the assumptions underlying the 2009 white paper, which remains Labor's defence planning document.
Advertisement: Story continues below
He argues that contrary to the idea that China will be the main threat in the decades ahead, there was a ''significant disincentive for Beijing to resort to conventional war with Australia'' because of its economic interdependence with Australia.
He says the white paper's emphasis on boosting Australia's submarine and air strike capacity at the expense of investing in the army erodes the nation's ability to put troops in regional trouble spots.
These distorted priorities risk signalling ''Australia's lack of commitment to co-operatively work with the region's countries to secure stability'', he says.
Colonel Angevine will tell the Lowy Institute that Australia's defence planners are making the same mistake US defence planners made after the Cold War, by assuming there was ''no longer a need for large land forces'' because wars could be fought instead using precision strikes.
But the world since the terrorist attacks of 2001 had shown the opposite, that ''only troops on the ground … will be able to determine where and why a target is holed up in a hut amongst many other families' homes''.
Australia's strategists had designed a defence force that would ''sit on the shelf'' unless a war broke out, while undercutting Australia's ability to deal with small contingencies and build regional partnerships. This could also undermine its ability to contribute to the US alliance.
The planned defence line-up would instil ''fear into Polynesians and Micronesians'' but would not be fearsome enough to ward off a big aggressor. It would leave Australia more dependent on the US for lower-level crises.
His assessment is particularly controversial coming from a senior US army officer, although he stresses his views are personal.
Colonel Angevine, an intelligence specialist in Kabul who is on the military staff of General David Petraeus, has written the paper as part of a 12-month fellowship with the Brookings Institution in Washington.
His criticism of the white paper will reignite questions about the purpose and affordability of its $275 billion defence equipment program, particularly the acquisition of 12 submarines.
Colonel Angevine says the US and Australia should '' complement'' each other's strengths and that Australia could get more value by leasing US submarines. He urges the expansion of the army by between 2000 and 4000 troops, who would be trained in amphibious assault operations.
He suggests the thinking behind the paper was to ''make just enough of a military contribution to preserve the US alliance, without bearing the risk to Australian lives on the ground''.
Read more: US colonel dismisses defence paper as myopic
Deborah Snow, Dan Oakes
June 1, 2011
THE Rudd government designed its 2009 Defence white paper in a ''myopic'' way that ''hobbles'' the army, potentially compromises its contribution to the US alliance and puts too much emphasis on sea and air power, a leading US army critic says.
And it might have done so deliberately to avoid being drawn into more deployments such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a penetrating critique to be presented in Sydney today, Colonel John Angevine detonates many of the assumptions underlying the 2009 white paper, which remains Labor's defence planning document.
Advertisement: Story continues below
He argues that contrary to the idea that China will be the main threat in the decades ahead, there was a ''significant disincentive for Beijing to resort to conventional war with Australia'' because of its economic interdependence with Australia.
He says the white paper's emphasis on boosting Australia's submarine and air strike capacity at the expense of investing in the army erodes the nation's ability to put troops in regional trouble spots.
These distorted priorities risk signalling ''Australia's lack of commitment to co-operatively work with the region's countries to secure stability'', he says.
Colonel Angevine will tell the Lowy Institute that Australia's defence planners are making the same mistake US defence planners made after the Cold War, by assuming there was ''no longer a need for large land forces'' because wars could be fought instead using precision strikes.
But the world since the terrorist attacks of 2001 had shown the opposite, that ''only troops on the ground … will be able to determine where and why a target is holed up in a hut amongst many other families' homes''.
Australia's strategists had designed a defence force that would ''sit on the shelf'' unless a war broke out, while undercutting Australia's ability to deal with small contingencies and build regional partnerships. This could also undermine its ability to contribute to the US alliance.
The planned defence line-up would instil ''fear into Polynesians and Micronesians'' but would not be fearsome enough to ward off a big aggressor. It would leave Australia more dependent on the US for lower-level crises.
His assessment is particularly controversial coming from a senior US army officer, although he stresses his views are personal.
Colonel Angevine, an intelligence specialist in Kabul who is on the military staff of General David Petraeus, has written the paper as part of a 12-month fellowship with the Brookings Institution in Washington.
His criticism of the white paper will reignite questions about the purpose and affordability of its $275 billion defence equipment program, particularly the acquisition of 12 submarines.
Colonel Angevine says the US and Australia should '' complement'' each other's strengths and that Australia could get more value by leasing US submarines. He urges the expansion of the army by between 2000 and 4000 troops, who would be trained in amphibious assault operations.
He suggests the thinking behind the paper was to ''make just enough of a military contribution to preserve the US alliance, without bearing the risk to Australian lives on the ground''.
Read more: US colonel dismisses defence paper as myopic