Why no helo transport? Are we condemning our diggers to an easy victimology?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's always an Underlying Explanation
Click here to find out more!
Top brass bombarded with treats
Linton Besser
December 30, 2010
EXCLUSIVE
SOME of the world's biggest weapons manufacturers and arms dealers are among companies to have wined and dined Defence executives and military officers, internal government records show.
The records shine a light on the relationship between the Defence industry's big hitters and the military, with more than 110 free dinners, lunches, theatre and football tickets given to the Defence Department's three-star personnel from a range of companies in the past three years.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The recently retired head of the Chief Capability Development Group, Vice-Admiral Matt Tripovich, enjoyed more hospitality than any other senior official - accepting almost one-quarter of all such events taken up by senior levels of the Australian defence establishment.
Admiral Tripovich, responsible for securing cabinet approval to buy new multimillion-dollar weapon systems, benefited from 28 invitations to dinners, concerts, the theatre and rugby Tests.
And the federal government's second-most senior arms buyer, Warren King, is another prolific luncher, accepting 25 invitations from companies seeking defence contracts.
These ranged from a private dinner in July with Jim McDowell, the chief executive of BAE Systems, the world's wealthiest arms dealer, to a cocktail function hosted by the electronics group Thales at the Australian War Memorial in December 2007.
Mr King is the deputy chief executive of the Defence Materiel Organisation, and a former senior executive at Raytheon, another major arms supplier that has provided hospitality to senior Australian Defence officials.
The Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant-General David Hurley, accepted 24 hospitality invitations, including a ticket to a US football game given to him by the defence firm General Dynamics, two tickets to King Lear from Australian Aerospace and two tickets to My Fair Lady from Optus, which is mostly owned by the Singapore government.
This year, the Herald revealed Defence had spent more than $48 billion in the four years between 2006 and 2009, in 83,000 contracts.
In that period, Australian Aerospace, the local subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, BAE, Thales, Boeing and Raytheon collected a combined $7.2 billion from Australian taxpayers.
Between 2006 and 2009, Defence published more than 2000 contracts with BAE Systems, 789 with Boeing, 329 with Australian Aerospace and 106 contracts with Optus worth a combined $121 million.
Qantas provided more hospitality and gifts to senior Defence officials than any other company, including free membership to its Chairman's Lounges at major airports.
Other companies gave officials tickets to art exhibitions, meals at exclusive restaurants such as Quay in the Overseas Passenger Terminal, and a variety of cocktail parties.
The Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, was restrained by contrast to his colleagues, accepting only a handful of invitations from the industry.
These included an invitation to the Masterpieces from Paris exhibition put on by Qantas, a BAE Systems dinner and a Boeing cocktail function at the Canberra restaurant the Boathouse by the Lake.
The hospitality declarations, released under freedom of information laws, show Admiral Tripovich is an avid sports fan. He attended 11 sporting fixtures at others' expense, including nine Brumbies rugby matches, between October 2007 and May this year, where dinner and drinks were provided by his hosts, Defence has confirmed.
He accepted six invitations from BAE Systems for dinners and concerts, 10 from Optus for dinners and theatre tickets and four lots of Brumbies tickets from LOPAC, a defence consultancy.
Raytheon, Thales, Ericsson, and Noetic are other companies to have entertained him.
The Herald does not suggest these gifts were in any way solicited. A spokeswoman said Defence maintained a strict regime to prevent conflicts of interest. When an official accepted a gift or hospitality which may be perceived as improper, this ''would be investigated and appropriate action undertaken''. Officials were not allowed to accept gifts during a tendering process or contract negotiation.
Do you know more? [email protected]
from this link
Top brass bombarded with treats
Linton Besser
December 30, 2010
EXCLUSIVE
SOME of the world's biggest weapons manufacturers and arms dealers are among companies to have wined and dined Defence executives and military officers, internal government records show.
The records shine a light on the relationship between the Defence industry's big hitters and the military, with more than 110 free dinners, lunches, theatre and football tickets given to the Defence Department's three-star personnel from a range of companies in the past three years.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The recently retired head of the Chief Capability Development Group, Vice-Admiral Matt Tripovich, enjoyed more hospitality than any other senior official - accepting almost one-quarter of all such events taken up by senior levels of the Australian defence establishment.
Admiral Tripovich, responsible for securing cabinet approval to buy new multimillion-dollar weapon systems, benefited from 28 invitations to dinners, concerts, the theatre and rugby Tests.
And the federal government's second-most senior arms buyer, Warren King, is another prolific luncher, accepting 25 invitations from companies seeking defence contracts.
These ranged from a private dinner in July with Jim McDowell, the chief executive of BAE Systems, the world's wealthiest arms dealer, to a cocktail function hosted by the electronics group Thales at the Australian War Memorial in December 2007.
Mr King is the deputy chief executive of the Defence Materiel Organisation, and a former senior executive at Raytheon, another major arms supplier that has provided hospitality to senior Australian Defence officials.
The Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant-General David Hurley, accepted 24 hospitality invitations, including a ticket to a US football game given to him by the defence firm General Dynamics, two tickets to King Lear from Australian Aerospace and two tickets to My Fair Lady from Optus, which is mostly owned by the Singapore government.
This year, the Herald revealed Defence had spent more than $48 billion in the four years between 2006 and 2009, in 83,000 contracts.
In that period, Australian Aerospace, the local subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, BAE, Thales, Boeing and Raytheon collected a combined $7.2 billion from Australian taxpayers.
Between 2006 and 2009, Defence published more than 2000 contracts with BAE Systems, 789 with Boeing, 329 with Australian Aerospace and 106 contracts with Optus worth a combined $121 million.
Qantas provided more hospitality and gifts to senior Defence officials than any other company, including free membership to its Chairman's Lounges at major airports.
Other companies gave officials tickets to art exhibitions, meals at exclusive restaurants such as Quay in the Overseas Passenger Terminal, and a variety of cocktail parties.
The Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, was restrained by contrast to his colleagues, accepting only a handful of invitations from the industry.
These included an invitation to the Masterpieces from Paris exhibition put on by Qantas, a BAE Systems dinner and a Boeing cocktail function at the Canberra restaurant the Boathouse by the Lake.
The hospitality declarations, released under freedom of information laws, show Admiral Tripovich is an avid sports fan. He attended 11 sporting fixtures at others' expense, including nine Brumbies rugby matches, between October 2007 and May this year, where dinner and drinks were provided by his hosts, Defence has confirmed.
He accepted six invitations from BAE Systems for dinners and concerts, 10 from Optus for dinners and theatre tickets and four lots of Brumbies tickets from LOPAC, a defence consultancy.
Raytheon, Thales, Ericsson, and Noetic are other companies to have entertained him.
The Herald does not suggest these gifts were in any way solicited. A spokeswoman said Defence maintained a strict regime to prevent conflicts of interest. When an official accepted a gift or hospitality which may be perceived as improper, this ''would be investigated and appropriate action undertaken''. Officials were not allowed to accept gifts during a tendering process or contract negotiation.
Do you know more? [email protected]
from this link
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Policeman co-ordinates state, federal forces
Jacqueline Maley and Dan Oakes
January 12, 2011
Deadly floods hit Queensland
Queensland's flood crisis intensifies with severe flash flooding. The Premier Anna Blight says many residents are in a 'very desperate and grim situation.'
THE Queensland Police Service, led by the Deputy Commissioner, Ian Stewart, is co-ordinating the enormous and logistically complex flood relief effort that encompasses several government agencies, the defence forces and thousands of volunteers.
Each day of the relief effort, which comes under the auspices of the government agency Emergency Management Queensland, Mr Stewart convenes several meetings of the State Management Disaster Group, to update staff and agencies of the unfolding situation.
State government departments such as health, housing, treasury and community services sit in on the meetings. At a local level, every town has a disaster management team that includes the police, emergency services and any defence force assistance. There are also about 3000 State Emergency Service volunteers working across the flood-hit areas.
The Defence Department has formed a joint taskforce, commanded by Colonel Luke Foster, to deal with the state and federal government response.
The taskforce is deploying teams from the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, in Brisbane, and includes personnel from all three services, as well as reservists. The Australian Defence Force has sent extra helicopters to Queensland to aid the search and rescue effort in the area around Toowoomba.
With dozens of people still unaccounted for after the devastating flash floods, the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, said six extra helicopters would arrive in Queensland this morning, taking the Defence contribution to 15 aircraft and almost 200 personnel.
Both Mr Smith and the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said yesterday that the resources of the Defence Force were at the disposal of the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh.
''I have made it very clear to Premier Anna Bligh that any resource she needs from the Australian Defence Force will be made available to the people of Queensland to assist them during this very difficult period,'' Ms Gillard said.
The decision to send the extra helicopters was made yesterday following discussions between Mr Smith and the Chief of Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Already three army Black Hawk helicopters, two navy Sea King helicopters, an army Chinook helicopter, two RAAF B350 King Air planes and a RAAF C-130 Hercules are involved.
Mr Smith said two additional Black Hawks had been assigned to the operation and would be based at Amberley, as would four Kiowa light helicopters, which Mr Smith said were ''particularly well-suited for the operation and search and rescue''.
Jacqueline Maley and Dan Oakes
January 12, 2011
Deadly floods hit Queensland
Queensland's flood crisis intensifies with severe flash flooding. The Premier Anna Blight says many residents are in a 'very desperate and grim situation.'
THE Queensland Police Service, led by the Deputy Commissioner, Ian Stewart, is co-ordinating the enormous and logistically complex flood relief effort that encompasses several government agencies, the defence forces and thousands of volunteers.
Each day of the relief effort, which comes under the auspices of the government agency Emergency Management Queensland, Mr Stewart convenes several meetings of the State Management Disaster Group, to update staff and agencies of the unfolding situation.
State government departments such as health, housing, treasury and community services sit in on the meetings. At a local level, every town has a disaster management team that includes the police, emergency services and any defence force assistance. There are also about 3000 State Emergency Service volunteers working across the flood-hit areas.
The Defence Department has formed a joint taskforce, commanded by Colonel Luke Foster, to deal with the state and federal government response.
The taskforce is deploying teams from the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, in Brisbane, and includes personnel from all three services, as well as reservists. The Australian Defence Force has sent extra helicopters to Queensland to aid the search and rescue effort in the area around Toowoomba.
With dozens of people still unaccounted for after the devastating flash floods, the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, said six extra helicopters would arrive in Queensland this morning, taking the Defence contribution to 15 aircraft and almost 200 personnel.
Both Mr Smith and the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said yesterday that the resources of the Defence Force were at the disposal of the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh.
''I have made it very clear to Premier Anna Bligh that any resource she needs from the Australian Defence Force will be made available to the people of Queensland to assist them during this very difficult period,'' Ms Gillard said.
The decision to send the extra helicopters was made yesterday following discussions between Mr Smith and the Chief of Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Already three army Black Hawk helicopters, two navy Sea King helicopters, an army Chinook helicopter, two RAAF B350 King Air planes and a RAAF C-130 Hercules are involved.
Mr Smith said two additional Black Hawks had been assigned to the operation and would be based at Amberley, as would four Kiowa light helicopters, which Mr Smith said were ''particularly well-suited for the operation and search and rescue''.
One is tempted to add "...just as they are particularly well-suited - far moreso than the high tech, high cost rotary wing assets the ADF is buying - to 90% of operational Army support missions."
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADF Helo Operating Costs
Year 2007 ADF helo operating costs per flying hour provided to ASPI by Defence were: Sea King-$23,616; Blackhawk-$20,659; Iroquois-$7,738 (due to reduced flying rate while being withdrawn from service); Kiowa-$2,865. A Hotel model Iroquois upgraded to Huey II costs about $5,000 per flying hour to operate.
Perhaps Minister for Defence Stephen Smith might now ask CDF why the Iroquois were shed when they could have been very cost-effectively upgraded to Huey II for around $2million or less per aircraft! Their track record in rescue work and aid to civil powers in Australia and offshore during 26 years of RAAF service was illustrious and they were often speedily deployed into remote areas by C-130. This invaluable capability has been foolishly forfeited by Australian defence planners.
Perhaps Minister for Defence Stephen Smith might now ask CDF why the Iroquois were shed when they could have been very cost-effectively upgraded to Huey II for around $2million or less per aircraft! Their track record in rescue work and aid to civil powers in Australia and offshore during 26 years of RAAF service was illustrious and they were often speedily deployed into remote areas by C-130. This invaluable capability has been foolishly forfeited by Australian defence planners.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 12th Jan 2011 at 01:07.
might ask why the Blackhawks don't have rescue winches fitted would be a better question.
The soon to be retired Sea Kings are doing a great job. Right size for multi roles and transport of all sorts of things...
The soon to be retired Sea Kings are doing a great job. Right size for multi roles and transport of all sorts of things...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not Sea King?
So why not fit the RAN Sea Kings with the proven demountable L3 AQS-18(v)-3D dipping sonar (L-3 Communications -> Products & Services -> AQS-18(V)-3) and make that aircraft do what it was supposed to be for initially? This sonar kit is in service worldwide on various helo types including SH-3 Sea King. Just put the compact gear down the back with the Observer/TacO (or whatever they are called these days) and a simple repeater monitor screen up front for the pilots (zero R&D necessary). Sea King should be pretty supportable for a while yet considering the numbers in service around the globe and the operating costs are about half of Seahawk ($45,317 per hour at 2007).
The next dubious merit megabuck spend will conceivably be the MH-60R/S (upwards of $2billion project cost) with operating costs perhaps higher than Seahawk and it is so stuffed full of systems and heavy that it will be virtually useless for boarding party roles. Better to consider what resources might be available from the scaling down of the British military and go for more Sea King to save the nation a lot of money.
The disastrous ADF helicopter rationalisation strategy emerged when Army Aviation headed the Helicopter Systems Division of the Defence Material Organisation. Navy now leads that outfit and has opportunity to correct some of the inferior planning and get back in the helo ASW game pretty quickly plus enhance multi-role capabilities with Sea King.
The next dubious merit megabuck spend will conceivably be the MH-60R/S (upwards of $2billion project cost) with operating costs perhaps higher than Seahawk and it is so stuffed full of systems and heavy that it will be virtually useless for boarding party roles. Better to consider what resources might be available from the scaling down of the British military and go for more Sea King to save the nation a lot of money.
The disastrous ADF helicopter rationalisation strategy emerged when Army Aviation headed the Helicopter Systems Division of the Defence Material Organisation. Navy now leads that outfit and has opportunity to correct some of the inferior planning and get back in the helo ASW game pretty quickly plus enhance multi-role capabilities with Sea King.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 12th Jan 2011 at 21:13.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ref Bushranger 71
Quote.
"Year 2007 ADF helo operating costs per flying hour provided to ASPI by Defence were: Sea King-$23,616; Blackhawk-$20,659; Iroquois-$7,738 (due to reduced flying rate while being withdrawn from service); Kiowa-$2,865. A Hotel model Iroquois upgraded to Huey II costs about $5,000 per flying hour to operate."
These figures look very high to me, specifically the Iroquois and Kiowa. Anyone with different figures to this. I am on a oil company network and limited time to research.
I would have thought Iroquois at thirty percent of the figure quoted, and Kiowa at 20% of the figure quoted.
"Year 2007 ADF helo operating costs per flying hour provided to ASPI by Defence were: Sea King-$23,616; Blackhawk-$20,659; Iroquois-$7,738 (due to reduced flying rate while being withdrawn from service); Kiowa-$2,865. A Hotel model Iroquois upgraded to Huey II costs about $5,000 per flying hour to operate."
These figures look very high to me, specifically the Iroquois and Kiowa. Anyone with different figures to this. I am on a oil company network and limited time to research.
I would have thought Iroquois at thirty percent of the figure quoted, and Kiowa at 20% of the figure quoted.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi piggybank; agree the referenced operating costs seem high. They derive from the ASPI Special Report 21 (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) which embraces some explanation of factors included by DoD Australia. Note therein a figure of $5,755 for a twin-engine Bell 412 provided by a civilian operator. The Huey II figure of $5,000 per flying hour was provided by Bell Helicopter.
Hitherto, Australian defence planners have been seemingly dismissive of aircraft operating costs, no doubt brainwashed by the reckless projected hardware acquisition expenditure endorsed by both main political parties. Comparing operating costs based on common data, multi-role capabilities, hot and high performance of various types; it becomes pretty clear which helos are the best value for money.
Hitherto, Australian defence planners have been seemingly dismissive of aircraft operating costs, no doubt brainwashed by the reckless projected hardware acquisition expenditure endorsed by both main political parties. Comparing operating costs based on common data, multi-role capabilities, hot and high performance of various types; it becomes pretty clear which helos are the best value for money.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 13th Jan 2011 at 00:52.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushranger 71
Thanks for the clarification.
The company I work for in PNG would murder to earn money like that on helicopters. Without looking at your reference, I think my figures are closer to reality and still turn a profit.
Thanks for the clarification.
The company I work for in PNG would murder to earn money like that on helicopters. Without looking at your reference, I think my figures are closer to reality and still turn a profit.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who've pooh-hooed Bushranger 71's repeated warnings about the overly expensive purchase and hourly operating costs of the ADF's current and future helicopter fleet might be interested in this comment on the currently hot running thread about the RAF's huge cuts in aircrew and aircrew trainees.
Don't for one moment think it can't, or won't happen here. And is there anyone who thinks our 4 stars are any different to their Brit equivalents?
More fundamentally though, the constant whining about accountants and bean-counters shows why we in the Services are babes in the wood in the modern world. It IS all about the money AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN! It is specifically because our 4-stars have failed over the last 10 years to grasp the nettle of the unaffordability of our plans that we have ended up in this crisis.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The enemy within and without
Hello boys and girls. Somewhat sadly, I will go a bit further than Andu; but first, have a read of this great article by Professor Henry Ergas in 'The Australian', 18Feb11: Captain Kafka running defence | The Australian
In 2008/09, defence expenditure approximated around $22.4billion or 7.6 percent of federal government revenue, which was then about $295billion – forget relativity to GDP as that is just smoke and mirrors stuff.
Assuming current defence expenditure is $26.8billion, grab a calculator and project the intended compounding increases in defence expenditure at 3 percent per annum out to 2018 and then 2.2 percent to 2030. Figure just how much federal government revenue would have to increase for defence spending to represent 7.6 percent downstream, or whatever figure you prefer. The question arises whether that will be affordable without the nation being taxed into poverty.
The starry-eyed lot at the top of the defence realm have indeed evaded their responsibilities to undertake cost-effective force structures planning and military leaders will likely escape culpability due to wholesale changes in top level appointments due mid-2011. The unrealistic spendathon is of course promoted by multiple retired politicians and senior military officers now employed by the powerful multi-national arms conglomerates – just follow the people and projects trail and this aspect becomes clear.
Why do we need 46 medium lift MRH90 when 12 Chinooks would have been better or 100 JSF or 8 infantry battalions? And we certainly do not need the superfluous Ministries of Defence Material and Science & Personnel. Lots of scope for force structures rationalisation and running a lean and more efficient organisation and we can only hope that the politicians see the need for much improved oversight of defence affairs.
It seems inevitable to me that some defence cutbacks are in the offing, as has been happening elsewhere in the world. That is just economic reality.
In 2008/09, defence expenditure approximated around $22.4billion or 7.6 percent of federal government revenue, which was then about $295billion – forget relativity to GDP as that is just smoke and mirrors stuff.
Assuming current defence expenditure is $26.8billion, grab a calculator and project the intended compounding increases in defence expenditure at 3 percent per annum out to 2018 and then 2.2 percent to 2030. Figure just how much federal government revenue would have to increase for defence spending to represent 7.6 percent downstream, or whatever figure you prefer. The question arises whether that will be affordable without the nation being taxed into poverty.
The starry-eyed lot at the top of the defence realm have indeed evaded their responsibilities to undertake cost-effective force structures planning and military leaders will likely escape culpability due to wholesale changes in top level appointments due mid-2011. The unrealistic spendathon is of course promoted by multiple retired politicians and senior military officers now employed by the powerful multi-national arms conglomerates – just follow the people and projects trail and this aspect becomes clear.
Why do we need 46 medium lift MRH90 when 12 Chinooks would have been better or 100 JSF or 8 infantry battalions? And we certainly do not need the superfluous Ministries of Defence Material and Science & Personnel. Lots of scope for force structures rationalisation and running a lean and more efficient organisation and we can only hope that the politicians see the need for much improved oversight of defence affairs.
It seems inevitable to me that some defence cutbacks are in the offing, as has been happening elsewhere in the world. That is just economic reality.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BR
The $20B in efficiencies being demanded are reality enough! Lots of low hanging fruit being picked, which only succeeds in p1ssing off the operators at the coal face. Some of the things being driven in the name of cost savings make one shake one's head in disgust.
But the big c0ck ups? Has anyone been hanged for Sea Sprite? Has CA sacked anyone for the pointless WOFTAM of mid point DPCU, redundant and replaced before being issued? LCM 2000? Does the Minister do anything more than say "tut tut" and wag his finger when the Pussers can't put as much as a kayak in the oggin during one of the worst disasters in living history? Not much action when it comes to the big debacles
oh no, but quietly cut ball ammo allocation, reduce access to ranges, issue fewer uniforms to recruits, reduce course panel sizes ... no worries!
The $20B in efficiencies being demanded are reality enough! Lots of low hanging fruit being picked, which only succeeds in p1ssing off the operators at the coal face. Some of the things being driven in the name of cost savings make one shake one's head in disgust.
But the big c0ck ups? Has anyone been hanged for Sea Sprite? Has CA sacked anyone for the pointless WOFTAM of mid point DPCU, redundant and replaced before being issued? LCM 2000? Does the Minister do anything more than say "tut tut" and wag his finger when the Pussers can't put as much as a kayak in the oggin during one of the worst disasters in living history? Not much action when it comes to the big debacles
oh no, but quietly cut ball ammo allocation, reduce access to ranges, issue fewer uniforms to recruits, reduce course panel sizes ... no worries!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi LTDT. I do feel for those serving in present economic circumstances as many military retirees have served through similar penny-pinching political cost-cutting exercises wherein the politicians and military leaders did not have the testicular fortitude to cut over-expenditure by jettisoning some flawed projects. The civvy component of Defence is now around 22,000 strong with DMO over one third of that number and recruiting prodigiously, but no freeze or cuts being heralded in that direction!
But I do not agree that $20billion in cost savings over time will be sufficient. In my view, we could have a pretty capable ADF if an affordable 7.5 percent of federal government revenue was better spent.
As TBM-Legend said earlier, 'there should be some heads on pikes'; but alas, Australia has become a land of non-accountability no matter the magnitude of cock-ups that hugely wound taxpayers. Needed at the top are 'men of steel', not political animals be they politicians, senior public servants, military chiefs who continually defend flawed judgements. They would get a whole lot more respect from the public, serving and retired military if they would just publicly admit to inappropriate decisions and propose corrective actions, even if that means cost penalties for bugging out of foundering projects.
Sadly, very glaring shortcomings in leadership.
But I do not agree that $20billion in cost savings over time will be sufficient. In my view, we could have a pretty capable ADF if an affordable 7.5 percent of federal government revenue was better spent.
As TBM-Legend said earlier, 'there should be some heads on pikes'; but alas, Australia has become a land of non-accountability no matter the magnitude of cock-ups that hugely wound taxpayers. Needed at the top are 'men of steel', not political animals be they politicians, senior public servants, military chiefs who continually defend flawed judgements. They would get a whole lot more respect from the public, serving and retired military if they would just publicly admit to inappropriate decisions and propose corrective actions, even if that means cost penalties for bugging out of foundering projects.
Sadly, very glaring shortcomings in leadership.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 21st Feb 2011 at 16:40.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's SMH 'Column 8', humour with a disturbingly serious message in its content.
Earlier in this thread, the Army’s unwillingness to put their overly expensive new helicopters into high risk situations had been discussed. (Somebody commented that it would be "politically unacceptable for the ADF to lose a helicopter".)
On a far larger scale, one might ask whether the Navy will ever be willing to place such a large asset – the classic ‘all your eggs in one basket’ – as one of their new aircraft carriers/cruisers (call them what you will) into any situation where it might be at risk of being sunk.
In peacetime, for disaster relief or civil aid, once one of the new carriers gets there, (wherever ‘there’ might be), having such a large platform with state of the art comms., helicopters, landing craft and everything else on board will surely be a fantastic asset. But you don’t need to be Von Clausewitz or Sun Tsu to see that if we ever find ourselves in an even mildly shooting war, Australia would have to be extremely careful in risking all those eggs to one incoming missile, torpedo, mine, bomb or even suicide speedboat.
Just as with the helicopters, surely to God we’d have been better off with a large number of smaller, cheaper craft that could both spread the wealth and led to a less profound effect upon the whole national defence should just one of them be lost? (I'm reminded of the Argentineans keeping their lone carrier squarely in port for the whole duration of the Flaklands conflict because of the threat presented by one lone RN submarine.)
Along similar lines, do we have the fleet support vessels (and the manpower) to provide adequate protection for just one of these (in Australian terms) behemoths?
"Australia gets Spain to build our new Armada," notes Harald Ehrlich, of shipyards unknown, “and our own Nelson is there to help with the launch. Let’s hope he is not quite as successful at sinking the fleet as his English namesake.”
On a far larger scale, one might ask whether the Navy will ever be willing to place such a large asset – the classic ‘all your eggs in one basket’ – as one of their new aircraft carriers/cruisers (call them what you will) into any situation where it might be at risk of being sunk.
In peacetime, for disaster relief or civil aid, once one of the new carriers gets there, (wherever ‘there’ might be), having such a large platform with state of the art comms., helicopters, landing craft and everything else on board will surely be a fantastic asset. But you don’t need to be Von Clausewitz or Sun Tsu to see that if we ever find ourselves in an even mildly shooting war, Australia would have to be extremely careful in risking all those eggs to one incoming missile, torpedo, mine, bomb or even suicide speedboat.
Just as with the helicopters, surely to God we’d have been better off with a large number of smaller, cheaper craft that could both spread the wealth and led to a less profound effect upon the whole national defence should just one of them be lost? (I'm reminded of the Argentineans keeping their lone carrier squarely in port for the whole duration of the Flaklands conflict because of the threat presented by one lone RN submarine.)
Along similar lines, do we have the fleet support vessels (and the manpower) to provide adequate protection for just one of these (in Australian terms) behemoths?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China's Type 071 LPD
See this link: Type 071 Yuzhao LPD
Other sources suggest displacement tonnage (light?) between 12,000 and 14,000 tonnes with capacity for 4 'heavy lift' helos and deck/hangar manoevring systems like RAST. Maybe 4 vessels of similar design would have been more appropriate for ADF regional operations!
The Spanish/Australian LPDs have ramps and are advertised as having capacity for a 30 aircraft air wing.
Has the Canberra class been built to double hull warship specs? Just curious.
Other sources suggest displacement tonnage (light?) between 12,000 and 14,000 tonnes with capacity for 4 'heavy lift' helos and deck/hangar manoevring systems like RAST. Maybe 4 vessels of similar design would have been more appropriate for ADF regional operations!
The Spanish/Australian LPDs have ramps and are advertised as having capacity for a 30 aircraft air wing.
Has the Canberra class been built to double hull warship specs? Just curious.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 21st Feb 2011 at 21:37.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARH Tiger, I can see why you might think Andu and Bushranger are reading from the same page, (I'll put my hand up and freely admit that I am as well), but where in the world did "you must be a member of the Labor Party" come from?
Along with Bushranger 71, I think it's absolute madness for a navy of the RAN's size to commit such huge resources to one hull. One cruise missile and the RAN - and Australia - is virtually out of the whole damn shootin' match, not just the local engagement. And for that reason, I can't see the Navy or any politician in future risking Canberra or her sister ships (and all the non navy personnel and equipment they'd be carrying) to even a medium risk.
What's the naval equivalent of hangar queen?
Along with Bushranger 71, I think it's absolute madness for a navy of the RAN's size to commit such huge resources to one hull. One cruise missile and the RAN - and Australia - is virtually out of the whole damn shootin' match, not just the local engagement. And for that reason, I can't see the Navy or any politician in future risking Canberra or her sister ships (and all the non navy personnel and equipment they'd be carrying) to even a medium risk.
What's the naval equivalent of hangar queen?
MTOW - Old argument re capital ships. "the carrier can be taken out by a single missile or torpedo".....
That is not an argument not to have them. Yours is an all-out war possibility. When was the last carrier sunk enemy action? Around 65 years ago.....
Remember the Falklands would have been lost without Invincible. It operated of with sub/air/surface opposition threats.
Assymetric military engagements have been the hallmark of combat operations since Korea.
That is not an argument not to have them. Yours is an all-out war possibility. When was the last carrier sunk enemy action? Around 65 years ago.....
Remember the Falklands would have been lost without Invincible. It operated of with sub/air/surface opposition threats.
Assymetric military engagements have been the hallmark of combat operations since Korea.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi-role support ships
HMAS Melbourne and Sydney both did some good work in their day with less sophisticated fixed wing aircraft embarked. But I think the big question re the Canberra class LPDs is what would be the fixed wing air structure if operated in aircraft carrier mode?
The Harriers certainly did a good job in the Falklands War, but they soon seem destined for scrap metal, including in the USMC. The F-35B version of the JSF looks pretty wobbly at this stage, if this is what Australia's defence planners had in mind when committing to the Canberra class. And the big heavy (and slow) Super Hornet may not be compatible. UCAVs maybe, but pretty futuristic at this stage.
The logical regional need for Australia is more toward several 'multi-role support ships' for logistic style purposes and the Chinese Type 071 LPD seems to be of appropriate size with suitable characteristics. According to some sources, they can produce these ships at about one third the cost of say the larger US San Antonio class. Malaysia may soon order 2 Type 071s.
The US and European arms conglomerates are now being challenged like never before.
(Apologies for the thread drift but one thing leads to another)
The Harriers certainly did a good job in the Falklands War, but they soon seem destined for scrap metal, including in the USMC. The F-35B version of the JSF looks pretty wobbly at this stage, if this is what Australia's defence planners had in mind when committing to the Canberra class. And the big heavy (and slow) Super Hornet may not be compatible. UCAVs maybe, but pretty futuristic at this stage.
The logical regional need for Australia is more toward several 'multi-role support ships' for logistic style purposes and the Chinese Type 071 LPD seems to be of appropriate size with suitable characteristics. According to some sources, they can produce these ships at about one third the cost of say the larger US San Antonio class. Malaysia may soon order 2 Type 071s.
The US and European arms conglomerates are now being challenged like never before.
(Apologies for the thread drift but one thing leads to another)
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 21st Feb 2011 at 23:33.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point about the size and carrying-capability of HMAS Canberra and her sister ships. Future planners will be left with a bit of a dilemma - load 'em up and (as has been said before), put an awful lot of eggs [and we don't have a awful lot of eggs in the first place] into one basket, or send them out half empty with a lot less on board than they can fit so as to spread the risk of losing too much capability (forget enemy action; even to one single major unservicemability).
What are the chances that one or more of them will be mothballed or significantly delayed (a delayed project in the Australian defence system; now there's a novel concept) to an effort to balance the budget?
I must say that anyone who thinks we're immune from the kind of cutbacks we're currenty seeing in the UK isn't a student of history. Even if any such cutbacks are (hopefully) unlikely to be quite so deep, I really don't see how we're to avoid them with the huge and unexpected expenses acssociated with the recent rash of natural disasters to be paid for, and Defence has always been the first place the pollies look to to save a buck. The two areas that appear to be sacrosanct and don't get the knife - or at least not much of the knife - are always the same - welfare and foreign aid.
What are the chances that one or more of them will be mothballed or significantly delayed (a delayed project in the Australian defence system; now there's a novel concept) to an effort to balance the budget?
I must say that anyone who thinks we're immune from the kind of cutbacks we're currenty seeing in the UK isn't a student of history. Even if any such cutbacks are (hopefully) unlikely to be quite so deep, I really don't see how we're to avoid them with the huge and unexpected expenses acssociated with the recent rash of natural disasters to be paid for, and Defence has always been the first place the pollies look to to save a buck. The two areas that appear to be sacrosanct and don't get the knife - or at least not much of the knife - are always the same - welfare and foreign aid.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian defence cuts are inevitable
Hi ARH Tiger. I have to first challenge your political inference in post #154.
I voted conservatively for most of my life and was a member of the Queensland National Party for a few years, until I got some insights into what old Joh was up to (I even bought an aircraft off the old bugger). I began voting informal from 1996 onwards because of dissatisfaction re John Howard's intentions regarding defence matters and middle class welfare; and now, I am more or less apolitical because there are few in the political realm these days who can be respected.
Majority of the flawed military hardware acquisitions were generated during Howard's reign and his former Minister for Defence who jumped ship to ride the 'defence gravy train' drove the Tiger, MRH90, LPD procurements; the latter 2 being announced just a couple of days prior to calling of Election 2007. Just follow the people trail and you will find a former Army CDF also involved.
Had Army and Navy air arms been wise enough just to push for factory upgrades of Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk, Chinook, Sea King, Seahawk; both force components would be in much better shape today. Instead, the disastrous ADF helicopter rationalisation strategy, which absurdly aims for only 4 types in service, has generated huge capability gaps and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
'Tis rather interesting that some ASPI staffers who were complicit in drafting Rudd's Defence White Paper 2009 are now saying that the futuristic military expansion agenda therein was never going to be economically achievable. But both of the major political parties are now stalemated because they said 'me too' regarding unrealistic unaffordable defence expenditure projections out to 2030.
In typical Canberra fashion, they will defend their flawed postures until economic necessities compel some remedial action. More unscheduled acquisitions to offset capabilities gaps, like acquiring a UK Bay class LSD, may trigger a bipartisan political deal to diminish intended defence spending downstream so both parties can save some face. If that eventuates, then there will obviously have to be some massaging of military acquisition projects in train. The nation simply cannot afford continuation of reckless defence expenditure.
I voted conservatively for most of my life and was a member of the Queensland National Party for a few years, until I got some insights into what old Joh was up to (I even bought an aircraft off the old bugger). I began voting informal from 1996 onwards because of dissatisfaction re John Howard's intentions regarding defence matters and middle class welfare; and now, I am more or less apolitical because there are few in the political realm these days who can be respected.
Majority of the flawed military hardware acquisitions were generated during Howard's reign and his former Minister for Defence who jumped ship to ride the 'defence gravy train' drove the Tiger, MRH90, LPD procurements; the latter 2 being announced just a couple of days prior to calling of Election 2007. Just follow the people trail and you will find a former Army CDF also involved.
Had Army and Navy air arms been wise enough just to push for factory upgrades of Kiowa, Iroquois, Blackhawk, Chinook, Sea King, Seahawk; both force components would be in much better shape today. Instead, the disastrous ADF helicopter rationalisation strategy, which absurdly aims for only 4 types in service, has generated huge capability gaps and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
'Tis rather interesting that some ASPI staffers who were complicit in drafting Rudd's Defence White Paper 2009 are now saying that the futuristic military expansion agenda therein was never going to be economically achievable. But both of the major political parties are now stalemated because they said 'me too' regarding unrealistic unaffordable defence expenditure projections out to 2030.
In typical Canberra fashion, they will defend their flawed postures until economic necessities compel some remedial action. More unscheduled acquisitions to offset capabilities gaps, like acquiring a UK Bay class LSD, may trigger a bipartisan political deal to diminish intended defence spending downstream so both parties can save some face. If that eventuates, then there will obviously have to be some massaging of military acquisition projects in train. The nation simply cannot afford continuation of reckless defence expenditure.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 22nd Feb 2011 at 04:01.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARH Tiger, yours would be a sound argument if the new mounts could actually line up for the race with a jockey that they were designed to carry on their backs.
The sad fact is, neither the grossly overpriced troop carrier nor the attack helicopter (that, judging by your user name, you seem to be overly enamoured with) can't - and don't look like being able to for some time to come.
The old faithful mounts that are now prematurely at the glue factory once could, and still could today, and a damn sight better than their replacements have demonstrated to date.
The sad fact is, neither the grossly overpriced troop carrier nor the attack helicopter (that, judging by your user name, you seem to be overly enamoured with) can't - and don't look like being able to for some time to come.
The old faithful mounts that are now prematurely at the glue factory once could, and still could today, and a damn sight better than their replacements have demonstrated to date.