Merged: Seasprites cancelled finally
Thread Starter
Navy engineers
The Military would run smoothly if it wasn't run by senoir military officers.
Do retention issues affect the engineering capabilties of the RAN? (due loss of experience)
Do retention issues affect the engineering capabilties of the RAN? (due loss of experience)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evertonian
The Government has taken the tough decision and acted decisively to achieve the necessary outcome without a protracted legal dispute
Evertonian
Now, obviously, I have NFI what the terms of the contract were, but if we awarded this company to deliver this product & they cannot deliver this product, then what is the reason for "settling out of court"? What was in the fine print that precluded a full on claim against Kaman, or whoever was contracted?
Surely, if you're right, you fight?
Surely, if you're right, you fight?
Is anyone going to be held accountable for the 1 billion dollar loss or doesn't the military work like that?
Who made the original decision? Was it an individual or a group? What is the explanation for the error or does everyone involved cover for everyone else?
Is it a case of not seeking outside advice? From my experience with the military on Airspace it appears that there is no culture of asking advice and following something that is already proved successful rather than inventing something new.
See the posts below under "Australian Navy Seasprites" and cry!
Who made the original decision? Was it an individual or a group? What is the explanation for the error or does everyone involved cover for everyone else?
Is it a case of not seeking outside advice? From my experience with the military on Airspace it appears that there is no culture of asking advice and following something that is already proved successful rather than inventing something new.
See the posts below under "Australian Navy Seasprites" and cry!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 21st Mar 2008 at 03:02.
Is anyone going to be held accountable for the 1 billion dollar loss or doesn't the military work like that?
Who made the original decision? Was it an individual or a group? What is the explanation for the error or does everyone involved cover for everyone else?
Is it a case of not seeking outside advice? From my experience with the military on Airspace it appears that there is no culture of asking advice and following something that is already proved successful rather than inventing something new.
Who made the original decision? Was it an individual or a group? What is the explanation for the error or does everyone involved cover for everyone else?
Is it a case of not seeking outside advice? From my experience with the military on Airspace it appears that there is no culture of asking advice and following something that is already proved successful rather than inventing something new.
With the exception perhaps of those members of the last cabinet who rolled Nelson's attempt to cut this one away, I doubt very much that anyone is claiming that the whole thing wasn't a shambles.
If you have read anything on this issue other than the forums here, you will understand that the seasprite is one of the last legacy projects from a bygone era, prior to DMO, capability and finance all being aligned.
That is the explanation for the error and acquisition failures such as this are the reason that the process is completely different now and highly unlikley to occur again.
Furthermore, there is a distinction between 'the military' and the civilian Department of Defence. Your 'experience with the military', I respectfully submit, may be somewhat subjective and in any case, the organsiational sub-component you dealt with regarding airspace is in no way related to those who are responsible for capability development and acquistion.
Tibbsy, the "sub component" may be different but the culture appears similar-that is never admit to asking advice.
In relation to modernising airspace I found there was simply no grasp of the fact that it's always a good idea to see what other leading countries a doing and consider copying procedures that are better.
I also found that there was little understanding of cost and waste when dealing with these people.
Maybe that will have to change in the future as our economic woes become more serious.
In relation to modernising airspace I found there was simply no grasp of the fact that it's always a good idea to see what other leading countries a doing and consider copying procedures that are better.
I also found that there was little understanding of cost and waste when dealing with these people.
Maybe that will have to change in the future as our economic woes become more serious.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I think you'll find that Defence does indeed take and pay for advice. Not sure of the quality of some of it though.
Defence procurement is in fact based on overseas practices, it's just that they are neither good nor appropriate for a small force like ours. Lead times of seven years for a major project are a significant part of the problem. By the time the equipment rolls out the world and technology have moved on and all the assumptions underlying the purchase are no longer valid. Combine this with a poor understanding of technical risk in the project and you have the
sea sprite.
As for accountability the project runs for so long that the people on the committees responsible have moved several times and responsibility is diluted throughout the organisation. So don't expect any heads to roll.
I think you'll find that Defence does indeed take and pay for advice. Not sure of the quality of some of it though.
Defence procurement is in fact based on overseas practices, it's just that they are neither good nor appropriate for a small force like ours. Lead times of seven years for a major project are a significant part of the problem. By the time the equipment rolls out the world and technology have moved on and all the assumptions underlying the purchase are no longer valid. Combine this with a poor understanding of technical risk in the project and you have the
sea sprite.
As for accountability the project runs for so long that the people on the committees responsible have moved several times and responsibility is diluted throughout the organisation. So don't expect any heads to roll.
I did suggest a while back they could recoupe the cost by putting the seasprites in shopping centres for $2 kiddy rides.
That's about all they're good for, no one listened though.
That's about all they're good for, no one listened though.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie027
err about 8 cubic metres
What size pile does $1 Billion in cash, lets say in hundreds make?????
