Some in Australian home industry are making outrageous unqualified statements that off-the-shelf equipment is bad. Yet there are some other things to think about with this article from the Canberra Times.
The real problem is the entrenched Defence bureaucracy including the failed experiment known as the DMO.
How can any home industry survive in such a hostile environment? The answer is: it is not.
And, even when Australian home industry does get some important work, there aren't enough skills to manage it and see the project through. For instance, there was a time when the troubled Air Warfare Destroyer project was quoted to come in at $6B. Later it was marketed as an $8B dollar project. Now it is in trouble and will cost more. All the while when we could have had 3 off-the-ships for much less. Oh wait; there is no capability need for such ships. They will consume too much manpower and get sunk in any real shooting war. Kind of like this.
All that, and Australia does not have the skill at home to bring in a much more complex 12 sub project at an unthinkable figure beyond $36B.
Some ignore the fact that the goal of Defence is for defence of the country and not an exercise in burning up taxpayer cash on poorly thought out project management disasters.
The home industry goals of the rent-seekers are beyond unrealistic.
When someone quotes the joke of the 2009 Defence White Paper as if it has worth, then you know they are from an alternate reality; are mentally affected or suffer from recreational substance abuse.
It is time to understand that Australia does not have realistic defence project management skills; has no credible long-range strategic thinking in government; and can only fall back on the tried and true destructive methods of institutional group-think.
Today, trying to decide what weapon system needs to be procured is all cart-before-the-horse until there is real change in the Defence bureaucracy. In addition, that change has to address sound strategic thinking of our defence needs.
29 comments:
Why will the AWD's get sunk in any real shooting war Eric?
They will be the best protected ships the RAN has ever had. Not just against air threats, but against sub-surface threats too.
Usually you advocate big radars and big missile loads as the key to combat survivability in real shooting wars, well the AWD has those in spades. Strange that suddenly it's no longer THE recipe for survival.
With the exception of the other AEGIS vessels (in some areas only) in the Pacific Rim, few other ships are going to match the capabilities the Hobart Class will have and all this assumes the AWD will be operating alone. Which it won't be, of course.
Curious.
I believe what is being said is that without air superiority, history shows that the Navy will suffer inevitable losses no matter how excellent that equipment may be.
I do agree as well that most of the problems that defence find itself in, is because of the flawed thinking and management of the failed experiment being the DMO.
However, there is no shortage of project management skills in this country, as evidenced by successful mining, oil and gas projects Australia wide. In addition these companies source their skill sets from both within and outside Australia. No doubt Europe at the moment would be a fertile recruiting ground.
It is a matter of those in charge to give industry long term and sustainable business instead of the stop start garbage foisted upon various companies in this country. The companies need to acquire and retain skills, train and retain. Who would in their right mind work for a defence contractor when in three years to then find they must seek further employment.
Introduce long-term realistic defence projects giving companies a long-term view and which will provide affordable workable equipment, and ongoing R&D.
As an example look at Israel, a small country with no natural resources and a small population. Last year they managed to export $7 billion worth of defence equipment and expertise. Sweden is another example.
With CEC, the fact that these ships don't operate alone nr side by side (ie: radar hrizon is negated) and weapons like SM-6 coming in to the inventory I think we can safely say that these ships are going have just a little more say and control over their operational environment then perhaps they are given credit for.
The argument is loaded with assumptions that they won't survive and based upon perfectly working enemy weapons whilst ours even though they are designed to match or exceed those weapons, won't.
Despite the overwhelming dominance of our weapons demonstrated in every operation since WW2, still the claims come that we are out-matched.
Such a view simply doesn't match reality.
Bonza -
You're last post is well taken imho, and worth the thought, but the comment that 'our weapons have demonstrated overwhelming dominance in every conflict since WWII' would be a bit of a stretch, at the least. I'm sure you might even concede that point and wish to have re-worded the intent of the msg? Respects-
Not at all Geo, please feel free to point to the operation where our naval combat and self-defence capabilities have proven to be as decisively out-matched as Eric constantly states that we now are?
Then feel free to show exactly where the operationally derived evidence is coming from that demonstrates the superiority that these new wonder weapons apparently have...
Because all I see is a bunch of usual Rosboronexport marketing claims and the usual failure to have any use or impact on operational scenarios.
I've seen such claims from the MiG-15 all the way through to MiG-29 about their marketed superiority, yet those literature based stats somehow never manage to convert into war-winning actions, despite the pundits support for them.
Consequently there is a fundamental disconnect between observed marketing claims and observed operational performance that is not so visiible in the Western systems.
Hence my trouble swallowing some of the modern claims about modern equipment...
A recent conflict that I can think about would be that of the Falklands in 1982.
The British Navy armed with, Sea Wolf, Sea Dart, Sea Cat, 4.5 inch naval guns, reasonable air cover provided by Harrier and AIM9L? Missiles, confronted an air force with unguided weapons, apart from the Exocet.
I believe losses for the British Navy were two Destroyers, two Frigates, one lCU, one LSU, and a containership.
I doubt that your point has anything to do with anyone's marketing claims> I am not an expert technically, however merely comment on history. I do not understand why anything produced in the Soviet Union or East Asia is supposed to be somehow inferior or substandard.
Also I tend to remember how technology would rule supreme in the air of North Vietnam, when the Sparrow missile failed miserably and the American air force, American Navy, were mauled by the MIG 17, a cousin of the MIG15, MIG19,21 etc.
History will tell you that there is no such thing as superior technology, tactics or outcomes. Those who believe the things that you espouse have the same attitude that led to significant problems at the start of World War II in the Pacific. The enemy was underestimated, the technology was better than thought, and equipment and TACTICS worked.
In addition it may be that our technology and equipment is superior, however faced with a lack of air cover and mass attacks, it can be overwhelmed, as was the point of the simpler technology deployed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Australia may indeed have to act alone.
May also advise me as to what happened to Capital Ships post-World War II? Could it have anything to do with airpower?
TheFalklands? Hmm obviously a conflict that was characterised as a shown down between East and West combat systems...
Nonetheless how did the presence of advanced ASM's, superior capability and numbers in combat aircraft and politically restricted defenders (UK forces were forbidden politically from attacking the Argentinian mainland) effect the outcome again? Oh yeah, they still lost despite these advantages.
MiG-17's mauled us? Hmm, that's not the way the stats read. They got 71 confirmed kills, mostly against strike configured aircraft, compared to 100 confirmed air to air losses. One again, political restrictions restricted US forces from using their radar guided weapons to their full capabilities and yet even with one armed tied behind their backs the US forces still won the air battle overall.
Again, where is the overwhelming dominance that is credited to them? Their operational performance my point all along, doesn't reflect the hype, so why is it accepted so often without question?
Well what more can anyone say, those who do not read history, thanks.
I've read plenty of history thanks and despite your apparent breadth of knowledge (or perhaps because of it?) I'm still waiting to see even one concrete example of where Russian weapon systems have proven overwhemingly dominant over Western built weapon systems in modern times in operational environments and why therefore does this belief continue to exist to the extant that it does and is so regularly claimed on this and other blogs.
Bonza, you're obviously not considering ramjet R-77's or active R-27AE vs AIm-120A!!
Rex
Bonza, what can anyone say.You are undoubtledlty an "expert"
Who on earth said anything about Russian weapon systems being dominant over Western built systems. They are built to different standards and for different reasons. You are without doubt, dishonest, manipulative or fairly stupid. The whole conversation is about history, and how things are not always as they seem. As I said before I am not a technical expert, and merely report historical facts. Nobody ever said Russian systems are overwhelmingly dominant, apart from the fact that they are now widespread throughout the Pacific region.
You consistently never answer anyone's queries or questions, and sidestep to your own amazing conclusions. Your sources as to why western weapons are superior would be appreciated? Doubt you have any.
There are the people who post on blogs who have qualifications, and actually identify themselves, and make their qualifications transparent. If you have no qualifications, I suggest that you go back to Defence Talk, where you wear a uniform, and can bully others who do not agree with what you suggest is correct.
You do not, apart from being an apologist for the DMO and the incompetent people who reside within offer anything of any particular value.
With regards to the Falklands, the facts speak for themselves. An air force with dumb bombs, and little technology managed to almost blunt the British Navy their massive losses.
Obviously you are unable to read history.
With regards to the Vietnam War, you have not addressed the problems with technology, nor do not expect you to. It would spoil your story.
In addition, your comments in relation World War II, and the demise of capital fleet would be appreci
Go the MIG
Ah Bonza, the Indian Navy has just accepted them into service.
"I've seen such claims from the MiG-15 all the way through to MiG-29 about their marketed "
No doubt DMO should have been involved?
Hi Rex, I agree, some of the weapon "comparisons" around the place leave more than a tad to be desired. Marketing specs at ten paces anyone?
Atticus, I don't claim any particular expertise in defence. I also don't claim such ludicrous things as "They will consume too much manpower and get sunk in any real shooting war" as if it's a fait accompli and there is nothing the ships can do about it...
Anon, i suggest you read up on the Falklands again. Not one of the ships there had a strong ar defence capability of the order of that fitted to even a single AWD. The ships had nothing akin to the 3D radar capability and in any case were positioned so close to land for the majority of the conflict due to the lack of long ranged surface to air missiles that their Seawolf and Sea Dart missiles were largely ineffective and none of the ships had any sort of Close n Weapons systems, such as Phalanx or Goalkeeper.
The British were also outnumbered 4 to 1 in the aerial battle and the Argentinians almost always chose the time of engagements, were able to use their limited supply of advanced Exocet's to good effect and aerial bombs were put to some effective use too.
Despite all this, the British were still able to land their forces and achieve ther mission.
However be this as it may, Eric's definition of a "real shooting war" judging from his comment over the years evidently, is some sort of blue water scenario where side A is firing ballistic missiles, supersonic anti-ship missiles and is flying Flankers and side B is trying to fight against such a force for some reason.
This is the scenario where side A's weapons all work perfectly and our weapons are completely outmatched...
Something I find just a bit ludicrous.
"Something I find just a bit ludicrous"
Along with your vapid comments, and your belief that all wisdom comes out the a..se of some powerpoint salesman from the USA. However having noted previously you rabid support for all that is DMO, and taking into account Eric's comments in the last two posts, who would be surprised.
Given the nature of the recent discussion here, some may find it of interest that India is looking to upgrade it's SU-30's and arm them with Meteor BVR air to air missiles, Brimstone air to ground weapons, Paveway dual-mode GBU's and Storm Shadow standoff weapons.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/IAF-gets-lowdown-on-the-Royal-Air-Force-s-Libya-op/Article1-758069.aspx
Interesting...
Taking into account how long India takes to do anything, they will have to be intergrated on the PAK-50
I have just worked it out. Bonza has the mentality of those in my childhood.
It is like primary school, ie, hey my dad's got a ford, no he is wrong because my dad's holden is better.Rubbish go look at Bathurst etc.
Apart from that, Bonza your totally dishonest reporting of facts from the Falklands goes down as one of your finest.
You are so stupid you actually validate the points made by Eric and others.No doubt you will not get it.
Anon -
Why dont you share your great wisdom with us then...
Play the ball not the man
"Play the ball not the man"
Anon, please read the previous posts, it is all there. Bonza can not.
Someone is talking to himself down the bottom of an old thread and I'm the childish one? Hmm...
As to the Falklands, please feel free to re-read your history anon. IF the format allowed, I'd give you a blow by blow account of each force structure, but here's a few quick facts for you.
Argentinian Air assets available Circa 1982:
30x IAI Dagger fighters.
17x Mirage III fighters.
58x A-4 Skyhawks.
24x Pucara's.
4x Super Entendard's.
6x S-2 Tracker maritime patrol aircraft and a variety of transport, training and older aircraft pressed into service for recon and decoy duties.
That's 110 fast jets capable of being employed at the start of the war and 24 additional prop CAS and strike fixed wing aircraft.
Britain had 28 radar equipped Sea Harriers and 10 non-radar equipped Harrier GR3 strikers.
Now get your fingers out and do the math, despite operating at the edge of their non-refueled radius, at wartime sortie rate, Argentinian air force attackers outnumbered the British air defenders nearly 4 to 1.
The Argentinians fired 5 Exocet missiles during the conflict scoring 4 confirmed hits. Two hits directly led to the sinking of vessels, one HMS Sheffield whose Sea Dart system was unable to engage the incoming missile though it had been detected, because Sheffield had been ordered to sail near land acting as a decoy to split up Argentinian air attacks.
Sheffield's obsolete radar wasn't capable enough so close to land (that littoral thing that those incompetents in charge as you call them keep going on about) and Sheffield had no short ranged missile or CIWS system capable of engaging the incoming missile.
Despite this, the board of inquiry found that the missile strike itself didn't actually cause the sinking of Sheffield. Hasty orders to tow it out of the conflict zone did, with water rushing in during towing. By the time orders were given to shore up the damage, too much water had been taken on board and she sank.
As to the MV Conveyor, she had no air defence weapons or sensors of any kind.
Clearly given this ACTUAL factual record of history, rather than your mis-remembered version of it, there are excellent parallel's to be drawn with an AWD in a "real shooting war"...
Clearly those 3D radars, distributed and networked sensors, addition of staring array IRST, extensive EW systems, over-lapping short, medium and long ranged air defence systems, multiple channels of fire and improved ship operating tactics, haven't changed a thing about naval warfare, whilst an increase in terminal missile speed alone in the attacking capability WILL make all the difference and completely dominate against these improvements.
Especially as no Russian or Chinese anti-ship missile has yet demonstrated in operational environment's the capability the Exocet had in 1982, except the C-802 which proved, just like the Exocet strike on the MV Conveyor, that it too can hit a completely defence-less ship. Just like the Exocet however, the C-802 by itself proved incapable of sinking an actual warship too.
Again, real world performance v paper statistics.
Actual history versus what you would seem to wish it was.
"you actually validate the points made by Eric and others.No doubt you will not get it."
Exactly anon.I agree, he does not get it.
Bonza sites, overwhelming airpower, is that not what Eric is talking about going on history.
We all know that, technologies do not always work as advertised, and if Bonza is correct, regarding radar in the Falklands, it will happen again.
The examples Eric has given and others, will re-occur, and he is totally correct.
What about the 13 unexploded bombs?I also like the one where one ship was bombed by a C130.
Do you mean the multiple bombs dropped by a C-130 on the British at sea refueller, British Wye?
The underway refueller that was unarmed in any way other than basic small arms for the crew and had no air defense system of any kind?
Is that the analogy you'd like to use to assess whether an AWD is vulnerable to a supersonic anti-ship cruise missile strike?
Okay. That history study seems to be doing a lot of good...
You still do no get it.I will leave you in suspense.
Clearly I don't get it. You raise irrelevsnt examples of "history" entirely unrelated to the topic we are discussing in a vain attempt to prove your ridiculous stance, you misrepresent or mis-remember what actually happened, ignore the realities of positioning of ships in a warzone, you ignore the limitations of radar when placed within tens of metres of a landmass and then come up with non-sequitord about unarmed ships getting bombs dropped on them from C-130's and this tosh supposedly shows how at threat an AWD is...
Yeah, DMO are the incompetent ones alright...
What ha DMO got to do with what happened in the falklands?
Post a Comment