I wish it was as easy as the wonderful Orion crew the other day. Make a few comments about something good in a Defence press release and reinforce to the average civilian all the really great things happening in the ADF. BTW, there are a lot of good things happening in the ADF, just that what I am going to illustrate next is to put it mildly; exasperating.
In what one experienced observer of DMO/Defence efforts mentioned to me as, "how not to run a project", we have this new release of an audit (PDF at the jump) on the M113 armoured personnel carrier.
As some of you know, you can do a lot of neat things with M113s and still provide a useful weapons system to the troops. The Army is very lucky in having their very skilled and able personnel and also the Bushmaster which has allowed many a soldier to return home alive.
A modified M113 adds to this powerful ability by given the troops an additional tool in the bag for off-road operations.
The quotes from the audit are just sad. We spend gig-dollars on gold-plated stuff every year and can't even keep M113s going. This is one thing where the Australian spirit (yes, I know I am still the new guy), should be able to come up with solid-home-grown solutions; pat themselves on the back for a job well-done, and move on to the next challenge.
I cringe at the problems of the Navy, hit myself in the head with a hammer over RAAF problems, but there just is no reasonable excuse for getting basic bread and butter things wrong for the Army who have bullets whizzing by their heads, risk IEDs or worse and if they aren't killed, risk severe injury that will be with them all the rest of their days.
The audit states that availability for M113s at the armour school has gone into the ditch. A high percentage of vehicles are not available due to lack of spares, lack of oversight of vendor performance and thus poor project managment. Considering the way senior Defence throws billions in impulsive purchases because the Project of Concern list is hanging around their neck and they feel money must be spent...on something, there is NO credible excuse for APCs to be short of quality spares.
The data indicate that, over the three years to December 2010, the proportion of vehicles at the School of Armour classified as Fully Functional decreased from an average of 62 per cent in 2008 to 38 per cent in 2010, as shown in Figure 5.1. This decline in Fully Functional vehicles was accompanied by an increase in Restricted Use vehicles awaiting repairs that required spare parts.
Defence was unable to provide trend data for the period after December 2010, however, informed ANAO as at March 2012 that the percentage of ‘Fully Functional’ vehicles for the upgraded M113 fleet was 39 per cent, ‘Restricted Use’ was 37 per cent, and Not to be Driven (XX) was 24 per cent. Defence identified that this was above the minimum requirement that 75 per cent of the fleet be classed as at least ‘Restricted Use’.
Take your time. Read the report. And, weigh in. Army officials have put their response at the end of the audit. I would think that if they were better at having their people running inspections, fixes would have already been long in-place on APC spares availability and in-turn because they are flag-ranks, telling the DMO what they can do with their balls-up style of project management.
I could bring up what I think about the DMO, senior Defence leadership and so on. But you know that drill already.
Imagine what the Army could do with $1.4B wasted on the C-27, or up to $1.7B of potential waste for obsolete Super Hornet jamming kit. How much would $214M have helped the M113 issue instead of being wasted on a rent-seeking submarine study?
Things mentioned in the M113 audit are a cancer that we must stop as a core interest in paying attention to the basics. If not, there will be no such thing as national security.
--
Click on the following images to make them larger.
---
H/T- Richard
9 comments:
“Allegations of misbehaviour by Service personnel, the children overboard affair and adverse comment on legacy projects – the Collins submarines, Seasprite helicopters, the M113 armoured personnel carriers, Bushmaster mobility vehicles, the FFG frigates, the landing craft Manoora and Kanimbla, and other examples have all provided a fruitful field to lambast Defence.”
– Dr Allan Hawke, SECDEF, Media Release, 2002
Perhaps it could be argued to either increase efforts to achieve higher 'fully functional' rates, more urgently... or if not possible, then maybe acquire some similar-type ACV-300 from Turkey as a gap-filler?
How about DMO and Defence do wht they are paid to do. If they do not, sack those responsible. That is what hapens in Private Enterprise.
How could you run out of spare parts on a new vehicle?
It is not as if they are out of production, what a a stuff up.
There is more to this story; see:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Australias-M113-APC-Family-Upgrades-05133/
The M113 APC has without question been the best general purpose light armour vehicle in Australian Army service for a long time and remains the most suitable for employment in the regional wet tropics; with original versions also tactically deployable by C-130.
They excelled during the Vietnam War and a Fire Support Vehicle version (with a 76mm gun) was employed; but that very useful capability was abandoned in the long-delayed and ongoing M113 upgrade program. Had a turreted cannon been fitted to some vehicles in addition to mortars, there would have arguably been no need to squander funding on ASLAVs. Another case of wanting just 'too many toys in the sandbox'.
As with some other programs, DoD allowed itself to be conned by Tenix (now BAE Systems) into dubious merit changes to upgrade intentions with marked cost increases. As usual of course, nobody held accountable.
Until DMO is shrunk enormously and segments thereof made subordinate to the respective Service Chiefs,
proper military accountability for flawed acquisitions will not be re-established.
You've got to spend money to acquire parts. They don't grow on trees. Want to know where the parts went? Take a close look at what is happening overall to ADF's sustainment budget.
Parts holdings, training activities and reduce mileage are the easiest things to cut when a small defence force ha to provide $7b in savings in two years...
The parts situation should be eased somewhat by the 100 M113AS4's we are about to mothball however. Nothing to do with the DMO there...
Thank the SRP for the lack of parts people, but fear not, the M113's on exercise today are doing the job required of them.
"Nothing to do with the DMO there..."
Well who is responsible?
This clown(Lt Col Bonza) continues to defend the indefensible.
I wonder what would happen if you had to use them in a conflict?
Breathtaking.
Hey, Mr Bonza. How do you explain what is reported for the period 2008 to 2010?
Or do you believe that facts should not get in the way of lame excuses?
Armies generally think in terms of big formations with multiple differing roles for armour, like infantry transportation, reconnaissance, cavalry, firepower, etcetera. In Australia's 'Hardened and Networked Army' concept, this has led to Abrams tanks, ASLAVs, M113 APCs and Bushmasters with the first 2 vehicles being largely unsuited for regional wet tropics operations.
Early 1990s, there were 766 M113 in ARA service and minor upgrade of the whole fleet was approved costing around $50million. Tenix then lobbied for change of the project resulting in major upgrade of just 350 vehicles for $600million. This involved stretching of some hulls and addition of features negating the easy tactical deployability of the vehicles by C-130, an invaluable feature for Australia (the Herc can go more places than the C-17).
Like the Iroquois and Caribou (and eventually the Blackhawk), another very useful military capability has been/is being somewhat forfeited at expense of projects favouring defence industry. The waste of useful well-proven assets continues and the DoD is now squandering more funding keeping less appropriate hardware (Abrams, ASLAVs) in service. Far wiser to put the less useful stuff in storage and properly fund support for the M113.
Post a Comment