A secret chapter from the Australian government's 2009 defense white paper detailed a plan to fight a war with China, in which the navy's submarines would help blockade its trade routes, and raised the prospect of China firing missiles at targets in Australia in retaliation.
A new book 'The Kingdom and the Quarry: China, Australia, Fear and Greed' reveals how Force 2030 set out in the white paper -- to include 12 big conventional submarines with missiles, revolutionary Joint Strike Fighters, air warfare destroyers and giant landing ships -- was being prepared for a possible war with Australia's main trading partner.
Then there is this childish behaviour.
Too bad such a dream of grandeur depends on an Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy (EDB). The following are a few examples (in no particular order) of the serious cancer with those in the EDB that use the uniform for personal or industry gain:
1. Has too many perk-hungry flag ranks and senior executives to feed.
2. Has 22,000 civilians to support such a small military.
3. Can't run a test program for parade boots before ordering them; and what they select is defective.
4. Is unable to logistically support the M-113 to a reasonable level.
5. Can't sustain 6 submarines, but is sure they want 12.
6. Is well on the way to turning the fighter-jet community into a very expensive flying club that won't be able to face emerging threats.
7. Doesn't have a clue what a Caribou replacement is but is confident they want to spend $1.4B on 10 light cargo aircraft.
8. Can't do bread and butter sustainment of ships without them rusting out.
9. Thinks an "Air Warfare Destroyer" is survivable and sustainable.
10.Thinks the Canberra-class amphibious ships are sustainable.
11.Helped retire the F-111 on a lie.
12.A Helicopter road-map that is a me$$.
13.Left the country with no air-to-air refueling assets for years.
14.Thinks the F-35 Joint Strike Failure has value.
15.Makes up stories in hearings to elected officials.
16.Misleads the news media.
17.Cries about $5B in Defence cuts when a more efficient organisation could provide much more combat power with $5B less...per YEAR..
18.Thinks the Defence White Paper of 2009 has value.
19.Thinks the Afghanistan mission has value (cheerleads for it) yet has little understanding of 4th-generation warfare.
20.Fails to give Defence Ministers sound advice and instead leads them on a string for the sake of careerism and Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy self-interest.
21.Fails to use the funds generously provided by the taxpayer in a sound manner.
22.Through these multiple failures (and more) provides Australia with a weak Defence posture.
41 comments:
The F-111 is not survivable... Get over it already.
How predictable from the intelectual orientated and critical thinking"pack"
I think you have proved your point Eric.
Here is another classic.
How DMO gave away valuable IP to the Chinese.
How clever can you be.
Read The McCullagh Report
We devlop new ground breaking material for uniforms and some dill in DMO sends a sample and info to China for a quote.
Mind boggling.
http://www.defence.gov.au/results.htm?cx=012326873596528258669%3A1abg0mkpkps&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=mccullagh+report&sa=Search&siteurl=www.defence.gov.au%2Fstrategy%2Fdeco%2Fpublications%2Freports%2Fdefault.htm&ref=www.google.com.au%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dmcullagh%2520report%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFgQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.defence.gov.au%252Fstrategy%252Fdeco%252Fpublications%252Freports%252Fdefault.htm%26ei%3Da6fKT_LKIa6aiAeW-KTMBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNFaCXDCJMs2qmyytkNHbtKeOyWcPg
How could a bomber without escort ever be survivable?
Ano,more intellectual comment from the "pack".What escorts the short ranged F35, indeed?
Here is another DMO classic.
DMO now do not purchase brass from any Australian Manufacturer, and they are now out of business.
All brass for manufacture of Ammunition comes from Korea.
Amazing, what forward stategic thinking.
DMO destroys the SME in Australia.
14000lbs of internal fuel and one engine? ~500nm combat radius
How exactly is it short ranged?
Questioning what escorts the F-35 is not rebuttal to what escorts the F-111. Suggesting another platform has a shortcoming does not address the fundamental flaw of the F-111 in the 21st Century.
In any case, the F-35 has Air-Air capability including a Radar, DAS+EOTS, AMRAAM, AIM-9X with HMS. It has significant maneuver potential as well at the merge.
The F-111 never had air-air sensors or real weapons. Even if it did it would never have had the potential to turn at the merge.
Anon, I thought the post was about the failure of Defence and DMO.
What has the F111 got to do with the subject?
Anon.
Here is a clue, re short ranged
F35.It is, by the way.
Have a look at your atlas, and the size of.the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Then study WW2 history.
And then leave the pack of sycophants and critically analyse the facts.
The F-35 (or Hornet family) will not be survivable. The F-111 offered range and when needed F-22s could clear the way for it in a coalition fight. And of course you can clear a wider variety of stand-off weapons. But don't tell that to the gone-native-to-Lockheed Martin NACC.
Very well nailed Eric. But 'The Kingdom and the Quarry' was authored by an economics journalist who otherwise has very little to say on defence issues.
Presently, the big spend defence lobby seems to be leaning on the media commentariat to generate public alarm regarding pruning of defence expenditure; but remedying the dysfunctional organisational structure and waste of taxpayer funding is being ignored.
The Gillard Government has only brought the cumbersome White Paper generation process forward by one year instead of initiating immediate action to freeze the Defence Capability Plan to avoid more inappropriate waste of taxpayer funds pending prompt update of strategic analysis. The Lowy Institute involves a broad spectrum of talented strategic thinkers and that agency could probably generate a very cogent draft replacement DWP within about 3 months, if requested. Problem is of course that would really cut across the bows of agencies like ASPI who were involved in the DWP2009 effort.
Even the people who flew the F-111 will tell you it wasn't viable any more. There is a damned good reason (actually many) nobody uses it any more.
All this bellyaching over an utterly obsolete platform is laughable. Your rants are better directed at the lack of planning for a true replacement. They only had 40 years to figure that one out.
Agree with the above. The limits of the JSF don't eliminate the F-111's. One turn and it is dead and doubt it would never get close enough to employ anything it could potentially carry so what's the point exactly? The world passed it by, just like everything eventually....
- Anon3
Doubt it would ever....
Typo.
Interesting theory. But wrong. For close air support (where high-end threats are already dead) with JDAM/L-JDAM it could provide excellent support (just like the B-1/Sniper, or B-52/Sniper-Litening setup. And like them, has enough gas to stick around until the JTAC is happy. For legacy IADS (similar to ALLIED FORCE 99) it can contempt of engage threats with the full suite of J-Weapons (JDAM-JSOW-JASSM) along with SDB (8 SDB in the bay). For high-end threats as part of a coalition where it is assumed F-22s are involved, it can use JASSM or a similar cruise missile. Then there is ISR for a variety of scenarios. Stating that the F-111 could not be upgraded to this capability just shows gross ignorance.
Get some B-52s out of Arizona if that's your criteria, Eric.
We had a credible long range strike platform until the F-111 was retired on a lie by the dysfunctional defence senior leadership. Pretty sad that they get so much, so wrong.
You would have to wonder about the logic of some.
A subsonic large aircraft like the B52 is survivable and upgradeable, however a dynamically superb supersonic platform like the F111 is not?
In anycase, some are missing the point.
The point is that Defence and DMO regularly get it WRONG.
I also wonder how the B1 is any different.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135670/new-upgrades-revitalize-b_1b-lancer-bombers.html
Only the F111 is incapable of being upgraded.
The culture within the DoD/ADF is not to progressively optimise/enhance any platforms to maintain continual adequate and credible defence capacity.
Instead, both of the major political parties support virtual subsidising of defence industry (a la the uneconomic motor vehicle manufacturing industy) and so we have scores of lobbyists pleading on the rent-seekers behalf to give industry 'certainty'. They forced Combet to change Fitzgibbon's 4 year spending horizon for the Defence Capability Plan back to 10 years.
Canberra seems to have suckered the media into believing that military capacity is being enhanced with increased defence spending, when it is really declining though creation of capability gaps and inappropriate hardware acquisitions.
The incumbent Federal Government now intends to make themselves exempt from FOI provisions heralding sterilization of any critical analysis of defence related matters.
So long as the B-52/B-1 are escorted.
Capability better by provided by Hornet+JASSM for Australia.
And for advanced threats, the Hornet family will have trouble. Funny how someone would think taking one of the shortest range fighters (classic Hornet) and putting draggy stores on it is a solution. Lots of tanker connections.
The HUG Hornet has no contemporaries in SE Asia outside of Singapore. Bring some LO Rhinos into the mix and the gap's bridged until 2025.
Yeah it will need tanker support.
JASSM on a self-escorted option is still better than having to send up an escort+tanker package to escort the blind defenceless fighter-washout piggies. Not to mention countlessly more cost-effective than dragging on an obsolete airframe.
Ah, the the critical and intellectual comments from those who know no better.
Defending the Indefensible.
Sorry Perplexed,
Why is it more cost effective to have an F-111 and all the associated support structure carrying the strike weapon than strapping it to one of its escorts?
perplexed once again enlivens the debate with facts and figures, witty repartee and inciteful commentary based on personal experience.
What flasheart said is truth data
I rest my case.
Classic as they say.
(I doubt you will get it)
Regards
If the criteria is large standoff weapons or long-term loitering with heavy loads in safe airspace at extreme ranges you would be better off with a B-52. Mach Two Speed only wastes gas and a BUFF can outturn the F-111 any way....not to mention carry bigger ordinance (future growth)....and more of it.
But the drones keep crying for one of the most useless airplanes ever made. Good riddance.
Duh...RAAF never had the B-52. It was used as an example of upgrading old aircraft in useful way. Something that could have been done with the F-111. Without too much effort. I would be worried more about the classic Hornet. It is on death watch with airframe hours only good out to 2020-ish time-frame. The next refurb contract will still end up with flight restrictions by-airframe (barrel replacement not cost effectively sorted out; biggest challenge is skilling unless you want to send workers to Jacksonville for a year or two. The Super costs more per flying hour (good safe aircraft) The F-35...if it ever sees service will cost dramatically more than the classic. This means that with the F-35 delayed or cancelled, the classic going away (it was never designed to be a depot jet, just flown x amount of hours and thrown away)... Australia will not be able to afford the operating cost of 71/72 Super Hornets and in no way will be able to afford the same number of F-35s if that ever goes forward. The operating budget just is not there. And, with all that, the F-111 could have flown into the 2020s and beyond (it was made as a depot-refurb jet) and thus keep a useful tool in the bag. All of this stupidity has happened under Houston (and others watch). So, the overly expensive and unable to keep up to emerging threat flying club will get smaller. Not where we want to be.
Interesting.
The same problems seedm to be everwhere.
http://www.casr.ca/ft-rona-ambrose-reforms.htm
Bravo Eric. Not enough mention in debate re operating costs of expensive complex hardware and unwise commitment to whole of life support contracts.
Clearly, there has to be a sustainable and affordable balance between cost-effective adequate capability hardware and the upmarket 'Star Wars' stuff. This is what will likely drive rationalisation of roles for armed forces worldwide; but especially in Australia where acquisition of too much costly hardware has already eventuated and will be ongoing unless the 10 year Defence Capability Plan is frozen or scrapped .
Can see why the likes of Alert 1 and Flasheart (and some others) post anonymously.
So a BUFF can outturn an F-111, eh?
Now, that I gotta see - Hee! Hee!
Stupid is as stupid does.
VR,
Horde
...and obviously our neighbours, including China and India, as well as the Russians didn't get the memo about high speed capabilities just being about burning fuel.
The idiot that drove a B-52 into the ground at Fairchild in 94 (taking 3 unfortunates with him) probably thought a B-52 could out-turn an F-111.
Anon
With your comment. "Even the people who flew the F-111 will tell you it wasn't viable any more. There is a damned good reason (actually many) nobody uses it any more".
Former RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss flew over 5,000 hours in Sabre, Mirage and F-111 aircraft, he'll tell you the F-111 is still viable if the aircraft was not retired from service.
All this bellyaching over an utterly obsolete platform is not laughable. Australia should've retain its F-111 fleet until 2020 beyond. The aircraft had a full strength accounted for over 50 percent of striking punch that no small airframes with low capability such as the F/A-18 Hornet / Super Hornet, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, SAAB Gripen and the F-35 Joint Strike Failure cannot match the F-111s long range, firepower, the acceleration and sensors, or other characteristics to make a great strike bomber, which the F-111 is extremely impossible to replace.
The decision to retire the F-111back in November 2003 has been neither popular, nor widely accepted as necessary in the expert community. Even though the aircraft was built in 1968, the F-111 is a contemporary of the US B-52H and B-1B bombers, both of which the US Air Force intends to operate well past 2030.
What Eric statted about that the F-111 can't be upgraded to this capability just shows gross ignorance and retired from RAAF service is based on a lie by the dysfunctional defence senior leadership.
I reckon it's a pretty damn bad reason that nobody uses the F-111anymore.
Peter
Former RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss is out of the loop and an outlier. That his credits include the Sabre and not the Hornet, F-15 or F-22 are testament to that.
But certainly more useful than Houston.
Anon,Houston flew the Huey.
On your logic, how on earth is he qualified to have any credibility regarding the decisions made.
I notice some years ago the Indian AirForce turfing their Chief, because he was a helicopter pilot and stuffed things up.
How apt.
Anon
Peter Criss is never out of the loop and spreads the truth which I believe him.
Instead I find most RAAF personals are out of the loop and an outlier including Geoff Brown.
Peter
Hi Eric
I'm not sure if you got my reply earlier on. What do you think about the Australian Aviation website?
I seem to reckon most folks are Super Hornet/JSF advocates that we try to explain that they are not capable of taking on high threats etc and not admitting the facts.
Peter
Lots of great photos there. Also, always a good buy on the news stand.
Thanks Eric.
Regards Pete
Some of you Anonymous posters are really brainwashed into the DoD/ADF 'group-think' culture and obviously have a pretty shallow knowledge re the wealth of expertise in the retired military community.
Last Friday, I attended a bi-monthly 76/77SQNs mixed luncheon which usually involves people from bottom to top of the rank structure, including some serving personnel (COs, pilots, groundies). Some of maybe 10 retired Air rankers often attend and alongside me were a retired CAS (Korean War veteran who also flew Sabres and F-111), and a recently retired 2 Star Engineer/Pilot who also flew Sabres in my era and was recently recalled to involve in a 3 person group analysing the diabolical mess that the Navy has got itself into regarding warship maintenance. Pete Criss would probably also involve if he lived closer to Newcastle.
There are some pretty common denominators among the retired group that regularly participate. They have mostly been involved in serious conflicts (Korea, Vietnam) and those recently retired at higher rank levels have awareness of issues involved re subsequent conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan) and somewhat benign interventions in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. They network regarding what is happening in Canberra and are generally keen researchers concerning technological advances. Most are avid readers of military history and considerable book swapping goes on among the group. The same can be said for several who make strong contributions to the very worthy analytical efforts of Air Power Australia.
The ability of those with meaningful combat experience to think contemporarily outside the square regarding operational survivability should not be underestimated. Then Group Captain 'Bay' Adams flew with me a bit in Vietnam and we used to debate fighter versus helo issues long after bar closing. He features in Pierre Klosterman's book 'The Big Show'; both of them were the only 2 survivors of a flight of 8 Typhoons that attacked a German airfield during WW2 – he also served in Korea. Post-Vietnam, big 'Bay' rose to Star rank and was instrumental in promoting the development of helo versus fighter tactics in which another former fighter pilot and myself became involved as COs of 5 and 9SQNs respectively (that former CO5 was also at the recent luncheon). Unfortunately, all of that good work was lost after the stupid battlefield helo transfer decision in 1989, along with a wealth of helicopter combat experience that had been accumulated across the Air Force.
2 of the immediate past/present Air Force hierarchy mentioned (AH and GB) have never fired a shot in anger. Apparently, they were supportive of the appalling decisions to shed F-111, Iroquois, Caribou (and eventually Blackhawk, Seahawk) creating widening capability gaps at huge cost with diminished ADF military capacity. Preparedness to 'fall on swords' to defend the necessity of maintaining continuous adequate and credible military capabilities does not seem an attribute of Service Chiefs these days. The whole politico-military push is primarily about supporting the rent-seekers involved with defence industry.
Post a Comment