A speech the other day by a person that could be the next Defence Minister under a new leadership, Senator David Johnston, shows a man that has his heart in the right place for Defence.
The video here, is recommended viewing.
Unfortunately, he admits he is not very knowledgeable on Defence. Historically this isn't a new situation for Defence Ministers in Australia. It does seem that he has the potential to be more up-to-speed than other Defense Ministers before him even if Johnston admits he is a “slightly educated amateur” in relation to the portfolio.
In my opinion, he still has some views of Defence that are not realistic.
For example he said that Australia's air combat capability is “relatively straight forward” when in fact it has serious challenges ahead. He mentions that in spite of critics, the F-35 will be a “fantastic” capability. He then goes on to mention that DAS on the F-35 saw a rocket launch from 800 some miles away. Hint: it was one of the biggest boosters available on the market. Or as one critic said of this Lockheed Martin marketing effort (that is where it came from and has been pushed elsewhere when hyping the F-35): “With the naked eye, I can see 93 million miles in daylight; quite a bit further at night.”
Johnston goes on to mention the alleged net-centric-warfare capability of the F-35 when this technology exists today in other platforms. He mentions the wonders of the F-35 pilot's integrated sensor helmet but doesn't mention this system is in deep trouble. He mentions that the F-35 will give Australia a “fantastic, regionally dominant capability.” He doesn't mention that the Joint Operational Requirement Document (JORD) for the Joint Strike Fighter, drawn up in the 1990's and signed off on at the beginning of the last decade, insures that this aircraft, as delivered, will be obsolete against regional threats. And that assumes that there are no development troubles. It is doubtful that the claim by the maker of the F-35, that it is affordable, lethal, supportable and sustainable, has any credibility.
In short, he was easily taken in by all the glamour of a junket to Fort Worth to visit the F-35 factory and consume the blue-sky marketing, but has little-to-no critical thinking capability in this area of Defence.
Senator Johnston should not hitch his wagon to marketing hype.
Johnston refers back multiple times to the 2009 Defence White Paper (a wish list of $275B of spending short-falled by around $200B once realism hits), but he doesn't seem to grasp that the document is a horrific joke.
Which leads to something else where he stated that Parliament as a whole, does not understand the complexity of Defence. No surprise here. He praises ASPI for helping out (they do help) but mentions them as, “independent and non-partisan”.
I don't know about that:
If Senator Johnston becomes the next Defence Minister, here is what he must do:
-Make Defence officials accountable.
-Improve professional military education (PME) (art of war, leadership and management) which connects with:
-Improve the bad condition of the military justice system. Hint, this capability improves by leaps and bounds as PME quality improves. When this happens (regardless of the military procurement bungling by the entrenched defence bureaucracy) we will have a strong foundation that our soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve during peace and war.
Johnston may fail with the entrenched defence bureaucracy in relation to procurement stuff ups but if he can produce big victories with the human relations side of the fence for our war-fighters, he will have left a lasting legacy and, improved the defence posture of the nation.
Simply because ethics issues are what plague Defence. There is little difference between a soldier, sailor or airman receiving bad military justice and a $1.5B waste of the Sea Sprite, the many ship and submarine sustainment mistakes or other defence procurement disasters.
All of the bad behaviour comes from the same ills: poor senior leadership ethics and accountability.
Consider the DMO, ASC, RAN relationship which has been in serious trouble for years and as Johnston states, is full of “malice”. Maybe a Defence Minister Johnston can let us know the alleged worse problems in that second and restricted DMO, ASC, RAN report. After all, for years, we have been paying billions for a Navy that has been short-changed by the entrenched defence bureaucracy leaving combat capability for the worse.
Senator Johnston has the potential to be a good Defence Minister. If we all help him out, maybe he can be a great Defence Minister.
27 comments:
When Senator David Johnston was in Govt back in 2004 he was briefed in on the parlous state of Defence capability planning and why this was (and still is) the case.
His face went ashen as he pretty much agreed with what had been provided to him.
He then said that this information needed to be passed to the Opposition.
When it was pointed out to him this made litte sense since he was in the Govt that was in power and it was evident he had the ear of the PM, John Howard, while the Opposition had little if any power, his response was :
"That is true but I wish to retain the ability to father more children!"
Then there are the close personal ties he has with the JSF Program through companies like Quickstep.
A great Defence Minister? Hardly!
Thanks Monty!
Hi Eric
If Senator Johnston does become the next Defence Minister if we can all help him out, here is what he also must do:
- Cancel the failed F-35 program.
- Address the emerging threats of the advanced Russian/Chinese fighters, advanced SAMs/AAAs.
- Consider the impact of counter-stealth sensors that are or will soon proliferate in the region in any strategic planning.
- Consider alternatives by laying out different specifications of available aircraft on the table for the F/A-18A/B Hornet replacement. For me I choose to develop Australian specialized F-15E+ program… the F-15AU.
However, I didn't agree Senator Johnston's speech about the F-35 claiming the aircraft will give Australia a “fantastic, regionally dominant capability" etc etc. Although he admits he is not very knowledgeable on Defence. What he should do is gather ideas of other critics (for e.g. APA, GAO, retired fighter pilots, officers, generals etc) that are opponents to the SH/Growler and JSF explaining their valid reasons of why these aircraft are not up to the job.
In the past I emailed to Senator Johnston about my grave concerns of the F-35 suitability and the F/A-18 fleet cannot meet its peacetime fighter availability requirements.
Peter
I wouldn't trust the ASPI.
Pete, do you really expect Ministers or even shadow ministers to take any notice of clowns like you? Wake up and smell the roses...they are growing very well with all the shit you are sprouting!!!
To Anon
Why the heck are you having ago at me. You better watch what you say mate. Why don't you wake up and smell the roses the shit you believe. Ohhhhh durrrrrr anon of course they are growing very well. What do I get to deserve this shit behaviour like you clown?
Well Anon let me tell you something. I never spread any misinformation to anyone okay. I'm just explaining in a similar way what Eric was saying that If Senator Johnston becomes the next Defence Minister, here is what he must do, right. Go and read what Eric has put his own suggestions.
For me, I brought up my own similar suggestion about how Senator Johnston should do better what I said earlier.
Think next time before you mouth off to somebody in a pathetic rude manner anon.
Peter
Eric take control of your comments section.
To Anon
If you don't like what I, Erick or anyone puts their own point of view about why the F-35/SH/Growler are wrong aircraft for Australia's requirements or any information that Eric posts his point of view. In fact anon you either play the ball and not the man, otherwise you shouldn't be here and instead join with the SH/Growler/JSF advocate clowns in Australian Aviation site the shit they sprout.
Peter
Wow,
That last one didnt even make sense pete!
Opinions are like ...... everyones got one.
Difference is that some peoples opinion are borne out of access to high fidelity data and an understanding of what is important in air combat borne from years of experience, whilst others opinions are borne from reading some information online and FSX...
The last one did make sense to me anon. I think you know what I'm talking about. I'm not bluffing.
Blah blah blah whatever. Again, what do I get to deserve this insulting behaviour like you anon attacking me personally?
What did I ever do to you.
Peter
Look at yourself in a mirror anon, you're talking to someone very abusive pal in a anger temper for no reason.
Peter
Yet again, you seem to think there is just one Anonymous here - sorry but that is not the case.
After all, it's not like Peter ever attacked anyone personally...
Oh wait...
To Anon (5:00 AM)
No I don't think there is just one Anonymous here.
"Some peoples opinion are borne out of access to high fidelity data and an understanding of what is important in air combat borne from years of experience, whilst others opinions are borne from reading some information online and FSX..."
Well that's nothing wrong with that. Its about gathering information and sharing knowledge.
Do you blast your temper at me, at Eric or anyone that posts their analysis, concepts and suggestions on the comment post? I bet you do anon, because you always have a problem about the SH/Growler/F-35 are wrong for RAAF's requirements that you think they are the right aircraft for Australia's needs.
The F-35 is a very badly flawed aeroplane that is hatched from a bad idea: a do-it-all plane that can't perform well-at-all. Because it's failed project which is way behind schedule, cost overruns are extremely high, it will be extremely expensive to own and operate with a price tag at $1.51 Trillion. It also doesn't have adequate manoeuvrability of defeating the advanced SAMs/AAAs, Russian/Chinese fighters in Within Visaul Range and Beyond Visual Range in air-to-air combat, it will be hugely flammable and vulnerable to the small arms, assault rifles when flown at very low altitudes of supporting troops on the ground, it has a pittiful small weapons payload, short range which the F-35 will have to rely on the KC-30 tanker to escort them to be refuelled several times to fly across Australia or anywhere they are deployed to, or the radius of action they have to be flown. Single engine is absolutely terrible for maritime strike operations and overwater flights and the fact is that makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure.
The same goes for the Super Hornet. It has a similar performance deficiences to the F-35which the aircraft has a short range and does not have the performance envelope of a true air superiority fighter which the Super Hornets will be outclassed by the Su-27/30 Flanker family of fighters by most regional nations in all key performance parameters, aerodynamic and radar performance by widely available fighters. The Growler equipped with obsolete ALQ-99 jamming kit will be useless against the changed threat environment. Not only cannot the EA-18G keep up with a strike package, but it isn’t designed to survive combat against today’s 2012benchmark threats of Su-30s / S-300s. So what about tomorrow’s threats like the Su-35S Super Flanker-E / S-400 and the T-50 PAK-FA / S-500 in the near to mid term?
The Growler is not going to perform as aspected anon. It’s a turkey.
Peter
So Anon
Go to the Air Power Australia and spend time on your homework researching the facts of why these aircraft are not up to the job.
Peter
Don't post anything yet... Peter probably has at least another four posts coming in the next five minutes.
I guess his Mom is going to have to change her password again...
They'd never admit it, but I can just picture Eric, the APA boys, Perplexed and all the others sitting there whincing everytime 'Peter' posts...
Cool story Peter.
Anon in total,you are more moronic than Peter, to even Reply.
Really shows who the morons are.
Pete,
How about you actually have some facts to support your wild accusations regarding the F-35/SH/Growler.
It is obvious you don't like them, but we consistently fail to see any factual evidence.
The Scarlet Pimpernel
SP
Why bother?
He'll just copy and paste stuff from APA anyway...
What is wrong with that.At least they know what they are talking about.
Since when? Really, anyone with any REAL expereince can shoot down their garbage easily.
Scarlet Pimple, funny that, nobody ever has.
Never sen any REAL reply yet,apart nonsense,as espoused by you.
Whereare your facts and figures,sir?
By the way, are you moe than 12 years old?
Come on. They have been discredited many times and are viewed as a joke by those in power or in the services or in industry. The lunatic fringe lap them up though.
Discredited by whom?
Love to see the list.
Anyone of note in that list?
I have yet to see any detailed replies to any of APA publications.
Alphabetical list required, with qualifications noted for each participant.
Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, never to be seen again.
Amazing, the SP has disappeared.Probably the words were too big.
Post a Comment