Leaks surrounding the next Defence White Paper (due in the middle of this year) along with other Internet noise look troubling.
Journalists (and others) still do not understand that basing Defence spending on percent of gross-domestic-product (GDP) are completely useless.
With a federal budget that is under significant stress from a spend-thrift socialist government, the only conversation about money available to the ADF should be what percent of the existing federal budget can be committed to Defence.
Consider two projects that will cost tens of billions of dollars...and most likely fail.
Much of the current conversation over requirements is an exercise in dreaming. If one looks at what operational requirements are to be heaped on the replacement for the Collins submarine, the only engineering solution is a nuclear powered, U.S.-made Virginia-class attack submarine. A gigantic conventional sub (AIP assisted or otherwise) won’t cut it.
Since there is no political will for that route, what is the solution to the sub problem?
To help fix the replacement sub debacle, change the operational requirement to something that Australia can field within the existing federal budget money handed over to Defence. Oh yes and what can be achieved with a deskilled procurement and management bureaucracy.
The F-35 is now a failed project in any measure of its existing program management behavior. Yet, some think faith-based weapons procurement has a future. It should now be considered a non-solution for the RAAF.
Professional Defence senior management and leadership are at their lowest possible point. If this isn’t fixed, the non-interested entitlement-driven society will have no problem with making the future ADF look like that of New Zealand.
So what should be the goal of the next Defence White Paper? Sorry. What should be the goal of the next two Defence White Papers?
Rebuild professional management and leadership competency.
And nothing more.
Once that has shown significant progress, the discussion of what weapons systems provide true value to national defence, become much more clear.
The current and corrupt rent-seeking and moribund entrenched Defence bureaucracy group mind-set can only cause more rot.
No Defence White Paper filled with massive amounts of non sequitur language will give Australia the Defence establishment it deserves.
12 comments:
The F-35 is only a failed project in your pathetically biased view. Those of us who actually have spent time in uniform and know what is required and what the F-35 offers can't wait to get it in service. sure it is a bit delayed...but then again, they do say that all good things comes to those who wait...and the F-35 is effin fantastic!!!
"Pathetic" defines faith-based project management and of course the cheerleaders.
A "bit-delayed" and some of your other assumptions shows a severe lack of knowledge of the program history.
My guess is that the F-35 will eventually fly. But the "fail" will come from a massive delay, way too high price, incredibly high cost per hour and with a pretty pale performance.
US and the buyers of it will continue to claim it was and is the best alternative and will creatively state some SHALL requirement to suit the F-35.
Are there any numbers so far on how many man hours/years that have been spent so far on the project?
Gun Runner,
Lets say the F-35 turns out to be fantastic, which at this point is just a matter of faith, do you really think that it will win wars all by itself? The US may be rebranding RMA as ASB after the last rebranding, shock and awe, failed, but can we please stop treating projects like silver bullets? Arent there other needs and potential innovations that wont get funding because of such a heavy opportunity cost spent on the F-35?
And if you dont mind me asking, in your effen fantastic assesment, are you looking at 1 plane vs 1 plane, or on air force vs air force, or on how many targets can be attacke over time, whats your thinking? Also, are we talking about proections where everything goes according to plan or are does your assessment leave room for black swans? I dont want to assume your being unreasonable, so Im sure there is some point at which if enough goes wrong even you would want to see this thing cancelled, so what would have to happen for yoy to say that?
Lastly, do you feel like only military members have any say in this? Wouldnt military politics and training potentially corrupt procurement then? And wouldnt the military of a western style denocracy want civilians taking interest, after all arent we the ones determining policy and funding?
Thank you Will. I am getting tired of trying to talk to 12 year olds, numerous ANONYMOUS that I lose track of which one is which or types like Will were the F35 is "effin fantastic" when the DOD is going to need to buy new tankers, new bombers, new trainers, something that floats that can fight (not LCS), a new cruise missile,etc....but somehow USAF is going to buy 1770 JSFs? And not wonder what that is going to do to the other programs in DOD? What other valuable and important programs have to be cut to buy JSF?
Eric,
What I don't agree with your biased assessments, so I have a severe lack of the program history? I'd wager I have a far better view of the program's history and current status then you do.
Peter,
"the F-35 will eventually fly"??? What cave have you been hiding in - it is already clocking up thousands of hours. In fact two birds have already surpassed the 500 flight hr mark.
What is more interesting is how those with all the alleged special access (for some pretenders that have special access is only to the latest marketing PowerPoint slides)...have been continually wrong on program performance over the years and those that have pointed to real risk that don't have all the special access have been pretty close to the debacle that is today's Just So Farcical.
Hmm, it seems like whenever I ask a JSF supporter how much can go wrong before too much has goe wrong I never get an answer.
Still, I have one more question for JSF fans. What happens if the US or its partner nations suffer another sever financial shock, or one thats worse than we have already weathered (which is an optomistic view of the recovery)? This is an even more importan questiont when you consider the role national debt and the means with which we are dealing with that debt might have in a future crisis. Further more, can spending beyond our means on defense contribute to the very debt that could be a contributing factor towards creating fiscal enviornment that allows for far less defense spending than we need? Wouldnt it be better to be smart with money now?
@Gun Runner
With "eventually fly" I was ironic.
I mean deployed, doing active missions with software/hardware worth it's name.
Not a clocking few hundred hours with a block 1 or interim block 2 software.
Gun Runner
In your pathetically biased point of view, do you think the F-35 is going to succeed?
Not everyone does say that all good things comes to those who wait...and the F-35 is effin pathetic, wasteful project of all time.
Do you really think that the F-35 will outclass all the Su-27/30 Flanker family, upcoming PAK-FA, J-20 Mighty Dragon, J-31, advanced SA-20/21 SAMs and AAAs by itself? The simple answer is no
Gun Runner
The F-35 is not a true stealth aircraft and by definition it is very vulnerable than any fourth and fifth generation fighter flying today. I consider this a major issue. It's demonstrated very bad vulnerability performance and discontinue to work this with the Joint Programme Office.
Gun Runner
If you want to educate yourself more, research the PDF document called:
Submission No 11
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010 - 2011 from Chris Mills, REPSIM Pty Ltd
Post a Comment