Who told Defence that Wedgetail was ready for IOC and is it true?

Australian Defence has declared initial operating capability (IOC) with the Wedgetail aircraft, so says this this press release.

"The Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) Wedgetail aircraft has achieved Initial Operational Capability,..."

But is it true?

One of the anonymous Internet mind-guards who help to push the message of various tribal elements within the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy isn't so sure:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Branch
Did anyone else notice the that The E-7 Wedgetail has achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC)?

Depends on how the Proj defined IOC. There is no standard definition and my understanding is that there is still a fair way to go.

Sometimes there is confusion because the Proj may meet "Interim" rarther than "Initial"

the former is a compromise used to get the platform up and about but still work towards meeting OC

All in all, I'm suggesting that the claim about meeting real world IOC may not be so as the press release claims

In fact I know its not so.

Is the Wedgetail ready for IOC? I don't know. I do know that it was delayed for years; and was looking at shooting for a 90 percent capability of the original expectation after experiencing technology problems.

The root cause of Wedgetail problems appeared where they do in many ill-conceived projects: in the beginning. Numerous identified risks were waved away by the program leadership as being workable. Later when those identified risks evolved into show-stopping problems, the Wedgetail became a project management object lesson.

So, either the Defence Minister's office, the DMO and RAAF are wrong and trying to push an alleged success story where none exists or the anonymous mind-guards are wrong.

This has the potential to be a worthy topic of interest at the next Senate Estimates get-together.

I am curious how the Minister's office will address this gross difference in communication?

How many “free rides”?

There is a lot of talk about Australia getting a free ride by underspending on Defence in relation to the U.S. umbrella of protection.

Let us examine some of this a bit closer.

Currently, the Australian military procurement system is broken. And, not just a little bit. Any increase of Defence spending at this point in time, is just a licence to see more of our tax dollars wasted.

In other words: fix the substance abuser first, before handing them more money.

Also, may we look at some of the other free riders out there? Take the time to look at some of the other U.S. allies.

I am generally a “hawk” on military issues. However, with the current situation, giving the DMO and friends more money to waste means that we will have to spend billions more fixing the procurement of new, yet irrelevant weapons wanted by the corrupt Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy.

Example: field the defective F-35; spend billions more to get something that is actually tactically useful to make up for the colossal mistake.

Ditto: for the troubled RAN. For example: Defence bought a used ship from the U.K. who was having a going-out-of-business sale in relation to their former empire and now the new one: feeding the welfare state. That ship was not properly evaluated; broke recently and went into repair for months.

A sarcastic “thank you” to our imbeciles in senior Defence circles.

And finally for the alleged security wonks out there: knock off the percent-of-GDP-valuation of Defence spending.

It is stupid because it doesn’t address anything of value. What counts is the percentage of Defence spending , in the Federal budget.

Australia not fixing its cancer known as the DMO and friends is like driving a car with a flat tire; buying 3 new tires for the other hubs, and, still driving on the flat tire.

And then calling it progress.

---

-Some of what ails Defence-

Try again, but thanks for playing...

Nope:

Defence procurement failures have often been explained away on the basis that they are complex, risky, and difficult to achieve without time and cost slippage. For some projects this is certainly true, the Navy’s Future Submarines and the JSF represent cases where for various political and technical reasons options are limited and risks unavoidable. However it would be wrong to assume that this was the case with all defence procurement; simple rules, common sense, and adequate planning can overcome many of these obstacles.

Many risks were avoidable with the Just So Failed. Just consider the history of the project and Australia's severe mistake in getting involved.

For defence procurement, it’s time to go back to basics.

Welcome to the party pal.

Weekend deception

The weekend print edition of The Australian has their annual and grossly misleading feature section on the state of the state of Defence as it were.

As usual it is paid for by big industry rent-seekers from Boeing, LM, ASC and other usual suspects. The big advert dollars are the only reason this feature gets breathing space in the paper.

The cover page of this piece says, "Defence Special Report" and not: Defence marketing advertisement.

From that, one would expect actual reporting.

Every year this sham is always worth reading because it is written by alleged people knowledgeable for Defence which instead of being reporters on the topic are in effect, advert copy flacks for industry.

The average reader would not know this; which makes it a problem.

The "analysis" is really just that poor.

There is the usual rent-seeking inspired article about how Australia will someday have its' home grown white-elephant subs at the cost of tens of billions. It is supported by a big ASC advert. The SA government defence industry advert is on another page. And, this is probably the best "article" in the litter.

Not mentioned is the toxic relationship between the dysfunctional DMO, ASC and RAN.

There are advert-copy pieces on RAAF fast-jet air power.

They are crap.

They mention the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and how great the Growler will be.

There is little mention of the serious pitfalls having to do with the Just So Failed or the fact that the Grower is pudgy and short-ranged, has legacy jamming solutions, and against emerging Pacific Rim threats, it will suffer a similar fate to the F-35: it will get run down and killed.

The entrenched defence bureaucracy is waging a significant disinformation campaign against the tax payer. They are helped by those kinds of people who have employment which depends on our money flowing to dud defence planning schemes. The special Defence feature in the weekend edition of The Australian is part of that effort.


-Australian Defence Reading List

Digital warfare

I just hope ADF PCs are up for the challenge.

Two years ago they "upgraded" to Internet Explorer 7 which indicates a high dependency on back-end Microsoft products of the legacy kind.

One can lock a WAN/LAN down.

Still though: very curious.

And what about the Fed Parliament?

Excellent quote

Excellent quote from a reader known as, "Bushranger":

"The so-called Helicopter Strategic Master Plan is an ongoing disaster that has arguably squandered billions of dollars and diminished Australia's military capacity."

From a different time:

Questions about Defence artillery thinking

My question would be: why would Defence need to look at an artillery piece made by Korea that weighs 47 tons? Where would it be used in this region?

Defence cancelled the the LAND 17 project as part of a recent budget cut, however it seems like we dodged a bullet.

Self-propelled arty sounds nice but the M777 is much easier to move around with air assets.

The potential greatness of Senator Johnston

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.

Our poor senator

Weak news article quotes flawed audit

The cost of a JSF is expected to drop from $127 million to $80 million as the production rate increases.

Not credible.

Only if thousands were made with little to no development problems.

That train has already left.

File under: "copy-paste journalism".

----

Shallow audit held as valuable by some

Defence presses forward with their bad idea

Defence presses forward with their bad idea.

Shallow audit held as valuable by some

The audits (here and here) of the RAAF fast jet running debacle are weak, shallow, and ignore some significant issues.

Noteworthy too is that the original purpose of the Super Hornet decision was to cover for F-35 delays. Nelson (who was PowerPointed into the con) stated as much. More on that here (including the weak justification for getting rid of the F-111).

The normalization of deviance approach to this issue is not useful.

More on the dangers of a normalization of deviance approach to risks--enhanced by group-think--can be seen here.

Following the F-35 path will cost Australia loss of regional air supremacy. What is interesting in the above mentioned audit is the meme of that will not die; the F-35 as a "fifth-generation fighter".

The audit goes into describing the specs of the F-35 and the Super Hornet but (and this is where the shallowness comes in full-bore) portrays no grasp of why the technical details are important beyond a few simplistic claims.

Here are a few things to consider; what the audit didn't tell the public:

History they don’t want you to know

Boeing official-Super Hornet-handles air-to-air with technology, not speed and acceleration

The Super Hornet Stores Story

More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy

The audit also labels the Super Hornet as "low observable" when such a claim shows a real weakness of understanding balanced defensive measures taken in the design of the aircraft. Those are some low-observable methods to lower signature but just as important: to establish a better known baseline of exposure risks of the aircraft to different threats so that the on-board defensive jamming system is much more efficient. Great, if one does not want to carry any significant weapons capability. Unlike real stealth aircraft, the Super Hornet carries its weapons (not counting the gun) externally. Not very "low observable".

In short, the audit doesn't do much to help the Australian public who are being taken for a ride of billions in wasteful spending for faulty aircraft that will not be competitive against growing Pacific Rim threats.

The 23,000

That will take some courageous Defence leadership.

Opposition Defence spokesman David Johnston told Sky's News Agenda program that the large number of civilian employees compared to those in uniform was not sustainable.

"We've got 23,000 public servants in Defence running 59,000 uniforms," Senator Johnston said. "Now, this is unsustainable. The finances are an unsustainable mess. The beginning is to put a handle on this and get to the bottom of where we are going to reform Defence in a way that doesn't diminish capability."

Senator Johnston said the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank had defined the defence budget and the department's finances as an "unsustainable mess".

" Now, those words ring very loudly in my ears," he said. "Anybody seeking to have responsibility for defence is going to have to put a handle on the unsustainable mess."

I think he forgot the reserves but point taken.

Those civilians vote you know. And any civilian that could be considered dead wood would be silly to vote for the coalition.

Elections having consequences and all that.

SMH-Defence gear gone, public pays the bill

This article shows how the gap from negligence to conflict-of-interest to fraud is easily bridged when no useful oversight or enforcement is in place.

The Defence Integrated Distribution Services contract caused controversy in 2001 when then defence minister Peter Reith cancelled the original tender process and gave six bidders $1 million each to re-submit claims. In 2002, Mr Reith's successor, Robert Hill, announced Tenix-Toll as the preferred tenderer. Mr Reith was working as a consultant for Tenix at the time, having not contested the 2001 election.

Good reporting.

Opine decline

Another Defence opinion piece that doesn't properly recognize huge problems with the entrenched defence bureaucracy. That and continuing the GDP vs Defence budget meme which results in giving more of our money to a pack of substance abusers.

Thanks to the last Coalition government, the ADF acquired Abrams tanks, Javelin missiles, Super Hornet fighters, armed reconnaissance helicopters, airborne early warning and control aircraft, patrol boats and C-17 long-range jet transports. Three large Air Warfare Destroyers and two helicopter carriers larger than HMAS Melbourne were ordered and paid for.

The Super Hornet was the result of a failed Liberal government decision on problems with the Just So Failed F-35 which threw their fuzzy math of $16B for the F-35 to well above $22B and counting. All for non-solutions to keeping air supremacy in the coming decades.

Within the same timeframe, the government would make the decisions in relation to our acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighters and to ensure there is no submarine capability gap.

Good luck with those faulty aircraft and rent-seeking inspired submersibles.



Liberals have more "cred" on Defence than Labor. OK, well, then, prove it. Fix the big problems. Including, firing a bunch of people that contribute nothing to defending the nation.

Oh wait. Can't do that can you? No courage. No moral courage.

In the end, leadership of both parties only care about staying in power. That requires gullible voters. Secured via vote-buying with taxpayer dollars, propaganda or both.

RAAF F-35 costs being ignored, spun, by leadership

Our old classic Hornets will have to go out to the years beyond 2020 because the Just So Failed is very late.

That is the best-case scenario reported by The Australian.

They report that our 71 old, classic F-18 Hornets cost $170M per year to sustain. That is about $2.39M per aircraft per year. Well, they are old, obsolete and should have been retired by now.

The following is what The Australian didn't report:

So what would each new F-35 cost per year to sustain according to estimates in the U.S.? Using American dollars, each F-35 is expected to cost $35,500 per flying hour. Throwing some numbers around, the cost (USD) to sustain one F-35 for one year could look like this depending on how much it was flown:

180 hours per year = $6.4M
200 hours per year = $7.1M
220 hours per year = $7.8M

An Australian government set of figures for cost per flying hour from last year showed our old classic Hornets as as: $11,770 per flying hour. That is based on a fleet of 71 totalling 13,000 flying hours for a year (183 hours per airframe per year) for $2.15M per airframe per year in sustainment.

The Australian Supers were shown as $23,000 per flying hour. One would hope that would come down as learning curve grows on a new type.

So, the F-35 is not only very expensive to acquire, but very expensive to own and operate. It has significant faults. There is still no finished go-to-war design to evaluate. It won't be able to stand up to emerging Pacific Rim threats.

Yet the government says, “buy”.

With budget troubles of all kinds, the RAAF is expected to live within its mean. I am sure the RAAF/DMO/Defence cabal will find a way to apply an interesting spin to all this.

They always do.

Valley of what?

Minister Jason Clare says there is a valley of death.

I rather think there is a valley of waste.

No mention of the real problems in Defence

Defense procurement reform, will not happen under the next government because the opposition does not seem to grasp the real problems.

"Small" fire on Collins sub

On the 15th of September, according to Defence, a "small" fire happened aboard a Collins class sub. Decide how many smalls were used in this release for yourself.


(click image to make larger)

More nonsense on Defence issues from The Australian

The Australian has an interesting read from Mr. Sheridan who has an opinion on a variety of Defence matters.

Interesting because it is mostly bad.

He believes in the 2009 Defence White Paper even though it is a joke.

He believes in 100 "Joint Strike Fighters" even though the program is in serious trouble.

Be believes in the "Air Warfare Destroyers" and Canberra-class Amphibs even if the RAN management, along with the DMO management is a shambles.

Unless real adults are willing to fix show-stopping root-cause problems with Defence leadership, bureacracy and the DMO, anything else is a waste of time. This includes comments by some about the need of a higher GDP vs. Defence budget meme.

So, along with bad Defence policy, we have in these parts of the world, a majority of bad Defence reporting. The two make perfect bookends.