Smith and the C-27 decision

More here of how Defence selected the C-27. It does sound like a weak process.

"Selection of the C-27J for $1.4 billion appears to have been based largely on the RAAFs own desktop assessments. This effort falls short of a full evaluation process."

Airbus said it could have had planes ready for delivery in six months - not three years - and that they would have cost a third of what is going to paid for the C-27J.

Besides the way the procurement was done, was the value perceived by Defence worth 3 times the cost? Was it worth twice the cost?

Below is a cool video illustrating the multi-mission palletized system for the C-295 for use as SAR, ISR, and light cargo. Note: SAR/ISR was never stated in the Defence requirement.

Clarification on my previous post with C-295 endurance figures. When suited up as a dedicated ISR/ASW aircraft, the C-295 has 11 hours of endurance. Don't know what the endurance is with the palletized solution.

The argument that may not go so well

One may make this argument (an excerpt below) if they were asleep. Or, simply have not done any homework on the Australian military equipment procurement system.

Those dollars were spent in conjunction with our allies, particularly the United States. That relationship is another reason that Canada needs the F-35. It is the fighter replacement choice for all three branches of the U.S. military that currently fly fighter jets: The U.S. air force, navy and marines.

The F-35 is also Australia's choice and will be flown by Britain's air force, both also key countries that Canada works with on a regular basis. This is called being interoperable with your allies and it makes good military sense.

Can we stop playing politics with defence in this country? If this plea seems more of a cliche to you than a heartfelt desire, it is due to the preponderance of political theatre in Canada for which the military is the primary target.

We have got to do better than that. If it is in our grasp to emulate any other country's defence posture, it should be that of Australia, where military issues are a source of unity among the populace and the political parties, where the NDP counterpart Labour Party, whether as government or in opposition, has consistently viewed national defence initiatives from a non-partisan perspective.

Some reading that the author may have missed.

-Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-Project of Concern list
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology

Unfortunately, most of the Australian populace is united with their opinion of the military procurement system.

Australia requests price info for 6th C-17

Australia has put in a request for price info for a 6th C-17.

The additional aircraft will probably be useful. As a United States Air Force C-17 pilot told me once, "We take a lot of business away from the C-130".

Additional C-17 buys were never mentioned in the joke that is the last Defence White Paper which some hold so dear. This points back toward the inability of Defence bureaucrats to consistently perform good long range planning.

Given the way that additional buys of C-17s now creep into budgets (just like the 5th one), it may be time for a top to bottom review of all ADF airlift needs; a clean sheet of paper.

Does Defence know the kind of equipment it needs?

The Australian Army’s effort to get new vehicles could run into trouble.

The Australian vehicle based on a variant that has saved numerous people from roadside bombs in Afghanistan may come in third in the competition. More, one of the main contenders which has components with less kinds of protection against threats, may win.

All of this makes you wonder if the Army has any real handle on their future vehicle needs. These are the same people that got the taxpayer to hand over money for scores of used American tanks that suck up fuel and spares at an alarming rate when on the march.

Also, do we have a handle on our “strategy” in Afghanistan? The troubled Tiger helicopter program is claimed by its cheerleaders to be good to go for combat in Operation: USELESS DIRT. However, that claim is only for daytime ops. Note; a Tiger variant used by the French has already seen a deployment there.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Apache, which can operate day or night and has become an effective COIN CAS aircraft has been doing this sort of work for sometime.

Off the shelf, and all that.

.

Australian National Audit Office report on Defence procurement failings

The Australian National Audit Office has uncovered more of what we already know; our Defence procurement situation is a shambles. The report looks at the Navy issues, but of course this points at the failed experiment known as the Defence Material Organisation (DMO).

The report calls for better liason between the key players. Yes, some of us knew that already.

Where are the real project managers? Where is the real responsibility? I say it is time to save some money and break up the DMO and let uniformed service chiefs own the responsibility for procurement and sustainment. Supposedly our top flag ranks are not children that need failed bureaucrats to hold their hand (and purse).

The under-performing rent-seekers may have some fear.



H/T-reader: Gobsmacked