Rent-seekers use faith in attempt to take high ground

ASPI opines about home-grown submarine naysayers. They ask a fair question or two. Also, reading what is quoted, I would worry.

Warning signs in the Minister for Rent-Seeking and Platitude speech.

"Like any big project there will be naysayers."

Blame the critic. Not always helpful. For the Minister one has to first see if a "naysayer's" argument is valid. Some are.

Then the leap to the Snowy Mountain project where the Minister refers to some words from that time:

"This Government has faith in its engineers, its people and the future of Australia.”

Faith is no substitute for project management skills and sound leadership. My fear is what I am seeing is an avalanche on Bullshit Mountain.

"Those who say just buy submarines from overseas."

Yeah well, we can get a consistant learning curve and long tribal knowledge for crews and logistics management established. All that and have a lethal defensive weapon.

"Those that lack the faith in what Australian workers and Australian industry can achieve."

Faith is irrelevant. When examining the track record of the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy, the defective ASC and DMO, one has to depend on what is the goal of all properly planned projects: to perform something that can be realistically accomplished. The evidence of Australia being able to do a big home grown submarine project successfully, just is not there.

On paper, what the Minister outlines sounds great. If only he were working with better clay. The only way for a successful home sub project to happen is if there are massive changes. That is, finding people that can lead, manage and understand the language of engineers as opposed to...rent-seekers.

So the taxpayer just spent hundreds of millions to do a future submarine study, all while the rent-seekers had their foot on the brake underneath the roulette table.

That by any definition is fraud.

Rent-seeker alert

(Houston tells the board a really big fish story)

A lease/rental of U.S. Virginia-class nuke subs may be goofy. On the flip side of that coin we have a rent-seeking orgnisation that will do anything to sling mud at the idea of buying good, existing, off-the-shelf conventional subs to get a capability up now with a long and steady path of crew tribal knowledge.

And, little mention of fixing the DMO.

Here are two worrying points all in one short paragraph:

Speaking after being appointed to the South Australian government's Defence SA advisory board, Air Chief Marshal Houston said building the 12-boat strong future submarine fleet was critical to sustaining Australia's defence industry.

Good post-retirement work if you can get it.

In 2002, the then Air Vice-Marshall Houston stated that the F-35 would be affordable because there were 3000 jets on the order-book.

No such "order-book" existed.

The federal budget is billions in debt due to a spend-thrift government. No amount of crying about cost being less important than some questionable military spending project will matter because there isn't any money.

These guys make AIPAC look like amateurs

Rent-seeker update for the F-35C; It's all happy flowers:

An update on the effort to base the Navy’s F35C Joint Strike Fighter squadron at Naval Air Facility El Centro will be presented at a Board of Supervisors meeting Monday, following a recent trip to Washington where members of the Joint Strike Fighter Coalition met with government officials.

No question of the F-35C being a valid weapon (beyond platitude) is mentioned.

The coalition is hoping to assure decision-makers “how we are embracing this,” Gallinat said, referring to basing the squadron at NAF El Centro. It is important, she said, that decision-makers are engaged and they know the willingness and support the community has about locating the squadron in Imperial County.

And least we forget, the politicians. They need work too:

The report also lists the endorsement of Rep. Bob Filner, D-Chula Vista, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-El Cajon, and Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, as well as some 14 local cities and associations who back basing the squadron here.

The Cause...and all that:

Meanwhile, fundraising efforts for the coalition have “stalled just a little bit,” she said, adding the organization is still actively looking for funding.

Those interested in funding the Joint Strike Fighter Coalition effort can contact the El Centro Chamber of Commerce at 760-352-3681.

Maybe by 2014 we will find out if the C can trap on a carrier. Maybe by 2016-17 we will know if the new hardware (TR-2) can drive a watered-down Block 3 software definition.

Then from there, a few more years, we might see OPEVAL.

Or not.

White elephant march

The rent-seekers are very worried.

Some are even thinking that a 4th Air Warfare Destroyer should be built so-as to keep the work-force busy so it will be available to participate in the delayed project known as Operation:BARKING MAD, also known as the $36B+ gold-plated submarine white elephant.

Little mention of what will help provide a valid defence for the nation.

Where would we find the crew for 4 air warfare destroyers? Or 3?

Where would we find the crew for the coming Canberra-class amphibious ships?

Also, note that with the largess wanted by the RAN, there are things like the Joint Strike Failure and a mess of a helicopter fleet to think about.

An amazing collection of white-elephants. Much of it unfunded with the country being in such massive budget red-ink.

Submarines? Well with the government "plan", we would have the on-going bleeding wound of the Collins nonsense into the next decade at around $700M+ per year.

For a less than useless "capability".

Maybe another white paper written by Dunning-Kruger Inc. will save us from the white elephants.

Our inglorious Defence "planning" continues.

The rent-seekers will do anything, say anything, even if it means destroying the defensive posture of the military (oh wait, that is mostly done) just so they can have their annual fief.

South Australia et al rent-seeking lobbying shouldn't be allowed to take the rest of the country along on their stupid ideas.

Fraud by trick or device.

Until the country wakes up, we will not have a real, yet affordable military.

The goal; get elected

Good grief. Fear sells. The need to get re-elected.

McCain cited a 2011 study by George Mason University economist Stephen Fuller estimating that Arizona would lose more than 33,000 jobs and $2 billion in earnings if the mandated cuts take place in 2013. The study, funded by a defense industry trade group, pegged the total loss to Arizona’s gross state product at $2.9 billion.

McCain said he’s in favor in savings in defense and domestic spending, “But you don’t want to do it with a meat ax.”

He said he doesn’t anticipate any cuts to the F-35 program but added that any delays or cost increases could lead to the government buying fewer F-35s.

None of the rent-seekers are willing to do just a tiny bit of research and ask Mr. McCain to expand more on this letter.

No matter, Sir.

Interesting how someone can show such strong courage as a POW; take sustained and severe beatings; say 'no' to the enemy; get beat some more; rinse and repeat and come out the other side knowing he did his best.

Yet courage to tell the rent-seekers there is no Santa seems lacking.

The mind boggles.

McCain's latest battle

McCain, as one of the top chairs of the Senate Armed Services Committee has to protect the taxpayer against wasteful DOD spending.

Or does he?

The Marines want to start training early at Eglin AFB, Florida, even if the capability, flight-envelop, and general management of the program is in serious question.

Amos, the cheerleader for the F-35 program, who went into a micro-manage mode last year with the need for daily updates on program metrics, conned a clueless Panetta (note the authors of the damning letter) into lifting a two-year get-fixed or death notice by a no-knowledge-on-airpower issues Gates in relation to the USMC F-35B. Amos is now dialing back; claiming going forwardness will put forth...something.

McCain goes to speak at Yuma; his home turf as an Arizona Senator.

Are the rent-seekers at Yuma ready to go? Well, there are no F-35s yet. Along with no credible pilot training program and robust operational test verification. It will be interesting to see how Yuma's F-35 reason to exist (training warfighters with the F-35) works out with an emperor-has-no-cloths scenario. They have high-hopes though. That is their future. Such as it is. The mission? Not the defense of the country. The mission is happy local businesses.

The rent-seekers at Yuma and the USMC have faith on their side.

At Yuma, McCain babbles generalities about the F-35 program and specifics about looming mandatory budget cuts. He goes on to fear-monger about Yuma not needing high unemployment as a result of budget cuts.

Not mentioned: the DOD would lose -$50B over ten years with the sequestration act. This would bring us back to a 2006-era defense budget. There are several wasteful defense programs which contribute nothing to killing stuff and breaking things in a war-like manner. That and we have too many flag-ranks and SES.

It is an election year.

Related? Well, it isn't synchronicity.

More sub misinformation from the usual sources

It is that time again. About every few months or so the discussion comes up about Australia's useless submarine fleet.

Then we have those that want to continue under the fantasy that subs can be built here at home.

Those stating that off-the-shelf subs will not work, (due to the nonsense-need called "Australianisation" of the product)..guarantee a plan to have no subs.

The ASC, DMO, Navy and rent-seekers are a poisonous team that  ensure failure by their own incompetence on managing the current 6 subs we have.

They do not deserve the taxpayer's trust when talking about submarines.

Off-the-shelf subs make it certain that we can have a continuous, skilled, crew capability. Off-the-shelf subs make it certain that the RAN has some submarine capability as opposed to none.

Not a hard choice if ones only goal is the defence of the nation.

-

-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
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology

F-35 rent-seeker of the week

Useful idiot.

Canadian industry prefers building defective F-35 over national security

Canadian industry prefers having the gravy train going on a the defective F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Even if memes like 'fifth-generation fighter' are useless.

One of the top bureaucrats in Ottawa’s new national fighter jet secretariat, Tom Ring, told a meeting of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada this week that he is hoping for less media coverage as the new federal body is being established.

Mr. Ring, assistant deputy minister of acquisitions, spoke to the AIAC to explain the Harper government’s seven-point plan, which was established in reaction to last month’s hard-hitting report by the Auditor-General into the muddled process to date to purchase the fighter jets.

Sources said his message included an attempt to persuade the aerospace industry to avoid rocking the boat. A person at the event said: “Tom [Ring] would like to let the noise on the file die down.”

Another source at the meeting said that Mr. Ring mentioned “there has been lots of media reports – including many that are not accurate – and it wouldn’t be helpful to add to those in the near term as the secretariat takes time to get organized.”

Yeah there have been a lot of media reports that are not accurate. However I don't think Mr. Ring has an understanding of that statement.

Advocate !!!

LOL.

I am writing to strongly urge you to support the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. America needs the F-35 for many reasons: to preserve our national security, to help strengthen our struggling economy, and to ensure that our men and women in uniform have every advantage we can give them. The fact that our nation is currently facing both economic and national security challenges means that we need to redouble our commitment to the F-35. Now is not the time to abandon the long-term investment we have made in the F-35---not when we are poised to see that investment start paying off.

The F-35 is the solution to our nation's aging fighter aircraft forces---most of our current fleet is approaching or well past the length of time it was intended to fly. Recently, senior Department of Defense officials publicly confirmed that the F-35 is the most cost effective solution for modernizing our fighter fleets with the required capabilities to be effective in future combat environments, and that there is no alternative to F-35. I couldn't agree more.
As America's premier 5th generation multi- role fighter, the F-35 exemplifies how our ingenuity and know-how continue to outpace our rivals---the F-35 represents a tremendous leap ahead in technology and will help America and its allies stay ahead of other nations' fighter capabilities for decades to come.

The F-35 also brings significant economic benefits to our nation. The program engages over 700 small business owners and leading manufacturers across the country, directly and indirectly supporting more than 127,000 jobs in 47 states. That number will increase to more than 260,000 when the F-35 reaches full-rate production. The F-35 program is a win-win proposition for our national security and our nation's declining manufacturing base.

This multi-role, stealth fighter will be the backbone of the Air Force, Navy, and Marines' fighter forces. It will provide advanced stealth aircraft to eight allied partners. Further, it will ensure the brave men and women of our armed services can continue to count on our air superiority to help them complete their missions and return home safely. We owe them nothing less.

While Washington continues to debate the issue of how to get America back to work, the F-35 is a clear job-creating, economy-boosting solution that has the added benefit of strengthening our national security, our relations with our allies, and our ability to ensure our competitive edge over potential adversaries. As a resident in your state, I urge you to support a steady increase in production and full funding for an affordable F-35 program. It is the right decision.

And also for the zombie army:

You can also spread the word by recruiting your friends and family to join the F-35 community.

Somehow I suspect that our tax dollars paid for this.

Dreaming

Good luck with that.

"Under Defence's current plans, the commonwealth will spend up to $250 billion over the next 20 years on acquiring and sustaining new ships and submarines, an enormous opportunity by any measure."

I see doldrums.

Huckster.

Lobbying for mistake-jets

Defective innovation creates jobs for rent-seekers.

(click image to make larger)

Minister for Defence Materiel - Address to the Australian Defence Magazine Congress

A captive and friendly audience is what meets the DMO for the address to the Australian Defence Magazine (read-Defence cheerleaders) Congress.

The following quote from the full address below is stunning:

¨Take the Collins Class subs, it’s quite clear that there were problems, there were mistakes, and there are of course many challenges ahead, but no nation, no matter how advanced, expects to deliver complex projects without controversy. We simply should not forget that the Pentagon was once derided for thinking that computer systems actually had a place in the military hardware; that the Humvee, the M1 Abrams, the Black Hawk were all criticised in their time. And I can recall the Bushmaster here was heavily criticised in the early days and it may well have come to the point where it was closed down. But today would anyone argue that it has saved lives for Australians for many years?¨

Comparing the Collins disaster to the Humvee, the M1 and the Blackhawk. Good luck with that. Those platforms when fielded actually delivered value. The Collins has done no such thing. The Bushmaster? Great program. Great vehicle But here is the other part of the story. In the beginning, the entrenched Defence bureaucracy wrote such a poor performance contract, that when there were problems early on, Defence was near powerless to do much except sit, watch and hope it worked out. Pretty much their standard procedure with procurement management.

Then this:

¨Now, there’s a view in some quarters, and I read it in The Financial Review on a regular basis, that these are all decisions that simply come down to the bottom line in next year’s budget. Frankly, I don’t think that’s the message the Australian people pursue. I think the Australian people are tired of small mindedness. They are sick of hearing that other countries are better, are cheaper or are smarter. They want to believe that this is a country that can do great things for its troops and for the people they defend.´

No. The public is long tired of gross incompetence in places like the failed experiment known as the DMO along with other known associates promoted way beyond their skill level.

This kind of gathering is music for rent-seekers who lobby for more Defence waste. And what real value does Defence provide at $27B per year? Not much. The organisation needs a hair cut of about $10B for what little it provides.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you today, it’s a great pleasure.

Some two months into the job I thought this would be an opportunity to share with you a few of my early reflections. I’m the 29th Minister to hold the Defence Procurement Portfolio since 1939. What I have discovered in these first two months is just how much attention the Defence community pays to this issue of legacy, and it is the case in my circumstance where I’ve taken on what might we describe as the legacy of 28 predecessors. And some, of course, have had more profound legacies than others. But I’m not really here today to talk to you about others’ legacies; I’m here today to talk about our legacy.

I believe that we have to face up to our responsibilities, to our legacy to future generations. This financial year the DMO will spend more than $10B and every day Australian Defence personnel stake their lives on the quality of the equipment that we provide. So our decisions shape the lives of real people but, however, it’s not just the lives of Defence personnel that we’re talking about and it’s not just the lives of the 27,000 people that work in the local Defence industries. More broadly, our decisions help determine what skills, what technologies, what industrial capabilities this country will take well into the next century.

So, all of this begs the question, “What are we trying to achieve?” Defence procurement is not simply about buying modern weapons; it’s very much part of developing a modern country. So I face this job on the basis of asking myself, “What sort of country will we be defending in years to come?”, “What are we as a people capable of achieving?”

Now, there’s a view in some quarters, and I read it in The Financial Review on a regular basis, that these are all decisions that simply come down to the bottom line in next year’s budget. Frankly, I don’t think that’s the message the Australian people pursue. I think the Australian people are tired of small mindedness. They are sick of hearing that other countries are better, are cheaper or are smarter. They want to believe that this is a country that can do great things for its troops and for the people they defend.

So I say we can. I say we should be ambitious. We want the best equipment we can afford and we want to be the best at supplying it. Now, those of you who know me well from another role know that I’m very much in favour of buying Australian. I wear this badge consciously. But it’s not a question of buying Australian at any price or on any terms, and this is a point I cannot stress enough. I’m not in the business of defending second best and, from all of my dealings with industry; I don’t believe that you are either. And that’s why we together must strive for excellence.

Now, we have no trouble arguing the case that we build world-class schools, that we will build world-class universities, we’re building the MBM, we’re modernising our tax system and we are shifting to clean technology. We have no trouble arguing that because we are a creative and a clever people. And so I say why shouldn’t we support our troops by investing in ourselves?

Take the Collins Class subs, it’s quite clear that there were problems, there were mistakes, and there are of course many challenges ahead, but no nation, no matter how advanced, expects to deliver complex projects without controversy. We simply should not forget that the Pentagon was once derided for thinking that computer systems actually had a place in the military hardware; that the Humvee, the M1 Abrams, the Black Hawk were all criticised in their time. And I can recall the Bushmaster here was heavily criticised in the early days and it may well have come to the point where it was closed down. But today would anyone argue that it has saved lives for Australians for many years?

So we shouldn’t judge our achievements on the basis of popular prejudice. Collins subs are, as I’m often told, for complexity on a par with the space shuttle. We forget how ambitious the goal was at the time, largely because we have lost sight of how far we’ve actually moved along the line to be able to produce equipment of this scale and this complexity.

As late as the 1980’s we were reliant on the Abram Class submarines built in the United Kingdom, yet we developed the capabilities at home to upgrade them and we developed the skills to use them. And that laid the foundations for the Collins build program.

Now, whatever your views on the program, it has delivered one of the largest conventional submarines in the world, and for Australia I believe that has developed a unique capability for our needs. So we should not even contemplate, that when it comes to the question of the Future Subs, that it will be a long journey. And that we should be ambitious for what this country can produce.

And I don’t want for a moment to forget how tough the conditions have been or they’re likely to remain. It’s important to remember a few basic facts. We are a small nation with the world’s third largest maritime territory to secure. We are a great trading nation. Our prosperity rests upon our capacity to keep our shipping lanes open. Ninety-nine percent of all our trade is by sea, and we simply cannot rely upon someone else to do all the jobs that we can’t do ourselves. We cannot leave our security to the whim of the market. We must be willing to achieve great things. And if we have the ambition this government is about building the conditions to realise that ambition.

Now, as I read it, this is very much what DMO’s mission’s all about. They are here to support people who support our troops and I want to assure you they want to work with industry to get the right equipment and the right capabilities together. And that’s, for instance, if we take the example that’s been developed with a priority industry capability health checks. This is a government and industry working together to monitor and build our strength strategically. And today I’m releasing two further health checks covering the Signature Management and the Mission Critical Software Systems and they’ll be available on the DMO website.

Our second example is our reforms to the ship maintenance arrangements, and over the service life of our fleets the total investment in the sustainment can be double or triple the original purchase price of any particular unit. And a lot of that work has to be done in Australia. And it’s a long term need requiring long term investments in capabilities. For that reason, the old sustainable model, I think the sustainment model cannot meet that need and so it’s been changed. The burden of industry suppliers to our larger ships is to bid in the past on the basis of each and every maintenance activity will be a thing of the past. Longer term contracts are the way of the future, to provide the incentives for the investment’s company need in their own capabilities.

And we’ll bring down the administrative costs and we’ll help raise the incentive for our suppliers, as I say, to invest in their own future.

The new arrangements are being rolled out for the ANZAC frigates first, with the FFG fleet to follow, and the next five year contract for the ANZAC fleet is expected to deliver cost savings in that way of between 10% and 15% over the current arrangement.

The government hopes to be able to make an announcement on this contract in the very near future. This is also the contract model for, that Defence may use for the landing helicopter docking ships and the air warfare destroyers.

It’s a new approach, an approach that’s good for industry, it’s good for our navy and it’s good for the Australian taxpayers.

Now, that’s the sort of legacy I think we can all be proud of to build if we simply have the courage to pay our part. Thank you very much.

Rent-seekers should worry

Some are just now waking up to the problem.If your business revolves around the F-35 program doing well, you are in trouble.

It means that most of the 127,000 supplier and subcontractor jobs promised by Lockheed Martin haven't materialized yet in Texas, California, Florida, Illinois and other states that desperately need them in a slow economy.

Most of all, it means that the Pentagon may fall well short of its initial pledge to buy 2,443 of the F-35s; that a dozen Allied and other foreign countries eager to buy the JSF could end up owning more combined aircraft than the United States; that instead of an anticipated hundreds of the jet fighters being deployed in the air by now, it will likely be 2016 or beyond before they join military operations.

I will go with "beyond".

However it was not "unforeseen".

If only they did their homework

Rent-seekers crafting a story that will never happen.