Senate told about gross over-optimism in Defence procurement

:::Shock!:::

When purchasing giga-dollar weapons systems, the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy is guilty of substituting proper analysis with unconfirmed claims by marketeers according to this article.

Misplaced confidence in the claims of defence industry "marketeers" contributed to expensive past blunders on major contracts - some worth billions of dollars - a Senate Committee inquiry into Defence acquisitions was told yesterday.

Also, the DMO boss claim of "old projects" needs definition. Many "old" projects are not even in active service yet and are a disaster waiting to happen. Add to that: our tax dollars pay people working in Defence (some even wearing the uniform) to actively market troubled military programs. Projects like the F-35 program for Australia (somehow missing from the Project of Concern List even though money has been put forward for two test and training aircraft), the Air Warfare Destroyer funnies and certainly the dream to build 12 uber-submarines at home are pushed by marketeers that don't identify proper risks. Maybe that $214M for a sub study will be useful as opposed to a "can-do" attitude for Operation: BARKING MAD.

Service chiefs are of no help either. The RAAF boss is guilty of the same behaviour.

-UPDATE-Statements by sub commander finish any hope for Collins fleet

In today's The Australian, Cameron Stewart reports that a newly retired sub commander proclaims that the Collins-class submarine program is 'a lost cause' by virtue of being obsolete and unsustainable.

In comments that will rattle the Defence hierarchy, Commander James Harrap, a 20-year navy veteran, said Australia's submarines had "the least reliable diesel engines ever built", and attempts to upgrade the boats would be a waste of money because their performance would only get worse.

"I don't believe the Collins-class are sustainable in the long term and many of the expensive upgrade plans which have been proposed would be throwing good money after bad," he said in a written account of his time as commander, obtained by The Weekend Australian.

Commander Harrap, who has commanded both HMAS Waller and, until last month, HMAS Collins, said: "Lack of available stores inventory, increased equipment failure rates and submarines living with reduced capability is something I expect will persist for the remaining life of the class.

Harrup adds:

"I do not believe we have the capability to independently design and build our own submarines.

In response to a recent negative report of Australia's submarine prospects in the coming years authored by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), top Navy brass released a statement to the fleet which claims confidence in the Collins subs to meet the operational requirements of the government.

Yet, the hard truth seems otherwise. Harrup also states:

"Over the last two years, I believe these problems have become worse," he wrote. "Throughout my command of both Collins and Waller, full capability was never available and frequently over 50 per cent of the identified defects were awaiting stores.

"Collins has consistently been let down by some fundamental design flaws, leading to poor reliability and inconsistent performance. The constant stream of defects and operation control limitations makes getting to sea difficult, staying at sea harder and fighting the enemy a luxury only available once the first two have been overcome."

Tying up the Collins subs and scrapping them could be a big money saver. They offer no credible capability.

The first boat of an off-the-shelf sub purchase could start to be fielded within only a few years. Then, as the capability proves itself, further boats could be added. This would provide a real submarine force as opposed to a dream submarine force that only consumes billions and has no return on investment.

For the capability it delivers (or doesn't deliver) the $27B per year defence budget needs a haircut. A bloated civilian workforce (over 21k and counting), an incompetent Defence Material Organisation (DMO), way too many flag-ranks and senior executives, a corrupt leadership environment, along with a variety of useless items on the Project of Concern list means a house-cleaning is in order.

The condition of Australia's submarine fleet is iconic of the state of the entrenched Defence bureaucracy.

Moribund and dysfunctional.


---

UPDATE--- "Barking mad".

---

Some don't understand strategic strike

From The Australian today:

Since the demise of the F111 we have lacked strategic strike. Among many other functions, the new subs would remedy that by being equipped with land attack cruise missiles. They would have a range and capability far beyond the ageing and almost completely useless Collins class boats they would replace.

Subs with cruise missile capability are not a "remedy" for the F-111 strike capability (given away by Defence on a lie).

The F-111 could reach out with stand-off weapons and hit a target within hours; not days. Fly home. Rinse and repeat.

Subs with cruise missiles are unable to do such a thing. Ever. While the capability may be useful, it isn't a "remedy" for long-range strike capability delivered by aircraft.

Another update on the Collins replacement fantasy

The allegedly independent Australian Strategic Policy Institute is in the news again about the countries running sore of a submarine program.

Yes, the situation is not getting any better.

Even some deception by Defence and DMO is mentioned.

Since 2006 and according to Defence records, the number of annual ''ready days'' has been steadily decreasing, from about 240 days per submarine in 2005-06 to barely over 100 days in 2008-09, they say. The government stopped reporting on ready days after 2008-09, on national security grounds.

The usual suspects quote the 2009 White Paper as if it has value. Again I say, it does not.

There is some illumination. Even if it is late to the game.

"Many options, including that of a locally designed submarine, are looking increasingly implausible."

:::shock:::

The rent-seekers that want to destroy a bunch of tax-dollars on home grown subs are still crying.

I say, let them cry. We need submarines, but not at any price and not some fantasy capability.

Does anyone find it interesting that during the last few years Defence does impulse buys of things because the senior DMO/Defence cabal can't spend on the dud project of concern list due to incompetent program management?

We could be well on our way now to starting a replacement submarine with off-the shelf solutions.

Instead, money is wasted on making dud-electronic warfare aircraft out of the Super Hornet situation; an extra Navy ship is bought while being called an amphib, and another C-17 is being purchased.

You may also add the bad idea of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter along with the extra insult of supposedly being contractually committed to buying two "test" aircraft. These aircraft are mistake jets piled on to a gargantuan mistake of an air capability plan.

Add the additional waste of money that is Operation:USELESS DIRT, the Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyer and Canberra-class amphib projects.

Defence and politicians are not committed to having a real submarine force. They have demonstrated this with their impulse buys and other silliness.

In sum:

ASPI estimates 12 home-built submarines would cost about $36 billion compared with only $9bn for smaller off-the-shelf boats. The ASPI report says there are grave doubts about how long the Collins-class boats will last given their chronic unreliability.

Some of us figured this out already, but nice to see it again.

If it comes down to no submarines or a home-grown jobs program with gold-plated submarines, I prefer no submarines.

Until sane strategic thought appears.

Searching the budget for more Virginia-class sub funds

No problem. I can find plenty of money for more Virginia-class subs in the current budget.

Easy.

Original Collins project boss would rather be in off-the-shelf sub design

One of the team leaders that brought the Collins-class sub into this world has some different views compared to some the entrenched defence and industry bureaucracy. Hans Ohff says the Collins class is not survivable against modern threats from the 2020's onward. He also has a different view from the locals on how the Collins should be replaced.

"I am very proud of what we achieved [with Collins] but if one of those went up against a modern submarine such as a German HDW 209 or 214, I would rather be in them,'' he said. ''By 2035 you might just as well stay in port - you'd get blown out of the water [if you put to sea]."

Mr Ohff backs a "military-off-the-shelf solution" to be developed in partnership with a European submarine company. If the future submarines can't be built in Adelaide for less than $1.5 billion each they should be built overseas.

New sub report ignores conflict of interest

James Brown makes some great points about conflict of interest and a new sub report.

Before it was released, questions had been raised about the objectivity of this report. Its lead author, Brice Pacey, was formerly a strategic analyst for the Australian Submarine Corporation, the company most likely to benefit financially from a decision to build the future submarine in Australia. But this detail is missing from the report's author biography.

The report was sponsored by a coalition of ten defence industry entities, all of which have an interest in a future submarine being built in Australia. But nowhere is it mentioned that their sponsorship on this occasion was linked to this particular report, rather than to the Kokoda Foundation generally.

One of those ten entities is Defence SA, and it may be entirely coincidental that this report finds that the federal government should fund home-grown future submarines and a land-based propulsion test facility in South Australia. It may also be coincidental that the report was launched on the very same day the South Australian Treasurer is in Canberra to lobby Defence on those exact same issues.

It may be yet another coincidence that this 90-page report can spare only one paragraph for a cost analysis of nuclear propulsion, yet devotes 20 pages to advocating a greater role for private sector program management and recommends Defence 'engage private sector engineering and project management specialists', a service offered by one of the sponsors.

Different opinions on Australian sub roadmap

Expert slams flawed submarines report

"Holland operates their European-designed submarines in both the Antilles and near Somalia," he said. "South Korea regularly deploys its submarines to Hawaii, something we seemed unable to do with our Collins class in 2010, not sending a submarine to RIMPAC [maritime exercise] for the first time in decades." He names eight different submarines, ranging in size from 1390 tonnes to more than 3000 tonnes, that come close to - or can better - the range of the existing 3350 tonne Collins Class boats.

And, off the shelf subs allow for more stability of crew training, scheduling and submarine maintenance time-lines. Off-the shelf subs can be an all-in-one solution or a bridge to a later effort once (if) home industry ever gets their act together with building subs at home.

On this issue, the rent-seekers need to be taken to task.

Bad White Paper authors, Bad DMO, Bad sub ideas

The last Defence White Paper was near worthless. Yet some still entertain the authors of that mess when they come up with nonsense like this.

There are good reasons to buy off-the-shelf subs to help in securing our Northern approaches.

1. Subs by themselves are not the answer. Air power is needed to protect anti-submarine aircraft. Surface ships have their use once air power is established. Off the shelf subs will be part of a useful effort to block sea lanes.

2. Real deterrence and long range strike comes from long-range air power. Defence threw that away on a lie.

3. Off the shelf subs allow us to have a stable training program for crews. We do not have that. No other plan offers that at a faster rate.

4. Any other specialty subs should be considered only after the sub community is healthy. It is not because of the Collins fiasco. It will never be healthy with the poor thinking that goes for a "son of Collins" as the way forward.

5. For all the money we spend on Defence we don't get much. Off the shelf subs offer the least management hassle until we kill off the experiment known as the DMO and/or reshape the logistics support tail to make sense instead of being a money pit of dead weight.

Report--Collins sub fleet unsafe

Cameron Stewart from The Australian writes that a new report commissioned by the Gillard government warns of "profound safety risks arising from inexperienced crews, a paucity of experts, poor reliability and a dysfunctional maintenance system."

The short version is that the entire submarine organisation was now "unfit for purpose".

In what the report described as a "worrying statistic", it said crew shortages mean that one-third of trained submariners have now been qualified for less than two years.

"Crews are inexperienced and with reduced (submarine) availability it is getting more difficult to achieve the required levels of training," it said.

"With submarines having to live with defects of operational safety significance, decisions on what to live with and what to return to harbour to fix are being made by inexperienced people; a worrying feature with profound implications for safety.

And this via today's print edition of the Australian Financial Review.

He (Coles) suggested there was an unhealthy "master-slave" relationship between the Defence Material Organisation and ASC which discouraged the latter from taking responsibility.

Projects do have to be realistic

My limited understanding of project management involves the idea that one starts projects that they can realistically finish based on realistic resourcing and realistic skills.

Government's perception of the Collins replacement project does not meet those goals.

BTW, great picture at the link of a dolphin in front of the sub.

.

DND force structure needs help and faulty subs are not useful

The Canadian military force structure needs a lot of help in all areas of interest.

There is some interesting items out there in reference to Canada and submarines including Canada and U.S. nuclear submarines.

Given all of the other communities in the DND that are in need of cash and actually provide value to Canadian security interests, I can only see the sub issue as a complete waste of money.

Canada has gone some years now without a sub force. I qualify a sub force as something that is reliable; and has real combat capability. The current collection of worthless submarines in Canada's possession have never qualified as a sub force.

Get rid of the program.

As Fredrick the Great once said, "He who defends everything, defends nothing".

Canada needs search and rescue aircraft. It needs transport aircraft. It needs patrol ships and small frigates. It needs a reasonable Army.

And these communities don't have to only exist. They have to be well trained and sustained to be a reliable resource.

Canada also needs fighter aircraft. However they have to be affordable and useful. Since Canada has not requested the F-22, any other solution it decides on will not be able to stand up to high-end threats.

OK. Fine.

The requirement for fighter aircraft should be something that is affordable; can meet home air patrol needs and can jointly take part in allied air campaigns that no matter what, will need the U.S. to clear the big threats with other resources Canada does not have.

The F-35 does not meet any of these requirements. Simply because there is no finished go-to-war example for an intelligent purchaser of military equipment to evaluate.

Canada would be better off by creating a DND leadership that can provide real security solutions for the civilian leaders. Without that, I am afraid the results can only be more muddle.

Collins sub refrigerant gas leak, no one hurt

Another piece of bad news for the Collins class submarine program.

This from Defence.

The Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Farncomb is returning to Singapore after partial failure of its cooling system during the Five Power Defence Agreement (FPDA) Exercise Bersama Lima 2011 (BL11).

The submarine crew followed standard emergency operating procedures to clear the refrigerant gas, Freon which had leaked as a result of the failure. No one was injured.

Farncomb will undertake repairs in Singapore over the coming days.

----

Faulty Australian sub fleet costs $800M per year

Story surfaces of HMAS Farncomb dive and propulsion failure incident (Update-with Defence Response)

Great story about a Collins-class sub in an exercise that never happened

Still a shortage of crew for our subs

An interesting set of problems. We can barely crew 4 subs (we have 6). Oh wait; one of them is in such a mess it will probably never go to sea again. And some want us to buy 12 subs;  large ones that need big crews.

Yet there are subs out there that only take 27 crew and can defend and attack in the littorals to the North.

But I digress. The most important goal of the Collins-class replacement program is that it becomes a jobs program via an iron-lung government run (or run into the ground) project.

Any attempt to defend the country (as a goal) is secondary.

.

Another happy Collins sub update

Oh yeah. And I wanted to say thank you to the DMO for all of their great work helping to defend our nation.

Our enemies may give you all a medal.

Collins sub replacement rent-seekers are banging the pots and pans again

The mafia/city hall kind of corruption with rent-seeking is in full-swing with one of Australia's latest boondoggles; the Collins sub replacement.

"Labor has a long history of spinning the numbers on its defence projects in South Australia, and it seems as though expectations for the future submarine project have been greatly inflated for political purposes," Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

"With $1.5 billion worth of Defence cuts, slippages and delays in projects in the recent federal Labor budget, there is an increasing pressure on the defence industry."

Defence, the Defence bureaucracy, the defence industry and their cheerleaders need to be deprived of an air supply until a sane strategic roadmap is put in place. This includes an assessment of what home industry can realistically do.

Meanwhile, not to pick on Indonesia, but they have got it made. They can deprive the littorals to the north easily over the long haul with inexpensive submarines, fighter aircraft (that work), naval mines, and if they are really smart, things like S-300/S-400, BrahMos (and other super-sonic cruise missiles;) including a CLUB-K arrangement. And, they already have one kind of super-sonic cruise missile in service with their navy.

our government defence planners at home, insist we buy really dumb things that won't for example; achieve air domination over our northern approaches.

The Australian military already gave up a strong strategic strike platform that could take long range cruise missiles really far; all on a lie. That was the F-111. It also had superior value in non-high-end war than it's "replacement".

There is no proof of strong strategic thinking in this government. Until there is; we shouldn't hand over tax dollars on stupid projects. The current Defence arrangement is draining our budget for very little return. It has long been time to change that.

---

F-35 program's "business plan" vs. the real world

How is that F-35 business plan in Australia?

Chinese communists want war, Australian leadership wants to dream

Under-skilled bureaucrats bag big bounty

Australia's naval "strategy" and ship-building industry explained

The meme that won't die; the F-35 as a "fifth-generation fighter"

Who are the Australian JSF Industry Group (AJIG) ?

Australian government complicit in ruining 65 year old company

Dilettantes compare defence plans

.

White elephant hunters are on the march

If they are so good, why can't they fix all the Collins class subs?

Home grown subs could be a $70B nightmare

It is funny to read the words from the rent-seeking crowd.

Actually it is not. We have heard the pitch of the Ponzi scheme before.

This is the cousin to the industry that can't build common warships without goofing it up. In partner of course with the entrenched Defence bureaucracy. Most of the money the rent-seekers talk about comes from you the taxpayer; or they dream it will anyway.

This idea of building home-grown subs needs to be shut down. Home industry is great; when it is based on realistic goals. When it is not, it does more damage to the defence posture of this nation than an enemy by burning up limited defense dollars.

And, they would rather have a faulty product tied up to a dock instead of something that works; off the shelf. These people do not have the defence of the nation in mind; even if they pretend they do.

It can always be worse...

As bad as Australia's submarine program is, Canada shows us it could always be worse.

There are just too many examples of gross stupidity so take the time and read the full story.

Rush forward to disaster with the Collins-class replacement

Amazing. Some live in a fantasy world holding one side of the triangle. Read the whole article page by page; slowly if needed.

The taxpayer must rush ahead and hand over billions to the same under-skilled thinkers that gave us the Collins-class fiasco. So far, Collins has cost us $10 billion and climbing.

The author of the above article is described as a Canberra writer. That writer fails to mention that the 2009 white paper was a terrible joke. Dead on arrival.

We should rush into getting big subs. Subs for long range strike deterrent are needed. And somehow this will all happen.

Take this quote.

"...giving us a platform that can host missiles that will strike back at potential enemies in their homeland."

This capability was thrown away when incompetent strategic thinkers in Defence gave up the F-111 on a lie. The F-111 could carry long range stand-off missiles a very long way, hit the desired target within hours, rinse and repeat. A whole lot more DMPI’s hit per day. Deterrence into the 2020’s. Maybe even longer.

We have to delay the decision to buy subs because we have to have some U.K experts see where all the skeletons are buried. Once we have that information—which may show that we have no realistic ability to make home-grown subs--then we can move forward.

The writer above, could have helped this situation out over the years by doing the hard work to expose the lies and groupthink. Well, maybe a leopard can change their spots. Just not today.

Eric Palmer is a Newcastle writer (sort of).

.