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.

The only crisis is no port visits

Is this really a problem?

If so...

...we have a solution.

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

Goal of new sub not to defend country

The goal of the new sub program is to provide jobs for the rent seekers.

But we knew that already.

IF Australia goes with a Japanese design for its Future Submarines it must build the vessels in SA to keep taxpayers dollars and jobs in this country.

Defence Teaming Centre chief executive officer Chris Burns was commenting about the head of the Royal Australian Navy's Future Submarine Program heading to Japan this month to look at its Soryu-class vessels.

"If we can take a Japanese design and adapt it to Australia's needs and then fabricate it in SA then that's investing in Australian jobs, Australian innovation and Australian security for the future," Mr Burns said.

Just a few challenges ahead, I suspect. Behaviour and all that.

Article, less flawed than sub plan or defence white paper

I know I have my bad days but I don't get paid to write.

This submarine story doesn't even end with a proper sentence.

Until the Soryu became theoretically available, off-the-shelf submarines included only German, French and Spanish designs of about 2000 tonnes.

It is almost as bad a sin as referring to the failed-within-one second of launch 2009 Defence White Paper as if it had value.

And yes the article fails to mention that Defence/DMO/RAN do not have the skill to sustain and crew 6 subs let alone 12.

Saving $37B on reality

Have a look at one of the men that wants to take your money and waste it on Operation: BARKING MAD.

It is an unfortunate fact that the Australian Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy (EDB) has to live within a realistic budget.

The assumptions that the rent-seekers make about an off-the-shelf sub not being suitable for Australian waters is a non-sense. If the same guy was hawking batteries in Euro-land guess what he would say?

The following is a comparison of savings that can be had in future procurements for fighter aircraft and subs. Realism vs. what the rent-seekers want.

Note that, since air policing is now the only option for Australia for its air power roadmap until budgets and the mental-health of Defence senior leadership improves (I know. Grossly optimistic. That's me.), best to get something one can actually afford; the Gripen. And I am talking about the C/D and not the future one.

Rent-seekers: $36B for subs that might not work; $16B for fighter aircraft that certainly will not work. Total waste: $52B.

Reality: $6B For 6 subs that will work. The dumbassery of the 2009 Defence White Paper with 12 subs was an imaginary number. Good. I will throw one out too: 6. More; but only if it is proven that we can crew and operate 6.

$9B for 72 C/D Gripens and 10 years of flying costs. I even pumped up the cost per flying hour significantly to make up for DMO goof ups. 10 years of flying costs is good enough because that is about as far as one can predict for labor, fuel and anything else.

Total capability: $15B

Savings of Reality vs. The Rent-seekers: $37B, if not more that doesn't have to be wasted on the low-productivity EDB.