two of the biggest "successes" of the ADF were using bypassed processes on ministerial influence - against advice.  both those programs are already biting us on the arse due to being imposed at speed. (C17 being the classic feel good for biggles set, but when you drill into it, there's a nightmare in the wings).  ditto for fat ships, ditto for abrams.

the white paper went back to the crown 5-6 times, becuase it didn't suit some.

this govt is probably worse than the last - they're not interested in hearing any view of the world that doesn't subscribe to their view - any public servant (less so for unifornms) that doesn't conform to the way that they think has a CLM already made up in the top draw.

unfort, frank robust input by a PS that can offer unpolluted counsel doesn't exist.  esp in the current climate.  an example of this is the education portfolio where schools are getting buildings that they don't need just so that the govt can carry a cheerleading event for stimulating the economy.  a $3m dollar hall (worse case) buys a lot of teching time, buys a lot of electronic facilities, buys books, buys equipment etc....  esp when the school has expressly stated that they don't need another hall.

in the case of defence, C-17's were impressed too rapidly, and so were the fat ships - both are embarassing when you know what was not implemented as part of what would have been picked  up by the operators and normal review process.  Can the review times be improved - of course, everyone I know of in defence and industry wants reform, but accerated programs that have ministerial intervention and bypass critical steps are a recipe in taxpayer grief - and we've got a few coming in 10-12 years time.  At the point, a Lib govt will be happily excoriating their predecessors about how C17's, subs, AWD, Tanks, JSF were stuffed by ministerial processes that sidestepped the approp checks

 

In the case of networking PzH2000 I'd suggest there aren't any easy targets to blame, apart from the shopping queue approach to defence procurement, where if you take a step back you lose your place and bag of gold.

 

The problem here is the scheduling of interdependent projects and being unable to specify key requirements.  In this case the AFATDS decision was made after RFTs, etc were issued for guns.  This meant the requirements for the data interface between guns and BCP couldn't be specified in any meaningful way, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was no adequate budget provision to deal with it.  The low cost solution would be to put an AFATDS terminal of some sort in each gun and manually re-key data between the gun's system and AFATDS.  Not quite the sort of 'network centric' that Russll Offices seems to aspire to.  The second cheapest needs luck (and I'd assess it at about p=0.15), that the Germans had the wit to use MLRS type i/o for the outwards facing interface of the gun computer.  This being the case UK has recently accepted a new box, that I assume supports VMF message sytax, to provide the interface onboard MLRS and COBRA which should do the job with a new set of message conversion rules.

Saw a story suggesting that not only was the US looking at arming the AC-27 with an M-777 155mm howitzer but that it would be a good fit for Australia instead of the SPG's!!!!

Oh well, if it fires through the cargo ramp the aircraft might go faster. On the other hand, the recoil could send it through the roof of the aircraft.

 

Sounds like fun.

The total of 63 howitzers in the new orders comes shortly after the company forecast up to 150 additional orders by the end of 2009. Among potential purchasers are Australia, which is asking for 35 systems but could eventually procure up to 57, Denmark, India, Oman and Thailand. An order from Australia is anticipated before the end of the year, according to the company.

Source: Mahon, T, 28 May 2009  BAE's Lightweight Howitzer Wins $118M in Further (Defence News)