Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Alternate Post WWII RAN: Carriers
Volkodav    7/2/2009 7:27:00 AM
Carrying on from the "gift" fleet on the Lightning post. The RAN is gifted a number of modern ships including one, two or three Colossus class light fleet carriers. How many would we get, which aircraft would we operate initially and which aircraft would succeed them post war then into the 50's. How would the carriers be modernised / modified, what roles would they be adapted to, how long would they serve and finally what, if anything, would they be replaced with?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain       1/7/2010 2:44:12 AM
Well as what you would probably call a beancounting knob I'd have to say that if your understanding of maths is a representation of the quality of technical people in the Australian defence industry, no wonder you guy's can't build a shithouse on a patrol boat. No amount of leadership and vision will make one and one add up to two and a half. If the Australian people don't want to spend enough on defence to , for example, replace our submarines every 16 years instead of every 25 and if as as consequence that means ASC can't maintain the corporate knowledge to build the Collins Class replacement without starting from scratch, then we don't have the right conditions for a successful, comprehensive defence industry. It is that simple and you whinging about what the Government isn't doing right without trying to gain any understanding of what economics or government decision making actually involves isn't going to change that.
BTW, for every business case like you've put up for Mitsubushi Australia I'm sure that I could find at least one where a company with grand ideas for technical innovation went broke because of failure to understand the financial and economic fundamentals of the business. That was in fact the prime driver behind the tech crash in 2001. A successful business leader needs to be able to synthesise an understanding of all aspects of the business so putting technical ability up on some sort of a pedestal over other aspects of business management is frankly an idiotic attitude.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/7/2010 4:53:34 AM
 A successful business leader needs to be able to synthesise an understanding of all aspects of the business so putting technical ability up on some sort of a pedestal over other aspects of business management is frankly an idiotic attitude.
 
True but where is the synergy when the senior decision makers are nearly all ex-teachers and lawyers working almost exclusively on the advice of academics, accountants, economists and career political hacks, as in the case of governments?
 
By the way what is wrong with "putting technical ability up on some sort of a pedestal over other aspects of business management"?  Technical ability, within a relevant field, should be a prerequisite to any senior business management role.  How on earth can anyone make high level decisions about things in which they have limited if any understanding?  How can you "synthesise an understanding of all aspects of the business", when you have gaping holes in your knowledge and experience concerning the business you are meant to be managing?
 
There are a multitude of courses and programs available to train people with proven technical ability in the aspects of business management (I should know my training calendar is full of them).  What is there to train people with business backgrounds in technical matters, considering that technical qualifications and / or experience are prerequisite for post grad technical courses and programs?  There is a school of thought that a manager is there to manage and doesn't need to know how the work is done, let alone know how to do the work.  In my experience managers who fall in that category have been dangerously incompetent as a good manager will always know what their people are doing, how they do it and above all what the company does and how it does it.  If a manager works on the assumption they don't need to know it is a sure sign of laziness, arrogance and in all likelihood a lack of intellect.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/7/2010 5:04:35 AM
Long story short, by concentating on the short term government and business are short selling the future of the country.  When you look at the success stories you find long term vision and leadership, something sadly lacking in Austarlia at times.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/7/2010 5:51:40 AM
True but where is the synergy when the senior decision makers are nearly all ex-teachers and lawyers working almost exclusively on the advice of academics, accountants, economists and career political hacks, as in the case of governments?

Isn't that just another arguement for Government getting out of the way and letting business do it's thing, as I have always argued? You are the one constantly complaining that the Government hasn't done anything for you lately, how about asking instead for the Government to get out of the way of industry an letting it do its thing?
 
In any case if you think you can do a better job then run for office or join the public service. If you don't want to do that at least come up with some sort of intelligent suggestion on governance that involves you actually knowing what you are talking about instead of subscribing to populist economic theories that have been proven not to work. Otherwise stop the constant whinging, its getting very old.
 
By the way what is wrong with "putting technical ability up on some sort of a pedestal over other aspects of business management"?  Technical ability, within a relevant field, should be a prerequisite to any senior business management role.  How on earth can anyone make high level decisions about things in which they have limited if any understanding?  How can you "synthesise an understanding of all aspects of the business", when you have gaping holes in your knowledge and experience concerning the business you are meant to be managing?
 
Another good reason for letting the free market rip. You've just provided an example of where a manager failed to grasp the technical side of his business and his company learned the lesson through lost market share to competitors. If as you say technical ability is the be all and end all, the market will prove your point by weeding out those companies that fail in that regard. In contrast your solution is to suggest going back to an economy dominated by government business enterprises that end up being dominated by many of the sort of public servants that you so despise, or private industries like the Australian defence industry that expect to be tit fed from the public purse. If the people in these industries were are so good then they won't mind having to look after themselves in a competitive environment, because they will know that they are good enough to compete.
 
Are you good enough to compete Volkodav, or are you just worried that in a competitive environment they might import some South Korean to do it better for the same price?

There are a multitude of courses and programs available to train people with proven technical ability in the aspects of business management (I should know my training calendar is full of them).  What is there to train people with business backgrounds in technical matters, considering that technical qualifications and / or experience are prerequisite for post grad technical courses and programs?  There is a school of thought that a manager is there to manage and doesn't need to know how the work is done, let alone know how to do the work.  In my experience managers who fall in that category have been dangerously incompetent as a good manager will always know what their people are doing, how they do it and above all what the company does and how it does it.  If a manager works on the assumption they don't need to know it is a sure sign of laziness, arrogance and in all likelihood a lack of intellect.
 
Like I said, if this is true then let the market prove it.
 
 
By the way, I'm still waiting to hear your theory on how the Government is supposed to build submarines or whatever on a basis that will allow for a viable Australian Defence Industry, without spending any more than the greedy, selfish, affluenza suffering voters who want high speed broadband, baby bonuses, free education, free healthcare, free laptops etc, etc dished up to them courtesy of the money tree that we obviously have growing on The Hill here in Canberra.

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    AG   1/7/2010 7:53:27 AM
Are you good enough to compete Volkodav, or are you just worried that in a competitive environment they might import some South Korean to do it better for the same price?
 
OMG I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard at that line. 
 
Why did you have to choose South Korea as your example?  Boy I can barely breath I'm laughing so much.
 
.......Compete with a South Korean in my field...... is that before or after I finish training them in how to do the job?
 
Why not choose India or China?......no wait a minute I had to spend weeks walking qualified engineers, from both, through how to correctly do simple, component level work we were out sourcing as a cost saving at the time.  In the end we managed to get them up to the minimum standard for certification but they still weren't as good as we were, just cheaper, well thats if you excluded the cost of warranty, inspection and rework.
 
Don't get me wrong, there are some things South Korea, India and China do extremely well and they are getting better at all things all of the time, but there are, whether you choose to believe it or not, some things we still do better and I am pretty good at doing some of those things.
 
I don't know what you do and it's not really any of my business, but from your posts and line of argument I would hazard a guess it has nothing to do with any level of defence technology or for that matter engineering, manufacturing, R&D or T&E.
 
The hypotheticals I post are what ifs, I am interested in the technical aspects, what can be done better with the technology of the time, where it fits with the strategic needs of the time and where we would be now if we had done things differently.  I enjoy reading contributions of alternatives or info I hadn't heard previously.  I am interested in the technical, strategic and follow on effects for the ADF, industry, nation and region.  Having you continually but in with your never changing opinion that whatever was done was the correct choice at the time and that I am an idiot and a whinger for saying "what if" or "why didn't" is some what baffling.  I am interested in stimulating discussions and finding out things I don't know, if I wanted the sort of input you have contributed lately I would join the "John Howard is my Hero, Robert Menzies is my god and anyone who hasn't studied economics is a moron" Page.
 
As my 14 yo would say "no offence intended" but this is getting silly and I will not be baited into posting my resume or discussing specifics of current projects that could land me in the sh!t, even if I am just guessing on some of them.  I choose to predominantly discuss naval equipment decisions from 3 or more decades ago for a reason.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    AG   1/7/2010 8:21:22 AM
By the way, I'm still waiting to hear your theory on how the Government is supposed to build submarines or whatever on a basis that will allow for a viable Australian Defence Industry, without spending any more than the greedy, selfish, affluenza suffering voters who want high speed broadband, baby bonuses, free education, free healthcare, free laptops etc, etc dished up to them courtesy of the money tree that we obviously have growing on The Hill here in Canberra.
 
Ummm.....build 12 subs in batches over two decades, do the same with the 20 OCV (or what ever they are calling them) and build at least 8 new frigates to follow the AWD's or LHD's, wait a minute, isn't that what is being planned at the moment anyway?
 
PS I don't think we are getting the baby bonus this time but didn't budget for it anyway, don't receive any other "middle class" welfare and like you object to it's existence.  Most Australians actually objected to the tax cuts promised in the last election, these cuts are having a far greater bearing on the deficit than the one off stimulus payments.  I would be very happy to see the money tree cut back along with the simplification of the tax system but still including measures to encourage work force participation.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    AG   1/7/2010 8:48:38 AM
In any case if you think you can do a better job then run for office or join the public service. If you don't want to do that at least come up with some sort of intelligent suggestion on governance that involves you actually knowing what you are talking about instead of subscribing to populist economic theories that have been proven not to work. Otherwise stop the constant whinging, its getting very old.
 
Well the APS doesn't pay enough, although my boss and I did have a joke that one of us should go for the DMO equivalent of our function when it was advertised so we could stream line some processes.  I flirted with a number of political parties in my 20's and even joined one based on my respect for one of its elected members but overall was uncomfortable with the attitudes of many involved finding them to be hypocritical or even out right dishonest.
 
Having only studied economics at year twelve and not university I wouldn't know a populist economic theory if it hit me in the face, so if you believe I am suscribing them I'll have to take your word on it.
 
Whinging, I thought I was lecturing and you were whinging.....thanks for putting me straight on that, I obviously need to go and study some economics and business to improve my understanding of important things like that.  Maybe I could do an MBA a former colleague assures me it would be easier than my current studies and would look better on a business card.
 
If at all possible I intend to stay where I am until I retire, I love the work and I am like a kid in a candy store as far as professional development and mentoring goes.  I am extremely glad I took gf's advice and stuck it out instead of joining the APS.  Basically AG I have a very interesting and rewarding career and am proud of the fact I am part of preventing some of the mistakes from the past being repeated.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/7/2010 10:46:40 AM
Ummm.....build 12 subs in batches over two decades, do the same with the 20 OCV (or what ever they are calling them) and build at least 8 new frigates to follow the AWD's or LHD's, wait a minute, isn't that what is being planned at the moment anyway?

Crikey, what a good idea. Who came up with it? Could it have been those bean counting knobs?  I doubt it because from what I saw of the White Paper everything except the existing projects are completely unfunded. Like just about everything that Rudd has promised thus far it ain't going to happen, at least not on that grand a scale, because of the reason that I have already given you. Australia just doesn't want to spend enough.  

 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/7/2010 11:05:49 AM
OMG I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard at that line. 

Why did you have to choose South Korea as your example?  Boy I can barely breath I'm laughing so much.


.......Compete with a South Korean in my field...... is that before or after I finish training them in how to do the job?


Why not choose India or China?......no wait a minute I had to spend weeks walking qualified engineers, from both, through how to correctly do simple, component level work we were out sourcing as a cost saving at the time.  In the end we managed to get them up to the minimum standard for certification but they still weren't as good as we were, just cheaper, well thats if you excluded the cost of warranty, inspection and rework.

Don't get me wrong, there are some things South Korea, India and China do extremely well and they are getting better at all things all of the time, but there are, whether you choose to believe it or not, some things we still do better and I am pretty good at doing some of those things.

I don't know what you do and it's not really any of my business, but from your posts and line of argument I would hazard a guess it has nothing to do with any level of defence technology or for that matter engineering, manufacturing, R&D or T&E.

Oh, it was just a country that I plucked out of the air but it sounds like you aren't that worried, so what then is your problem with open tender acquisition on the part of the CoA? Is it the Germans? The Americans? The Swedes? Are those the ones that are going to threaten your well payed (by the rest of us) time in the toy shop until you retire? Well the news is buddy that it isn't about your career aspirations, it is about spending Australian's hard earned money on equipment for the ADF that works. If that means that you have to be competitive on the open market, like the rest of the private sector is, then so be it. This sort of crap really gets up my nose, the government constantly has to deal with self interested industry types with an over developed sense of entitlement sticking their fat hands out for the taxpayers dollar, then blaming their screw ups on everybody but themselves. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves.  

The hypotheticals I post are what ifs, I am interested in the technical aspects, what can be done better with the technology of the time, where it fits with the strategic needs of the time and where we would be now if we had done things differently.  I enjoy reading contributions of alternatives or info I hadn't heard previously.  I am interested in the technical, strategic and follow on effects for the ADF, industry, nation and region.  Having you continually but in with your never changing opinion that whatever was done was the correct choice at the time and that I am an idiot and a whinger for saying "what if" or "why didn't" is some what baffling.  I am interested in stimulating discussions and finding out things I don't know, if I wanted the sort of input you have contributed lately I would join the "John Howard is my Hero, Robert Menzies is my god and anyone who hasn't studied economics is a moron" Page.
 
I'm interested in discussions about alternatives too, but only those that will realistically work. If you don't want me to bring that bit of reality to your fantasies then I won't and my, you can feel free to talk to Bluie about how it would be really, really cool if Australia could buy four CBG's around a fully functional Nimitz class carrier if you like. I will continue to call you on your blatent self interested promotion of defence industry rent seeking though as was the case on the patrol boat shithouse and the various Collins Class threads. This is a discussion board, not a PR brochure for the Australian defence industry, and people here deserve to hear both sides of the story.


 

 


 

As my 14 yo would say "no offence intended" but this is getting silly and I will not be baited into posting my resume or discussing specifics of current projects that could land me in the sh!t, even if I am just guessing on some of them.  I choose to predominantly discuss naval equipment decisions from 3 or more decades ago for a reason.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    From Ship Bucket   1/10/2010 5:53:16 AM
AusDDGSheffield_DDL1AU.gif Aus DDG Sheffield_ DDL 1.gif picture by shipbuckethttp://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/Never%20build%20designs/AusDDGSheffield_DDL1AU.gif?t=1263120301" galleryimg="no" />
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics