We all know that journalists often get the detail on Defense matters grossly wrong and sometimes exaggerate, but that doesn't change the fact that their have been massive screw ups that are on the public record which have cost taxpayers a bomb and left us with a submarine fleet that has considerably reduced effectiveness for extended periods of time. Ian McPheredan didn't invent the fact that: the original combat system didn't work and which needed to be replaced at vast expense; the hulls on the early boats had defects that reduce their acoustic performance; the pressure hoses on one of the subs blew out and nearly sunk it, requiring the entire fleet to operate at a shallower depth than would have otherwise the case; and, this latest stuff up with the engines.

Those problems are the result of poor performance on the part of Defence, the ASC and various subcontractors. Irrespective of whether or not McPheradan has gotten a bit too enthusiastic and liberal with the facts at times, he has really done a the Australian public a service in exposing the disgraceful problems with this project over the last decade. I don't know if any heads have rolled over what has happened, but as a taxpayer I hope that a few key staff in these organisations have been assigned to the mail room for the rest of their careers for their roll in it.

I have a couple of questions AG.

How much do you think negative press has adversely effected the ability of the RAN to recruit new submariners as well as the moral of serving submariners? 

 

Do you think low moral and being over worked, due to being short staffed, could be a major reason for the difficulty the RAN has retaining submariners?

 

Would you be of the opinion that when an owner / operator of an asset is not in a position to effectively maintain and operate that asset to the degree that they push many of the tasks of ownership, they have not been able to satisfactorily carry out themselves, back onto a contractor, without providing the extra resource need for the tasks, that it would be bad form to then criticize and sanction the contractor for taking too long and costing too much?

 

If ASC is the problem why are so many other programs ASC has nothing to do with, many far less complex that submarines, in serious difficulty?

 

It is a vicious circle AG and at the moment all of the blame is being pushed onto the middle man when there is blame aplenty to be shared.  I know people in subs who should not be in the jobs they are in but I also know CoA persons whose behaviour and professionalism leaves much to be desired and would likely have resulted in severe disciplinary action, if not termination, in private enterprise.

 

At the end of the day ASC is government owned and the DMO is a government body, QED it is the duty of the government of the day to knock their heads together and fix the problem(s).   Cutting the budget and forcing ASC to make a couple of hundred people redundant isn't the solution, do you realy think that the entrenched oxygen thieves are the ones who would be shown the door?  Perhaps, rather, they would protect themselves by sacrificing others (possibly the ones who made them look bad by not towing the line), instead of removing a much smaller number of very highly paid, very long serving and well connected individuals who inspite of their protestations, do very little, if anything of real value?  Could these cuts not actually further degrade ASC's performance by removing a substantial number of effective people leaving fewer to carry and work around the dead wood?

 

I made my escape prior to the current crap but it still makes me extremely angry to see good people knocked for the failings of a handful of Pandas who are having a lovers spat with another gang of Pandas who control the purse strings.  Elements of ASC have gone above and beyond working with the customer, the operators and SME's (Subject Matter Experts) to fix problems not of their making but this is ignored due to the inability of others, with much more power and say, to keep everything else on track.  Sub's don't need a firehose put through them or more audits for that matter, what they need is competent professionals (SME's) to be inserted in all critical areas to mentor those who are worth the effort and to flag those who need to be shot.  Do this and the capability is saved, fail and all is lost, maybe not now but eventually.

Woo hoo, things are looking up, the super and pension funds have recovered remarkably well in the last quarter and fingers crossed the recently re-employed "dead wood / road blocks" will now re-retire letting the guys who know what needs to be done do it!

 

I now have much higher hopes for a great many projects.

the good thing is that ASC have got a decent bloke at the helm with Kim Gilles.  you scored a winner

Oh, hadn't heard anything as of 4:30 this arvo, can you give me any info on him?  He's not the Bae guy they were talking about is he?

 

I, along with others, have been getting a little frustrated at the number of retired "old mates" who had been parachuted into high paying contract, consultancy and even management positions since the GFC clipped their wings.  They seem dead set determined to force us to repeat every mistake they made on earlier projects rather than simply learn from their failures and move on to better solutions, and thats the better ones.  Far to many of them are still in retirement mode and really don't give a stuff, just going through the paces and collecting their ridiculous salaries for the minimum of effort.  You can see it in their eyes during meetings and working groups, they really don't want to be there and the solutions they are looking for are band aids to keep them in gravy until their super recovers.