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: Stephen Smith for Defence
Aussiegunneragain    9/11/2010 2:14:11 AM
JG announced her Cabinet today and Stephen Smith has been moved from Foreign Ministry to Defence, to make way for Rudd. He comes across as a nice enough guy, but what has he ever done? Rudd did his job for him last term and I suspect that he was only there because Rudd knew he would be a pushover. I don't know that he will be tough enough to be effective in Defence. They put Combet, the best prospect for Defence, into Climate Change, which probably indictates the level of priority they are giving to each. Concerning.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Volkodav    AD    10/8/2010 8:32:45 PM
2007 was when they made the AWD decision so any other date that you specify is irrelevant. Had we decided at that time "lets build a few streched ANZACS instead of AWDs" we wouldn't have been buying AWDs, we would have been buying stretched general purpose frigates which wouldn't have met the requirement for an AWD. CEAFAR wasn't proven at that time so we couldn't have relied on it as an upgrade and we probably still wouldn't have had command facilities What would be the point in that?
 
We needed a decision on a DDG and FFG replacement in the mid 90's, that has nothing to do with the fact that the decision wasn't made until 2007.  The first of six to eight MEKO based FFG / DDG with SAAB 9LV extra VLS a horizon search radar, a 3D air search radar, two helos and two or more firecontrol channels could have been inservice before the first upgraded FFG and provided greater capability for lower cost.  A follow on batch could have been built from 2010 with CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT as original fit and the original batch refitted from 2015 providing more hulls for much less outlay, as well as providing a highly desirable exportable product.
 
What could we have spent the money we didn't need to spend on AEGIS instead, an extra LHD, additional subs to supplement the Collins, more tanks, SPGs, more Tigers, additional deployable ISR, CRAM?
 
As for your other post, what is the relevance of posting about another GP frigate (the F-123) and an AWD which is roughly in the same class of the F-100 that you don't like?

They are both stretched MEKOs and I posted them to demonstrate what could be done based on the existing modular MEKO concept.  By the way, both have extensive command and control facilities.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/8/2010 11:18:21 PM

3. Dont delay the aquisition for so long that you are forced to buy old tech towards the end of its development cycle as the new tech has not been proven.  Replace you gear when it needs replacing with something that is proven but still has the potential to be upgraded through out its intended life cycle.  Don't buy into a dead end.

We can at least agree on this. I think we should have replaced the DDGs with proper AWDs at the turn of the Millenium, the F-100 probably being a good candidate given that the first was rolling off the blocks at around that time. Had we done that we could be taking our time to come up with a more capable replacement from around 2025 or so.
However, as it stands I don't believe that the F-100 should be considered to be a dead-end if it is only going to be good for the next 15 or 20 years. Rather it should be thought of as an interim capability, with a successor being planned reletively soon after delivery - like with the Super Hornets.
 
It was the appropriate choice when the decision was made because it was the quickest and most risk free option to do the job that we need AWDs. Long-term capability growth is important but we shouldn't compromise our short-term security to achieve it. It is entirely possible that we might have a war in the 4 year plus window of difference between the planned entry into service of the F-100 and that of the Baby Burkes. Same goes for the risk of delays to any unproven ANZAC air defence ship.
 
Long-term capability growth doesn't have to occur on one platform, like you said we are planning on replacing the ANZACs with bigger ships anyway so it can be addressed then and if the F-100s can't be upgraded, they can be kept on as second line assets. It isn't any different to what is done now all over the World.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/10/2010 12:10:14 AM
The only real issues I have with the F-100 is the cost and the expectation that it will serve as the principle command and air defence asset in the RAN for three of four decades.
 
Buying four Spainish built F-100s 10 years ago to replace the DDGs would have made sence and instead of upgrading the FFGs we could have had an indiginous program to build something akin to the Danish Absalon flexible support ship.  We could have then designed and built a GP frigate replacement for the ANZACs incorporating the CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT APARs, through to 2030 when the F-100s would be near their use by dates.
 
Everything fell apart because of Keating and Howard delaying projects resulting in the mass block obsolescence of much of our most expensive and difficult to replace gear falling between 2005 and 2015.  Failure to spend in the 90s left us unable to afford to do what we needed to do in the 2000s
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/10/2010 2:21:52 AM

The only real issues I have with the F-100 is the cost and the expectation that it will serve as the principle command and air defence asset in the RAN for three of four decades.

 Buying four Spainish built F-100s 10 years ago to replace the DDGs would have made sence and instead of upgrading the FFGs we could have had an indiginous program to build something akin to the Danish Absalon flexible support ship.  We could have then designed and built a GP frigate replacement for the ANZACs incorporating the CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT APARs, through to 2030 when the F-100s would be near their use by dates.

 Everything fell apart because of Keating and Howard delaying projects resulting in the mass block obsolescence of much of our most expensive and difficult to replace gear falling between 2005 and 2015.  Failure to spend in the 90s left us unable to afford to do what we needed to do in the 2000s


Its less a matter of not being able to afford what we want to do now, its more a matter of an overall lack of commitment to replacing gear on time. The rot started with Hawke and the '87 white paper and the big cuts in defence spending, which resulted in that spending being entrenched in providing middle class welfare.
The decision to buy the F-100s hasn't created the problem and we could afford to fix it by specifying that they are an interim ship, with a more capable follow on asset to come around 10 or 15 years after delivery. I doubt that it will happen though as it would involve taking money off all those "poor" middle class people with their over developed sense of entitlement. 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/11/2010 3:36:48 AM
 I doubt that it will happen though as it would involve taking money off all those "poor" middle class people with their over developed sense of entitlement. 

I have had recent experience with middle class welfare when my better half extended her mat leave to have another child.  We are very close to being better off and quite comfortable if she doesn't go back to work or chooses to take a part time position at a lower level.  The situation makes us both very angry as we now see how families we knew were on lower incomes than us could afford to do so many things we could never justify the expense of, they were being paid more in middle class welfare than they were paying in tax and ending up in a better net position.
 
Its not even a case of women deciding to stay home with the kids as many middle class families pay almost nothing for childcare, half of half of a subsidised fee, so they put their kids in care a couple of times a week to do the shopping, go to the gym, catch up with other mums for latte, or just to have some quality personal time etc. while working mums are less subsidised and see much of their pay going on child care and have no time for any of the soccer mum stuff.
 
Long story short, a quality education for our kids is very important to us so she has booked in her return to work date and our hard earned will be invested in sending our kids to a (cheaper than unsubsidised child care) early learning centre at one of the better schools.  We will just live with the fact that our taxes are subsidising 3D HD TVs for so called battlers in marginal electorates and concentrate on doing the best we can for our kids.  Hopefully we will also provide them with a good example at the same time that hard work and a bit of sacrifice leaves you better off than sitting back and expecting everything to be handed to you on a silver platter.
 
I agree 100% the current system is stuffed and personally believe it encourages people to make decisions based on what gets them the largest hand out, not what is best for their families in the long term.  This is all besides the fact the money would / could be better spent else where.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/11/2010 3:53:11 AM
Its less a matter of not being able to afford what we want to do now, its more a matter of an overall lack of commitment to replacing gear on time. The rot started with Hawke and the '87 white paper and the big cuts in defence spending
 
I personally believe it has pretty much always been the case with the periodic frantic catch ups being the exception.  Lessons are learned, often through blood, decissions are made to improve structures, training and equipment but then time goes by, memories dim and following governments convince themselves that things are different now and the money would be better spent else where.  At the end of the day members of certain demographics will always vote for a check in the post.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/11/2010 4:24:51 AM
The decision to buy the F-100s hasn't created the problem and we could afford to fix it by specifying that they are an interim ship, with a more capable follow on asset to come around 10 or 15 years after delivery
 
There are definate benifits to buying good affordable gear with a set life cycle and replacement plan. 
 
Part of the problem is trying to buy gear with the expectation it will last three or more decades.  This encourages scope creep to address the valid concern that something better will be more than 30 years off.  Scope creep results in schedule and budget drift which means you often end up waiting much longer and paying much more than you should for a capability, not to mention the often resulting capability gap as the old gear wears out before the new gear is ready.
 
Another, often under estimated cost, is personnel.  When an asset is retired before its replacement is ready the personnel are reassigned or retired, their competancies are lost and the training / experience pathways are broken.  The difficulty of rebuilding disbanded crews or even finding enough trained people after a break in training is often a bigger obstacle than building / buying new platforms.
 
A decent interim option can work out cheaper than dispersing personnel as a cost saving measure.
 
The best option is buying assets that are perfectly good enough for now and the coming decade, getting them into service as before their predicessor has retired and preparing to replace them at about the time they need a life extension or major modernisation.  The advanage of this is the perfectly good enough asset tends to be low risk, on time, within budget and when there is a delay the existing asset is not so old and over extended that it can not cover a gap of a couple of years.  All of this avoids capability gaps, interim buys / gap fillers, and the loss of corporate knowledge amongst the operators.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics