This Blog Stops

This blog will stop. I will still cover Australian Defence issues. Everything will be done on my Worldwide War Pigs blog.

Smart Bomblets, Spys and That DMO Employee

Since bomblets are in the news, lets go over what kinds are used.

Dumb bomlets, are dropped from aircraft in containers that break open and cover a square area of ground. They can also be deployed by artillery shells and rockets. They can have as much as a 8-10% dud rate. Which means they can be a risk to friendly troops and civilians. This caused problems as recently as their use in the 2003 Iraq invasion. Since live munitions are color coded with yellow stripes, people that don't know what they are, sometimes pick them up. This was also a concern during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, when food packets that were air dropped for civilians had a similar yellow color. It is yellow, it must contain food.

Smart bomblets, have sensors on them that seek out targets. They have not shown any dud rates on battlefields, including the use of the BLU-108b submunition in Iraq in 2003. Banning them makes no sense. The kind of bomblet used by Australia in a new kind of artillery shell procured by Defence is a smart bomblet. The artillery shell carries two of them. They are a derivative technology of the BLU-108b.

Also this week a mention was given to the use of spies by Australia. It is amusing to think that some can't wrap the concept around their brain that this is a dirty but necessary business. A satellite photo or intercepted signal is important. So are human face to face contacts. Those that don't want to get their pretty loafers dirty doing this kind of work, should consider other employment.

RAAF Amberley is getting ready for bedding down of the Super Hornet. Funds are being setup to get this done. And I still say, that the Super Hornet, will end up making up a majority of the fighter inventory in the future.

While on the topic of aircraft, the Dutch are trying to get an even playing field for their next fighter jet purchase. Could Australia do this with the F-35 JSF? I tend to doubt this. Defence has pulled the wool over the eyes of the new Defence Minister and he seems to be happy with whatever PowerPoint brief shows pretty colors and impressive use of weasel words. Not unlike words and phrases used to sell the Super Hornet to Australia.

For true entertainment, take a look at the DMO (Defence Material Organisation ). This week The Age reports that there has been a DMO employ with a variety of shady dealings that has been medical leave for 18 months. Which when you read both articles, (here and here), it makes you wonder if you would get such preferred treatment where you work, or would you be fired right away? I guess it depends who you know.

And the big news this week

The big Defence news for this week is some silly story of an erroneous press leak from Defence that claimed an entertainer had sex with the troops. The real news that was overlooked was that the retiring boss of DSTO (Defence Science and Technology Organisation) stated that the F-35 is the right choice for Australia.

The sad thing is the guy actually believes it. This is a pretty amazing magic trick of an evaluation seeing as most of the development and testing of the aircraft is yet to be done. Is he misinformed, poorly skilled at making an evaluation, or one of those that once their big decision from their desk has been made, it can't be reversed? I give those as the only choices because there is significant evidence that states that the F-35 program for Australia, at up to $16 billion dollars, shows otherwise.

Recently Lockheed Martin, the company trying to sell the F-35 to Australia, stated that now the jet can be had with a fixed price. Where, price and cost are two different things. Of course this is brought out as a good thing. Until you read the disclaimer that says, unless all parties sign up with the original schedule, that this won't happen. Guess what? There won't be any fixed price on the F-35 any time soon.

One of my internet friends has a great piece on how Lockheed has a pretty good hand on the reins of U.S. Department of Defense and Capital Hill decision making. So how can the industry and political pushing of the F-35 be anything but dishonest?

Business Spectator caps things off by correctly stating that in the coming years, the choices that Defence is making for fighter aircraft will be a big gamble by pretending they are competitive. This becomes more interesting when one looks at the early story of F-22 export efforts.

Meanwhile the head of the Defence Material Organisation (DMO) Greg Combet er I mean Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement made a statement. Sorry I got confused. It seems Mr. Combet is holding the hand of the actual head of the DMO by cleaning up messes that the highest paid civilian in Defence service should have been doing already. There will be a big review of various big dollar Defence projects.

"It will provide scrutiny of the level of project management being applied and will monitor the Government's investment in these military capabilities on behalf of the Australian taxpayer."

Funny. I thought that was the original job the DMO was being paid lots of money for in the first place. That effort by Mr. Combet is a different way of stating that the DMO is a failed organization.

As for the Sunday morning news shows: Again, they don't have a clue.

The years ahead

Defence may be committing to increased spending over the next ten years that includes the new budget for $21.8 billion, but what will the results be? And, will anyone care?

The new white paper will be out some time by the end of the year, but with it's options limited to defence weapons programs already signed for, it's strategic scope may be limited. The recent release of the budget shows that some direction of programs are waiting in the wings for the paper, but don't bank on that paper getting in the way of what is already scheduled in ships, aircraft etc.

Neither political party seems to have a solution. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Minchin stated that the new budget mentions nothing of a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer procurement. This is true. However the program still has questions to answer on how it will be pulled off, so now is not the time to worry about adding yet another ship to a questionably managed program.

Other things that aren't small is budgeting to increase the Army by 3,000 people. With the economy the way it is, will money spent on retention and recruitment be able to keep up?

The current leadership is pretending as if they are organizing things well for Afghanistan. Yet, the air plan there for supporting our troops doesn't seem so hot when the last loss of a trooper was part of a three hour firefight. Consider when air support shows up in these situations the enemy is put to a disadvantage and the fight usually stops. If there was a competent air plan this battle could have been less than one hour instead of three. The confidence one puts in the current leaders to have proper fire support for the troops should be considered low. There is more on the topic: It would be good if the troops had better UAV support. Yes there are procurement plans for improvement and the idea is good: (2005 and 2006). The problem here is that one of the solutions is two years behind schedule and may be axed. Unless the air plan for our expeditionary forces includes better UAV support and organic close air support on-call before an operation even starts, then we can expect more casualties caused for the want of such capability.

As for other big dollar programs, Defence senior leadership seems comfortable with the F-35 for the future at an albatross like $16 billion dollars considering that the risk is high. Boeing should be comfortable with the current F-35 situation as there is talk in the shadows of up to 32 more Super Hornets being planned for if the F-35 delays become worse combined with refirbs of the old classic F-18 not going so well. Added to that: The Growler could even see it's way wearing RAAF colours.

The big news of concern this week? The tax on alcopops and luxury autos. Nothing much about Defence in the Sunday morning news shows and the public has no clue. Not a one.

Off the shelf

MH-60R, "off-the-shelf"

"It is off the shelf, it is proven, it is out there,"stated Lockheed helicopter systems vice-president George Barton when talking about a possible new acquisition by Australia of the MH-60R helicopter for the Navy.

The lust by Defence for high risk ship building and unproven fighter aircraft development aside, when looking at "reducing risk", procurement of off-the-shelf items, those weapons that are already in service with a military organization appear at first glance, the way to go. This may be even more so with the recent announcement by Defence to cut a billion dollars a year in support facilities and people. That is, if the management process can keep up.

This from The Australian is interesting:

Mr Combet has commissioned David Mortimer, chairman of Leighton Holdings and Australia Post, to conduct the review, expected to be handed over in August.

Mr Mortimer, chairman of the Defence Procurement Advisory Board, will be assisted by Major General Tony Fraser, the head of the DMO's Helicopter Systems Division.

Mr Combet wrote the terms of reference for the Mortimer review, which will assess the 2003 Kinnaird review and to what extent its aims have been adopted by Defence.

Mr Mortimer's brief includes an examination of the DMO's financial framework as well as strategies to improve the skills, capacity and accountability of senior DMO staff.

He will examine potential advantages and disadvantages of buying more military equipment "off the shelf" rather than relying on technology specially adapted for the ADF's needs.

As part of Defence cost-cutting measures, the Government ordered a 5 per cent cut this year in the contracts managed by the DMO, which is expected to deliver tens of millions of dollars in savings in 2007-8.

Mr Mortimer will also look at ways to increase local industry's share of the DMO's annual $10billion spend while maintaining a competitive market for equipment and maintenance contracts.

Which also begs a question: If Mr. Fitzgibbon is outsourcing the decision making of DMO to other people so much, why have a DMO leader, especially one that is the highest paid defence civilian at all?

We have been here before (PDF) with "what ails defence". So far, the new leadership is slowly becoming the old leadership. The logic will be: "Look, it works for the U.S., it must be a good system". This was part of the reasoning behind the Super Hornet purchase, the C-17 purchase and so on. Any evaluation of a weapon system for specific needs of the ADF will be limited to what currently exists on the arms market. And as we have seen already, those decisions aren't too rigorous and logical for the needs of a specific armed service but do contain a lot of political point scoring.

Off-the-shelf Super Hornet...In U.S. Navy service=Suitable for RAAF?

With multiple goof ups in weapons procurement such as the infamous SeaSprite helicopter, upgrades for existing Navy frigates, overhaul of the old classic Hornets centre barrel and upgrade of electronic warfare systems of the same to name a few, more "off the shelf" thinking was bound to happen.
Australia is seeing an evaporation of skilled defence engineers and program managers. So in that sense, the future of Australian Defence procurement will be in the hands of the seller. The fox, telling the farmer, the definition of a chicken. This also means that the same foreign seller will be providing large amounts of maintenance and sustainment of the weapon: Off-the-shelf logistics...off-shore logistics. World arms vendors see Australia for what it is: an easy mark.

There is nothing wrong with buying a weapon system off the shelf. For example, the F-22 is such a system.  So is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer.  The meaning here: A Burke class is less risky than the Air Warfare Destroyer program. An F-22 is less risky than the F-35 program.

Some time in the future, the Borg-like octopi of foreign owned defence contractors will have a near complete control over the  way Australian tax dollars for defence projects are authorized and spent. A new Defence White Paper long range plan for the defence of Australia will be limited by what ever lash-up of off-the-shelf systems capability exists in the procurement pipeline and whatever an off-shore vendor states they are able to provide. For example: If the paper comes out and states long range strike is a serious need, well, that day is already past with the poor decision to retire the F-111. Off-the-shelf will have to pretend this need is met by a short range fighter hanging a seriously expensive pair of giga-dollar cruise missiles, a hand full of tankers and a weakling attempt at fighter cover. 

Is this what the Australian tax payer expects when they send their money to Canberra? If rigorous Defense decision making on weapons procurement is dumbed-down to a PowerPoint briefing from the seller, and there is nothing to stop this process, then yes, that will be the future.

The fix is in

It appears that many news organizations just go with whatever Defence feeds them.

After all, why worry? The country is in prosperous times. Look almost anywhere on the street and the last thing most people are concerned about is Defence spending. People accept the fact that it can be screwed up to any level and move on.

The other day I saw the web item by The Australian: F-35 on the money as best frontline jet bet. It was a completely unremarkable piece that didn't challenge what was being stated by Defence. For example it states: "Those who have had the classified brief on the fifth-generation aircraft say it, together with the RAAF's other new aircraft, including airborne early warning aircraft, will enable the air force to retain a technology edge over any foreseeable threat emanating from Southeast Asia."

This sounds fine at first glance except the article doesn't even question who put together this "classified brief". Lockheed Martin, the same people who are trying to make a buck on the project? Did anyone even expect that any briefing, classified or otherwise, would find the F-35 unsuitable? Given the fact that the Defence Minister Mr. Fitzgibbon has gone along with every air combat recommendation provide by Defence it is hard to believe that any briefing would have stated otherwise. In the area of air combat issues, Mr. Fitzgibbon, who has very little knowledge on these matters, is a very useful rubber stamp after being fed a briefing.

The article goes on with some really unbelievable claims that defy explanation considering they come from supposed "experts". For example the article states: "We cannot afford to buy both the F-35 and the F-22 in sufficient numbers to ensure a durable air combat capability. As defence expert Andrew Davies observes, the F-22 would be required only if Australia wanted to attack, on its own, the air defences of major powers. "Operating unilaterally against a major power, especially in a sustained campaign, would require a fleet size rather larger than is currently planned for the RAAF," Davies says."

Where does one start with that? First no one knows what an F-35 will cost. Consider that the United States Air Force still has to come up with money to pay for their full production which given the environment in the U.S. is unlikely to happen. F-35 will cost more if less are ordered. The U.S. Navy has also cut their number of F-35s and there is debate on what the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier deck will look like in the future. So right away, without addressing any technical issues of the aircraft, cost of the F-35 is of concern. While the F-22 may cost more, it won't be double the price of an F-35.

Mr. Davies may need some help in the area of air combat tech as he seems to be grasping at straws or is just not very well informed. F-22 is in fact a defensive aircraft as well as an attack aircraft. A recent Operational Readiness Inspection at Langley Air Force Base, in the U.S. ended up with high marks for the F-22 units involved, including a 221-0 kill ratio in exercises.

Yes F-22 is not available for export. However, the comments by Mr. Davies don't stand up when he puts forward the idea that somehow, the airframe is tied to a decision to do unilateral or multinational operations. This is silly. F-22 foreign military sales briefings and slides prepared by Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Air Force state how foreign sale of the F-22 benefit coalition operations. As for the defence of Australia, war can be incredibly inconvenient in that you will need forces within minutes or hours before an operation can somehow become "unilateral". The fact that the F-22 can cut off and kill threats faster and better than anything on the drawing board is already agreed upon by air combat experts in the U.S. Air Force. Should the defence of Australia depend on a combat roadmap that doesn't quit paint a perfect picture for some policy wonk? War after all, is very ugly.

Where The Australian article becomes even more interesting is when you get the print addition for Monday April 28, 2008. There is more written content which is unremarkable however when you get to page 4 there is the second half of the article showing what was on the web. What is of particular interest is that right across on page 5 in plain view, there is a large advertisement by Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-35, stating how important the F-35 is for Australia.

Funny that with a big paper, the advert owner got to have the advert right across from the newspaper's pro-F-35 article stating the F-35 was best for Australia. To be fair, The Australian Financial Review had the same advert in their publication on the same day. However they had no F-35 article.

So, for the Australian taxpayer, it seems that the fix is in. A $16 billion dollar fix. Of course it is more about money to be gained from the F-35 program than national defence value. That is, if the accounting of money needed for hardware can be believed. Of interest: It has been a month now since the last test flight of an F-35.

-----Note: I am back now and will be doing routine weekly articles.-----

Defence perception, minus reality

The warning signs are there for any thinking person to see. Yet Defence senior leadership keeps rolling along with big, complex defence programs as if they can be successfully completed.

There is an aphorism from a book written by Colonel David Hackworth, a combat veteran of many wars who served in the U.S. Army. In the book About Face he tells the the following story: "A German general from long ago divided his officers into four classes: the clever, the stupid, the industrious and the lazy. The general believed that every officer possessed two of these qualities. The clever and lazy, for example, were suited for command (they'd figure out the easiest way to do a task); the clever and industrious were suited for high-level staff work. The lazy and stupid, he maintained, were an unfortunate by-product of any system and could be slotted in somewhere; but the stupid and industrious were just too dangerous, and the general's standing order was to have them removed from the military completely, the moment they were identified."

Consider the recent speech by The Hon. Greg Combet MP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement. While addressing the Hunter Defence Forum, he mentioned what sounded to be great words of home industry participation opportunity with the assistance of senior defence help. Which by itself sounds good until Mr. Combet states: ..."later this morning the Chief Executive Officer of the DMO, Dr Stephen Gumley, will outline some of the ways that companies can be ‘Defence ready’'.

Here it is that we have a government "portfolio" that is proven to be seriously dysfunctional in the areas of weapons system procurement and program management, ready to step forward and tell others how it's done. Some of the blame for the Defence cost blow-outs over the years point directly to the office of the DMO. This is a warning flag of the first order and should make any taxpayer that helps contribute to over $20 billion a year in Defence spending, cringe. Mr. Combet may mean well, but is he well informed?

Commentator Bruce Haigh stated the other day that: "Fitzgibbon is captive to the lowest common denominator which is now the prevailing culture in the Department of Defence." If so, shouldn't issues like this be handled before letting the same suspects possess decision making ability on billions of other peoples money?

Defence is looking at someday replacing the current submarines in the fleet. However, the Navy has a difficult enough time putting even three of the six submarines in service to sea. Should the taxpayer be asked to fund six new subs years from now only to have half of them tied up to a dock?

The deal for new Navy destroyers will run somewhere over $8 billion dollars. The ink is barely dry on the deal and there are concerns how to pull the program off. For some years now Defence has failed to properly upgrade older warships with new weapons systems. This being the infamous FFG debacle that went over cost yielding frigates that are at risk of not being able to deal with modern threats.

Another recipient of massive defence spending will be the RAAF. Here, in a comedy of errors, the Australian public will end up giving away an aircraft that still had relevant airframe life in it well beyond 2010: the F-111. Next for show, the Australian public is generously handing over a small hand-full of billions trying to upgrade an aircraft that was designed to be thrown away into the trash after 5000 or so flying hours: The old classic F-18. Next, in a snap decision, the Australian public will hand over about $6 billion dollars to purchase a fighter aircraft that, while it will have excellent radar and electronic systems and is safe to fly, doesn't possess the muscular flight power to deal with threats in the region: The F-18F Super Hornet. This of course was to fill a gap that was created by Defence in the first place by selecting the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a no-bid contract. The F-35 has only a few test flight hours on it, has unknown cost issues and is a flat-out unknown product. Here Defence wants us to fork out over $16 billion dollars just for the privilege.

That is the short list. Will senior defence officials be able to shed themselves of the "industrious and stupid" that are throwing away billions of dollars that don't belong to them? The new Defence Minister will have to take more drastic action to clean up the mess in place or risk being part of the problem. For Mr. Fitzgibbon, the honeymoon is over.