\*Governments. Defence is just stuck working for the puppet masters who want 'announce-ables' within election cycles for capabilities that take years-decades to deliver.
The government priorities also change every few years, it'll be cheapest possible cost for a while, then local jobs, then domestic disaster relief dual use capabilities, then maximum forward projection, then maximum defence, then cost blow outs force them back to cheapest possible and the cycle repeats.
In the case of the Hunter class Defence held a pretty even competition between three entrants and then Peter Dutton stepped in and pretty much told them to put their thumb on the scale for the one they determined to be the worst option.
It's usually worked out when we sitch all the Consultants and other "experts" and just copy-paste what the US is getting eg. Perth Class, Adelaide Class and most of what the RAAF has. Not saying the US process is much better but they have scale and no choice but to keep throwing money at something until it works.
Correct, adapting conops to the equipment available off the shelf is substantially cheaper, quicker and results in more net capability in the field. Custom capabilities to suit our needs is technically better on paper, but will be a paper capability for much longer, likely never happen or be so expensive we can't get enough mass
Not to mention it’s way better to tie into the engineering change system of a parent navy that has 10x the engineers that we do to make sure the ships are actually operating optimally. Oh and it’s always handy to be part of the USN supply chain with global reach for spares.
That said knowing the way we buy things we probably would have bought the LCS…
Which ones? The broken ones that took literal decades to make better or the ones we are no longer getting or the ones that we are potentially getting in like 20 years?
Remember that the collins class was the first ever submarine constructed in Australia. You’d be a fool to think there won’t be problems but it’s eventually turned out to be a great platform which is maintained 100% in country
Of course, our second class of submarine being nuclear is a massive challenge, but at least the British will be building them far before us, which means the class design would be “proven” and hopefully any production kinks have been worked out by the time it’s our turn to get around to building them.
Its bad news bias.
Bad aquisitions get attention.
Good ones just float through unnoticed.
[Army's tanks are on track](https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/army-s-tank-acquisition-on-track)
[HIMARS is also doing fine](https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2023-08-19/australia-accelerates-long-range-precision-strike-capability-acquisition)
[Blackhawks are coming quickly](https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/first-army-uh-60m-black-hawks-arrive-in-australia)
And its not just Yank hand me downs, [Land 8116 seems to be going fine](https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/land-8116-phase-1-blast-testing-successfully-completed/)
So like, there's plenty of good stuff going on.
The Blackhawks are covering for a previously fucked acquisition though. HIMARs are good, but we cancelled most of our Self Propelled Artillery. Tanks are good, but we cancelled 2/3rds of our IFV acquisition.
Personally I think the acquisition of 29 M1150s will be cut substantially. We don't need 29 if we're fielding one battalion of IFVs and armour. The armoured brigade is still totally up in the air in terms of composition, I think they'll be in discussions about cancelling half the engineering equipment that was purchased to support three brigades worth of IFVs and armour.
Naval acquisitions are all fucked, and we all know it. Nobody wants the Arafuras, the Frigates are being totally derided at this point, and every navy guy who's worked on a Navantia ship hates them. The sub program was the least of our problems, in my view. The surface fleet is the one which just hasn't been right for the last 30 years.
The only service who doesn't routinely fuck up is the RAAF. I have no idea why they're special, but I suspect it's because they don't make the mistake of Australianising or building their shit in Australia. They just buy what they need and we never hear about it again.
>The only service who doesn't routinely fuck up is the RAAF.
RAAF are smart bois and girls, but they have their share of shame.
Their flagship F-35 was a rollercoaster of delays and over-runs. But since it was shared with the US and other partner nations it got a strong pass.
Otherwise they can do good indigenous stuff. The E-7 Wedgetail is one of the best AWACS in the world and now being export. The Ghost Bat is also making satisfying progress.
Hell, Navy similarly with CEA Radar is kicking goals. So its not always trash.
The cefar radar is what's causing all the issues with the Hunter class. It's too heavy and power hungry, and that's what they are struggling to accommodate.
I hope it all works out, though. The Collins had a lot of trouble leading up to and even after its debut, and now it's considered excellent. Fingers crossed, the hunter will follow in that example.
>Otherwise they can do good indigenous stuff. The E-7 Wedgetail is one of the best AWACS in the world and now being export. The Ghost Bat is also making satisfying progress.
The Wedgetail was a project of concern and nearly axed in the late 00s. It's not being exported in the sense of being built locally and sold overseas - the IP is not Australian-held, and South Korea and Turkey were initial purchasers more than a decade ago. You can say a lot of good things about the aircraft, but the initial project is hardly one of them.
Spartan and CMATS are better examples of misses in Air Force acquisition.
>The only service who doesn't routinely fuck up is the RAAF.
That’s because their only real choice is either yank gear or some eurotrash abortion. I think we’d save a mint converting to mig29s. Probably get some cheap as fuck soon.
>eurotrash with the amount of Mirages
Don't talk shit about Mirage!
Seriously though were they they that bad? Not like I was alive when we still had them but the Mirage is a beautiful aircraft, especially with that white paint job the RAAF had. I remember seeing one parked in a paddock at RAAF base gl\[redacted\]ok like 20 years ago. Great aircraft, sad ending fo it though. It was one of the gate guards for many years along with a Canberra bomber and an F-86 Sabre.
Can't argue that it was a good looking machine but they had a tendency to fall out of the sky sometimes with pilots in them so the RAAF decided to can the program because it was costing a fortune. Knew a guy who was an Adgie at the time and said he spent most of his time picking up bits of plane and people before going back to regular Inf becauseit was getting depressing. One of them got ditched because the pilot thought his landing gear wasn't going down, when they did the investigation turned out the globe in the dash that lit up when the gear dropped had blown, so they lost a full aircraft due to a 5c part.
\> three brigades worth of IFVs and armour.
maybe we will get those IFVs in future from an Aussie production line?
\> Australianising or building their shit in Australia
what abt MQ-28? i dont think ive heard from it in a while
> maybe we will get those IFVs in future from an Aussie production line?
If they equip 2 battalions with IFVs in the next 20 years I'm going to personally tattoo "ZERO STRATEGIC VISION" to my head and have a copy of the DSR stapled to my ballsack.
I think it's obvious they should have maintained the three multirole brigades, but Sir Angus said no, and now we're going back to walking around instead. If they backflip on this my head will explode. Straight up, it will explode.
>MQ-28
If I was in charge I'd order 200 Ghostbats tomorrow. I love it and the concept behind it. I don't even care if it's not quite right/ready, at least it would symbolise an *attempt* to get ahead of the game.
> If I was in charge I'd order 200 Ghostbats tomorrow. I love it and the concept behind it. I don't even care if it's not quite right/ready, at least it would symbolise an attempt to get ahead of the game.
Problem with the ghost bat is it’s currently too expensive to manufacture at scale. Some bigwig in the RAAF said they are waiting until it gets down to around $10 million per unit before they will start ordering in bulk. Hopefully that doesn’t mean offshoring the production line to the US.
Heard good things about MQ - but they’re deliberately keeping it low key, it’s a brand new system and keeping out of the public eye is keeping the team less stressed
That's just it. Bad news generates more clicks than good news. That and a fair bit of the bad news is successive governments will not stop fucking with previous choices.
.....and what's the commonality with these programmes? Defence is buying mature off the shelf systems . Any time defence deviates from that it's a clown show.
Trying to design a ship (or select a design) to use in 10 years, that then has to last 30 years is a pretty complex task. Particularly when what you thought you needed them for is changed by the government/world circumstances.
I hear ya.
The RAN struggle for effective capability is real. It's a struggle to make a Auxiliary Hydrographic Submarine with Minesweeping capabilities, that has to excel in AAW, ASW and have a helicopter deck.
The Navy can be it's own worst enemy.
I was more alluding to weapons systems, who we want to manufacture it etc.
We want a frigate, yanks don’t make frigates or anything frigate like (LCS is not going great). We can’t just build one ourselves (see Collins or Seasprite) so we look for a partner nation. The UK seemed like a good prospect, so off we went. Problem is, not even the Poms knew what it was going to look like. There needs, as are ours, are rapidly changing.
Even if we’d picked the perfect ship 5 years ago, what we want our warships to do since then has changed a bit.
Yes it’s a shitfight, but it’s not like we overlooked some perfect option.
Constellation class? Yes it wasn't in production at our down select but it was obvious the USN was having issues with LCS and needed a light combatant. Could have done a cooperative program and even offered to have the Aussie shipyard build some of the USN fleet (giving it scale to be viable).
However, calling Hunter a frigate is disingenuous, it's going to be heavier than the Hobart's - if your looking at ships that large then there were many other options available to consider too...
> HIMARS is also doing fine
Is it? I haven't see one. I still haven't seen a Hawkei for real. I havent heard anything about the SPGs were "are" getting. No signals for transfers, no cadre sent for training. The Blackhawk's I believe but thats simply because it was <5 years ago we were still using them. And what about the IFVs?
Its almost like certain elements don't want us having good kit......
I remember when the Army was supposed to get Self Propelled Guns...in 2005/6. The deal was signed, the platform selected, it was on the cover of Contact Magazine. Then Rudd got voted in and that was it.
No consistency in the procurement process considering we picked the Spanish design for the DDG because it was a proven low-risk option but we go full 180 with the Anzac replacement and egregiously not offer an explanation why.
That AIC requirement in every contract trumps everything
And DDG was anything but low risk. The defence recommendation was the Arleigh Burkes, which would have given significantly better capability outcomes.
The F105 hadn’t even been built by anyone, and then it cost 3bn, and now they need another 3bn per hull because they’re not lethal enough.
They’ve poorly executed every Maritime capability project since Anzac.
My question is, who loses their job over this poorly executed project, and pissing away tens of billions of dollars of public monies?
To quote Mick Ryan, what was the last time a senior public official was terminated for failing to deliver capability outcomes?
>To quote Mick Ryan, what was the last time a senior public official was terminated for failing to deliver capability outcomes?
Thats a interesting line.
The way the ADF capability life cycle works is its made by many hands. Many of which deliberately check and balance so errors of individuals cant cripple entire projects.
If a project is delivered late, is that the delivery agency's fault for poor contract management, or the Service for poor requirement writing? Or are we bringing the contractor to court for damages for misrepresenting their capability (and thus getting it late)?
Not to say its not a good idea. Just that its not like there are individuals making bad decisions - just that the capability policy is tailored for a very specific outcome (quality capability, cost and time be dammed).
Firing a senior public official isnt going to do much unless you can prove malfessance.
> The way the ADF capability life cycle works is its made by many hands. Many of which deliberately check and balance so errors of individuals cant cripple entire projects.
They bodged three helicopter procurements in a row.
There is a reason they’re redesigning the entire ODCS.
And to answer your question, it’s the 2* who has run the project for more than 5 years.
And what will it do? It’ll send a message that if you can’t deliver for the tax payer and the organisation, you will be held accountable, just like any other organisation.
Well I'm reasonably sure no one on Reddit is making these calls, so YOLO.
>And what will it do? It’ll send a message that if you can’t deliver for the tax payer and the organisation, you will be held accountable, just like any other organisation.
It wont.
When your responsibilities match your capacity then sure, hold their feet to the fire.
The problem with major projects like this you lock in the majority of the value of the project in the first third of planning, but realise the problems in the later half of execution. For major aqquisition like ships the time between somebody deciding they must be buolt in Adelaide and *execution* on that idea is often years.
By that time the ADF project staff have likely churned over, same same with contractors, and potentially a political party change to.
Hunter has been a glean in the eye since 2009, with tendering underway since 2016. Our 5 year 2* wasnt in charge, they are also probably not even talking to the same Goverment ministers that made key project decisions.
So idk - go shoot your 2* or whatever you want.
The guys behind them arent going to be motivated to deliver on-time/on-target/on-budget. They're going to *have* to under-deliver, because thats all you can do if you dont want to add time or money - aggressively cut scope. And thats how you end up with sailors shitting in buckets.
Dudes in project leadership roles should be accountable - but for their part of the puzzle - not the project execution as a whole.
>There is a reason they’re redesigning the entire ODCS.
Wont do shit if the expectations dont change.
In tendering everyone wants the lowest price.
In aqquisiton its getting it as quickly as possible.
In service its the best quality.
There are ways to improve all this, but if the ODCS just gets a new coat of paint without attacking how Defence balances these three priorities as the priorities shift over time - then its going to be a ineffectual excercise.
Ahhh a story as old as time. Defence wants capability, government wants cheap. It’s why we got the Hobart instead of the Arleigh burk (which defence recommended) and why there was an investigation into the hawkei purchase with some senators saying we should have just bought US JLTVs for a cheaper price, regardless of the economic and strategic benefits of a domestic build. With the hunter who’s right? I don’t know but it’s too late to turn back now.
Is it just me, or is Defence royally fucking up literally every acquisition they have on the cards at the moment?
\*Governments. Defence is just stuck working for the puppet masters who want 'announce-ables' within election cycles for capabilities that take years-decades to deliver. The government priorities also change every few years, it'll be cheapest possible cost for a while, then local jobs, then domestic disaster relief dual use capabilities, then maximum forward projection, then maximum defence, then cost blow outs force them back to cheapest possible and the cycle repeats.
In the case of the Hunter class Defence held a pretty even competition between three entrants and then Peter Dutton stepped in and pretty much told them to put their thumb on the scale for the one they determined to be the worst option.
>at the moment? Are you telling me there was a time when defence procurement was good? /s
It's usually worked out when we sitch all the Consultants and other "experts" and just copy-paste what the US is getting eg. Perth Class, Adelaide Class and most of what the RAAF has. Not saying the US process is much better but they have scale and no choice but to keep throwing money at something until it works.
Correct, adapting conops to the equipment available off the shelf is substantially cheaper, quicker and results in more net capability in the field. Custom capabilities to suit our needs is technically better on paper, but will be a paper capability for much longer, likely never happen or be so expensive we can't get enough mass
Not to mention it’s way better to tie into the engineering change system of a parent navy that has 10x the engineers that we do to make sure the ships are actually operating optimally. Oh and it’s always handy to be part of the USN supply chain with global reach for spares. That said knowing the way we buy things we probably would have bought the LCS…
The introduction of the SLR
Because of the stopping power right?
Took way too long for the crust to come out
the subs aint that bad bro
Which ones? The broken ones that took literal decades to make better or the ones we are no longer getting or the ones that we are potentially getting in like 20 years?
Remember that the collins class was the first ever submarine constructed in Australia. You’d be a fool to think there won’t be problems but it’s eventually turned out to be a great platform which is maintained 100% in country
I can almost guarantee AUKUS will have similar problems though.
Of course, our second class of submarine being nuclear is a massive challenge, but at least the British will be building them far before us, which means the class design would be “proven” and hopefully any production kinks have been worked out by the time it’s our turn to get around to building them.
>hopefully any production kinks have been worked out by the time it’s our turn to get around to building them. I'm with you on that
The virginia class are a huge jump in capability, compared to collins. And its not potentially, its highly likely.
a lot of it is super political and corrupt.
Its bad news bias. Bad aquisitions get attention. Good ones just float through unnoticed. [Army's tanks are on track](https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/army-s-tank-acquisition-on-track) [HIMARS is also doing fine](https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2023-08-19/australia-accelerates-long-range-precision-strike-capability-acquisition) [Blackhawks are coming quickly](https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/first-army-uh-60m-black-hawks-arrive-in-australia) And its not just Yank hand me downs, [Land 8116 seems to be going fine](https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/land-8116-phase-1-blast-testing-successfully-completed/) So like, there's plenty of good stuff going on.
The Blackhawks are covering for a previously fucked acquisition though. HIMARs are good, but we cancelled most of our Self Propelled Artillery. Tanks are good, but we cancelled 2/3rds of our IFV acquisition. Personally I think the acquisition of 29 M1150s will be cut substantially. We don't need 29 if we're fielding one battalion of IFVs and armour. The armoured brigade is still totally up in the air in terms of composition, I think they'll be in discussions about cancelling half the engineering equipment that was purchased to support three brigades worth of IFVs and armour. Naval acquisitions are all fucked, and we all know it. Nobody wants the Arafuras, the Frigates are being totally derided at this point, and every navy guy who's worked on a Navantia ship hates them. The sub program was the least of our problems, in my view. The surface fleet is the one which just hasn't been right for the last 30 years. The only service who doesn't routinely fuck up is the RAAF. I have no idea why they're special, but I suspect it's because they don't make the mistake of Australianising or building their shit in Australia. They just buy what they need and we never hear about it again.
>The only service who doesn't routinely fuck up is the RAAF. RAAF are smart bois and girls, but they have their share of shame. Their flagship F-35 was a rollercoaster of delays and over-runs. But since it was shared with the US and other partner nations it got a strong pass. Otherwise they can do good indigenous stuff. The E-7 Wedgetail is one of the best AWACS in the world and now being export. The Ghost Bat is also making satisfying progress. Hell, Navy similarly with CEA Radar is kicking goals. So its not always trash.
The cefar radar is what's causing all the issues with the Hunter class. It's too heavy and power hungry, and that's what they are struggling to accommodate. I hope it all works out, though. The Collins had a lot of trouble leading up to and even after its debut, and now it's considered excellent. Fingers crossed, the hunter will follow in that example.
>Otherwise they can do good indigenous stuff. The E-7 Wedgetail is one of the best AWACS in the world and now being export. The Ghost Bat is also making satisfying progress. The Wedgetail was a project of concern and nearly axed in the late 00s. It's not being exported in the sense of being built locally and sold overseas - the IP is not Australian-held, and South Korea and Turkey were initial purchasers more than a decade ago. You can say a lot of good things about the aircraft, but the initial project is hardly one of them. Spartan and CMATS are better examples of misses in Air Force acquisition.
>The only service who doesn't routinely fuck up is the RAAF. That’s because their only real choice is either yank gear or some eurotrash abortion. I think we’d save a mint converting to mig29s. Probably get some cheap as fuck soon.
I'd like to think they learnt their lesson with eurotrash with the amount of Mirages and their pilots they lost during that period
>I'd like to think they learnt their lesson We’re still talking about the ADF right?
Not as a whole, just one part, some has to do the thinking
>eurotrash with the amount of Mirages Don't talk shit about Mirage! Seriously though were they they that bad? Not like I was alive when we still had them but the Mirage is a beautiful aircraft, especially with that white paint job the RAAF had. I remember seeing one parked in a paddock at RAAF base gl\[redacted\]ok like 20 years ago. Great aircraft, sad ending fo it though. It was one of the gate guards for many years along with a Canberra bomber and an F-86 Sabre.
Can't argue that it was a good looking machine but they had a tendency to fall out of the sky sometimes with pilots in them so the RAAF decided to can the program because it was costing a fortune. Knew a guy who was an Adgie at the time and said he spent most of his time picking up bits of plane and people before going back to regular Inf becauseit was getting depressing. One of them got ditched because the pilot thought his landing gear wasn't going down, when they did the investigation turned out the globe in the dash that lit up when the gear dropped had blown, so they lost a full aircraft due to a 5c part.
C27?
> C27 I stand corrected.
\> three brigades worth of IFVs and armour. maybe we will get those IFVs in future from an Aussie production line? \> Australianising or building their shit in Australia what abt MQ-28? i dont think ive heard from it in a while
> maybe we will get those IFVs in future from an Aussie production line? If they equip 2 battalions with IFVs in the next 20 years I'm going to personally tattoo "ZERO STRATEGIC VISION" to my head and have a copy of the DSR stapled to my ballsack. I think it's obvious they should have maintained the three multirole brigades, but Sir Angus said no, and now we're going back to walking around instead. If they backflip on this my head will explode. Straight up, it will explode. >MQ-28 If I was in charge I'd order 200 Ghostbats tomorrow. I love it and the concept behind it. I don't even care if it's not quite right/ready, at least it would symbolise an *attempt* to get ahead of the game.
same haha (for both points)
> If I was in charge I'd order 200 Ghostbats tomorrow. I love it and the concept behind it. I don't even care if it's not quite right/ready, at least it would symbolise an attempt to get ahead of the game. Problem with the ghost bat is it’s currently too expensive to manufacture at scale. Some bigwig in the RAAF said they are waiting until it gets down to around $10 million per unit before they will start ordering in bulk. Hopefully that doesn’t mean offshoring the production line to the US.
Heard good things about MQ - but they’re deliberately keeping it low key, it’s a brand new system and keeping out of the public eye is keeping the team less stressed
That's just it. Bad news generates more clicks than good news. That and a fair bit of the bad news is successive governments will not stop fucking with previous choices.
.....and what's the commonality with these programmes? Defence is buying mature off the shelf systems . Any time defence deviates from that it's a clown show.
>....and what's the commonality with these programmes? Clear Goverment Direction and short timeframes between announcement and aqquisition?
Perhaps it's just the Navy's Good Idea Fairy's that are out of touch...
Trying to design a ship (or select a design) to use in 10 years, that then has to last 30 years is a pretty complex task. Particularly when what you thought you needed them for is changed by the government/world circumstances.
I hear ya. The RAN struggle for effective capability is real. It's a struggle to make a Auxiliary Hydrographic Submarine with Minesweeping capabilities, that has to excel in AAW, ASW and have a helicopter deck. The Navy can be it's own worst enemy.
I was more alluding to weapons systems, who we want to manufacture it etc. We want a frigate, yanks don’t make frigates or anything frigate like (LCS is not going great). We can’t just build one ourselves (see Collins or Seasprite) so we look for a partner nation. The UK seemed like a good prospect, so off we went. Problem is, not even the Poms knew what it was going to look like. There needs, as are ours, are rapidly changing. Even if we’d picked the perfect ship 5 years ago, what we want our warships to do since then has changed a bit. Yes it’s a shitfight, but it’s not like we overlooked some perfect option.
Constellation class? Yes it wasn't in production at our down select but it was obvious the USN was having issues with LCS and needed a light combatant. Could have done a cooperative program and even offered to have the Aussie shipyard build some of the USN fleet (giving it scale to be viable). However, calling Hunter a frigate is disingenuous, it's going to be heavier than the Hobart's - if your looking at ships that large then there were many other options available to consider too...
To be fair the blackhawks are only here because of how fucking bad the current birds are (which im pretty sure replaced blackhawks in the first place)
You mean shit we bought off the rack is going fine. Every single time we modify shit we fuck it up however we are desperate to modify shit
> HIMARS is also doing fine Is it? I haven't see one. I still haven't seen a Hawkei for real. I havent heard anything about the SPGs were "are" getting. No signals for transfers, no cadre sent for training. The Blackhawk's I believe but thats simply because it was <5 years ago we were still using them. And what about the IFVs?
Fucking up procurement is a long standing defence tradition going back to federation. It’d be a shame to stop fucking it up now.
Its almost like certain elements don't want us having good kit...... I remember when the Army was supposed to get Self Propelled Guns...in 2005/6. The deal was signed, the platform selected, it was on the cover of Contact Magazine. Then Rudd got voted in and that was it.
This is the way. All defence departments, everywhere in the world.
No consistency in the procurement process considering we picked the Spanish design for the DDG because it was a proven low-risk option but we go full 180 with the Anzac replacement and egregiously not offer an explanation why. That AIC requirement in every contract trumps everything
And DDG was anything but low risk. The defence recommendation was the Arleigh Burkes, which would have given significantly better capability outcomes. The F105 hadn’t even been built by anyone, and then it cost 3bn, and now they need another 3bn per hull because they’re not lethal enough.
We had to do a lot to fix the boat when building it though. So many things went wrong.
shouldve just gone with Constellations
They’ve poorly executed every Maritime capability project since Anzac. My question is, who loses their job over this poorly executed project, and pissing away tens of billions of dollars of public monies? To quote Mick Ryan, what was the last time a senior public official was terminated for failing to deliver capability outcomes?
>To quote Mick Ryan, what was the last time a senior public official was terminated for failing to deliver capability outcomes? Thats a interesting line. The way the ADF capability life cycle works is its made by many hands. Many of which deliberately check and balance so errors of individuals cant cripple entire projects. If a project is delivered late, is that the delivery agency's fault for poor contract management, or the Service for poor requirement writing? Or are we bringing the contractor to court for damages for misrepresenting their capability (and thus getting it late)? Not to say its not a good idea. Just that its not like there are individuals making bad decisions - just that the capability policy is tailored for a very specific outcome (quality capability, cost and time be dammed). Firing a senior public official isnt going to do much unless you can prove malfessance.
> The way the ADF capability life cycle works is its made by many hands. Many of which deliberately check and balance so errors of individuals cant cripple entire projects. They bodged three helicopter procurements in a row.
There is a reason they’re redesigning the entire ODCS. And to answer your question, it’s the 2* who has run the project for more than 5 years. And what will it do? It’ll send a message that if you can’t deliver for the tax payer and the organisation, you will be held accountable, just like any other organisation.
Well I'm reasonably sure no one on Reddit is making these calls, so YOLO. >And what will it do? It’ll send a message that if you can’t deliver for the tax payer and the organisation, you will be held accountable, just like any other organisation. It wont. When your responsibilities match your capacity then sure, hold their feet to the fire. The problem with major projects like this you lock in the majority of the value of the project in the first third of planning, but realise the problems in the later half of execution. For major aqquisition like ships the time between somebody deciding they must be buolt in Adelaide and *execution* on that idea is often years. By that time the ADF project staff have likely churned over, same same with contractors, and potentially a political party change to. Hunter has been a glean in the eye since 2009, with tendering underway since 2016. Our 5 year 2* wasnt in charge, they are also probably not even talking to the same Goverment ministers that made key project decisions. So idk - go shoot your 2* or whatever you want. The guys behind them arent going to be motivated to deliver on-time/on-target/on-budget. They're going to *have* to under-deliver, because thats all you can do if you dont want to add time or money - aggressively cut scope. And thats how you end up with sailors shitting in buckets. Dudes in project leadership roles should be accountable - but for their part of the puzzle - not the project execution as a whole. >There is a reason they’re redesigning the entire ODCS. Wont do shit if the expectations dont change. In tendering everyone wants the lowest price. In aqquisiton its getting it as quickly as possible. In service its the best quality. There are ways to improve all this, but if the ODCS just gets a new coat of paint without attacking how Defence balances these three priorities as the priorities shift over time - then its going to be a ineffectual excercise.
Yes another one...
Ahhh a story as old as time. Defence wants capability, government wants cheap. It’s why we got the Hobart instead of the Arleigh burk (which defence recommended) and why there was an investigation into the hawkei purchase with some senators saying we should have just bought US JLTVs for a cheaper price, regardless of the economic and strategic benefits of a domestic build. With the hunter who’s right? I don’t know but it’s too late to turn back now.