If it were, and if it were to buy them using the same process by which they’ve bought the Super Hornets, count me first in line to oppose them.

Ken: actually, we should have considered leasing the damn things like the machine that goes “ping!”; at least that way we wouldn’t be left with useless obsolete fighter planes in 2018 or so.

It’s worth noting that the “standard” architecture reference models (including the Australian Government Architecture reference models are fairly explicit that the business types should have NOTHING to do with purchasing/technology decisions. It doesn’t matter what is being purchased from vendors, pencils, jets, or IT kit.

In the jet controversy, politicians and senior strategists should merely say what capabilities they need, military procurement experts prepare a portfolio of kit, timelines and costings and get it signed off. Pollies should have NO say in what options the procurement experts put on the table, merely demand a couple of choices.

In both the US Federal Enterprise Architecture, and the Australian Government Architecture, the “Business Reference Model” (what the business or agency actually does for clients) is one or two insulating layers away from the “Technical Reference Model” which determines what a purchased item must support. In between is the “service component reference model” which the business/agency uses to get its job done, and is supported by the technology.

For example, a service component might be a logistics system or an accounting system. The business type should only worry if this is efficient enough to support their work - who cares if it is only paper and pencil? The technologist’s job is to supply tools that are effective - both for the job and the budget.

In other words, the business/minister/boss should only determine functional requirements, relating them to the work they do. The techies get the stuff, and get their backsides booted if their toys don’t meet requirements defined in the “Performance Reference Model”

The “pretty picture” for the Australian Government Architecture is here, and the US model is here, although I think the US DoD picture on p12 of this is better.

It’s worth noting that whereas the US pollies and senior public servants were able to provide a list of the things they did for citizens in the “Business Reference Model” but their Australian counterparts weren’t, as discussed by Club Troppo in Broadband can wait after an article by myself originally aspublished AGA proves government doesn’t know what it does. This is scandalous. If the pollies don’t know what they think they do, how can they justify any expenditure as they can’t link it to a particular set of benefits?

Its a shame parliament is not sitting. Imagine Rudd and Co going hard on this in question time for a week or two. There lots of avenues they could pursue. The government wouldn’t know which angle Labor would pick next.

Nelson reminds me of John Dawkins. Doesn’t care if he gets it right - just wants to make a splash.