While the comparative merits of various war toys are great fun for wannabe Biggles types, the most substantive allegation of mismanagement against the Howard government’s decision to purchase the $6.6 billion squadron of Super Hornets was that no proper purchasing procedure was followed – something Labor mentioned repeatedly during the election campaign.
Now that he’s in government and presumably has access to the bureaucrats who supported that decision – if not the Cabinet proceedings where the decision was taken – Minister of Defence Joel Fitzgibbon repeated that allegation on Lateline two nights ago:
TONY JONES: When you were looking at this last year you said you were going to examine what actually happened in that particular contract and you actually said no due diligence was done. Have you done that now? Have you looked at that? Have you examined what happened?
JOEL FITZGIBBON: I have Tony. There was no due diligence, there was no due process, there was no comparative analysis with other aircraft. When the National Security Cabinet of the Committee under John Howard instructed the Defence Force to fill the gap regardless or whether it was necessary or not and to fill it quickly, really Air Force had one potential kit available. And that was an off the shelf version of the Super Hornet which could be immediately purchased from the US Navy. No consideration of the capital costs or the sustainment costs. And no real consideration of whether it was really needed. And certainly no comparative analysis with other aircraft.
The Opposition Leader…er…Shadow Minister for Defence, Nick Minchin, went on Lateline to give a spirited reply. But did he deny the allegations? Not really.
TONY JONES: With all due respect, that was a very long time ago. He’s accusing your government of making political, rather than strategic decisions on massive contracts and especially this $6.6 billion super hornet contract. He says it’s the perfect example of that, there was no due diligence, no due process, no comparative analysis with other aircraft. Your response?
NICK MINCHIN: Well, again, that is the only one he ever cites. He talks about this is in the general terms….
Minchin went on to state that he’s “absolutely satisfied” that it was a “very good deal for Australia”, and mentioned Angus Houston’s enthusiastic commentary on the plane.
Angus Houston has a remarkable ability to shift his tone depending on what the government of the day wants him to say, so I fully expect that if the decision to cut the Super Hornet contract happens he’ll publicly support that too. However, much of what Minchin says is probably true – the plane may well offer an “awesome” capability, it probably is better than anything else presently in the region, and the Air Force is probably quite thrilled about having new toys to play with.
But none of this rebuts Fitzgibbon’s central point: the previous government committed $6.6 billion – $310 for every Australian citizen – without following the process it had set up for itself. If that allegation is untrue, what conceivable national security reason prevents Minchin saying so?
Don’t think there is a national security reason, Robert. Maybe Minchin’s banking on most people finding him so smarmy and obnoxious that they’ll turn off when he appeasrs on the screen. That’s my reaction and I’m interested in the controversy. Goodness knows how people bored by it or unaware of what’s been going on would act.
It’s still $271 million per unit, and I don’t know why it was the only potential one available. Maybe it was the only one Andrew Peacock could flog for Boeing?
I’m sure it’s the best carrier plane going at the moment (well OK the Rafale M is probably better). Now all we need is a carrier to prove its worth.
Sweet business to be in as well, $400 million cancellation fee, or ~7% of the total price several years before delivery.
What bugs me is that the new Defense White Paper has not even been published, and yet there is this unchallenged assumption by all involved that we MUST buy more US military hardware. Why?
Is there one single genuine military threat to Australia anywhere on the horizon which would necessitate the use of fighter jets? No.
The role of our armed forces, particularly abroad, needs to be radically reassessed.
Defense has become Offense, and the whole thing is totally offensive!
gandhi, I suspect our defence forces are supplied with equipment to deal with all foreseeable threats, even those that are ‘over’ the horizon. Hence some substantial investment in radar, etc. Boom-tish.
BBB
The most interesting little bit of news has been the actual confirmation that the Australian government is potentially interested in the F-22. Meaning the previous mob had not asked and had not truly considered it.
losers.
Yee-argh, now we all collectively cream our pants with excitement at the news that maybe – if we are all very good – Congress might let us have some RAPTORS!!! Whoo hoo!
Who needs HORNETS when you can have RAPTORS, even if they are scaled-down “Export Models”, probably beset (as a result) with dodgy software and safety issues…. Haven’t we all been THERE before???
You talk about not having enough women involved in the PM’s Thinkfest, what about getting some women involved in planning a proper national defense strategy?
Step One: Be nice to the neighbours!
Step Two: Mind your own business.
Step Three: Focus on “soft power”.
Etc.
PS: It’s no surprise that Brendan Nelson ignore the proper procedures for drawing up the contracts. He was at the top of his game, riding shotgun for a government that had gone to war on the basis of lies, in contravention of international law, and gotten away with it. Rules were for wimps! Nelson was so full of shit at the time that he thought he could tell the world we invaded Iraq for the oil and get away with it!
It’s the standard mentality of men, machines, money and violence, innit? Power corrupts, and there’s nothing like a gun in your pocket to fill you with a sense of power.
NB: Fifteen years from now, when we discover all the problems with the RAPTORS, it will be the perfect excuse to throw even MORE AUSSIE TAXPAYER MONEY at the US military-industrial machine! Coz that’s what it’s all about really, innit? That’s how the game works!
If there are no wars, we make ‘em up! If you don’t wanna buy our guns and weapons, you might get a bit of destabilisation on your doorstep to help you change your mind. Or maybe the guy who deposes you will be a better customer, especially if we give him the keys to your office.
Just sign here, please…
the history of weapons purchases in aust repeats a pattern. these planes,choppers etc are all ‘purchased’ as sweeteners to help keep the ‘alliance’ healthy.the actual capability isnt really important,as we are already outgunned (and outflown)in the region.a few hundred troops here,another token force there,and the odd purchase of obsolete military hardware for top dollar.when you have one big ugly friend with you it makes you feel safer,but you have to keep him fuelled-up on expensive junk food as well as buy the drinks.
Wilful: Howard apparently decided, unilaterally, to commit to the JSF back in 2002.
Mind you, there are fairly solid reasons why the Raptor may not be the right option for us even if available. It will be more expensive than the JSF (though how much isn’t clear) both in terms of unit cost and lifetime cost, it doesn’t do certain things we want it to do (notably, maritime strike with cruise missiles), and we’d have to make a decision on it real soon, because it seems like the production line will shut down in a couple of years.
That said, one concern about the F-35 is that it’s a single-engined plane. I’m not sure that would be my first choice for flying for long periods over water.
Gandhi, I’ll bet there are some women out there who are all in favour of as much defence hardware as possible. You only need one and the assumptions behind post 6 collapse.
I find your three-step program charming. No, really. I’m reminded of Prince Sihanouk in 1963 upsetting a peaceful, happy crowd when he angrily denounced Cambodia’s traditional enemy, Thailand; had a go a the South Vietnamese; and for good measure, weighed into Coca-Colonisation and the Americans.
By the end of that year, the Prime Minister of Thailand had died of a heart attack, the President of South Vietnam had been killed in a queue, and the President of the United States had
gone the same waybeen assassinated. Sihanouk declared a public holiday. Cambodia followed your three-point plan to the letter, yet it’s fair to say that 1963 was the start of their problems rather than the end.I can’t imagine having to use fighter aircraft either, but there is no reason whythe nation should be limited by your imagination or mine. If we really need them it would be nice not to have to ask others would they mind awfully …
I actually enjoyed that interview a lot. Minchin was in good spirits, didn’t deny the central allegation, had a good rapport with Tony, and was quite approachable.
Was that a prediction or praise of his performance? Or a suggestion that he’s overreaching?
I think he’d make a good opposition leader.
Leon: it just seems is that more of the agenda-setting for the Opposition is being done by Minchin than Nelson.
Minchin also hopped into Fitzgibbon for allegedly showing disrespect for the men and women of the Australian defence organisation. Or something. If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then accusing your opponent of disrespect for the military is surely the last refuge of a conservative with nothing useful to say. How very Minchin.
On the subject of Robert’s reference to Angus Houston shifting his tone to suit the government of the day, I’m afraid it has been thus with our senior military for some time now. Cosgrove was far worse. A really good move for the new government would be to decree that senior military commanders stick to commanding, and refrain from making public comment on government policy. And while they’re at it, they could send the same memo to the AFP.
This reminds me of what happened with the F-111: ordered by Menzies (in about 1966, I think), paid for (years late, waaaay over-budget and with serious mechanical problems) by Whitlam. Admittedly, we ended up with very capable aircraft, but it took a while. I can see the same thing happening with whatever we end up buying from the Americans this time.
Snorky, to be fair to Houston, he and the other ADF leaders normally do refrain from public comment. It’s just that they get called in front of parliamentary committees, and put on the spot by pollies desperate to score a point off the other side.
That was the context in which Houston said he was 100% behind the F-18E.
He had also, at an earlier Senate committee hearing, said that there would be no problem extending the service life of the F-111 to cover the gap until JSF, and the ADF was quite happy with that.
How to explain the contradiction? Well, maybe in the period between the two comments he had been briefed on the “many secret and classified capabilities” of the F-18E that Greg Sheridan tells us about. (Or rather, didn’t tell us about.)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23269471-31477,00.html
P.S. No doubt Sheridan didn’t tell the readers of his column about these secrets because then he’d have to hunt them down and kill them. All three of them.
I keep hearing people say that the Raptor doesnt do certain things that we need an aircraft to do “Like maritime strike with cruise missiles”. Thats actually rubbish. The Americans are replacing their F117 (stealth strike aircraft) with F22s.
The JSF doesnt do certain things we need it to do – like provide a credible deterrent against the fighters certain Northern neighbours are bringing into service.
Mabe we should buy a Diego Garcia based Stealth Bomber on special, label it VH-WTF, and blow the whole Offence Budget in just one crash.
a.dorsett wrote:
No-one’s picked up on this, so I thought I might. This is probably not quite the case. Given in-flight refuelling, we’d be able to get to China before we ran up against anything serious. Australia’s a regional military power, even though we don’t think of ourselves in that way. It’d help, sometimes, if we remembered that, because it’s surely part of the reason why some of our neighbours don’t like us much.
Alister: that’s quite true.
pre-dawn leftist: the f117 didn’t carry cruise missiles either. It dropped bombs, and not very many of them.
Paulus: fair point re Houston. I’m just sayin’ that as a loyal public servant, his public position is going to shift with the wind.
Alister: with the proviso that while we have better high-tech toys than anyone in the region, we don’t have a large enough infantry to actually conquer and occupy anywhere that doesn’t want to be occupied.
Robert, I agree – we can’t seriously occupy anywhere.
Not that this is a bad thing.
Here’s an article on the recent history of the F-22. Looks like production ceases in a few years – good time to pick up a bargain.
It should be added that the ‘Super’ Hornet is anything but. Its performance over the old Hornet is only marginally superior in some ways and inferior in many ways. It is only really capable of short range, low level bombing in an hostile environment and is not capable of air superiority against any realistic competition. It is markedly outclassed by the regional competition’s new Russian kit.
Would you buy a new model of car if it was sold like this: “this is the latest model, it goes 50km further on a tank of petrol, has a larger boot, has better headlights and louder CD player than the old model. Unfortunately it is slower, has poorer brakes, roadholding and handling and costs twice as much as the old model”.
OldSkeptic: I wouldn’t be so sure. We’re not really in a position to know.
In at least some of the trade press, there are persistent claims that the Air Force have been keeping a close eye on the Super Hornets for years, as a backup in case the JSF was delayed.
But if that was the case, why was it a) never mentioned publicly, b) why was the decision to purchase done in such a hurry, and c) why is the new Defence Minister publicly stating the process wasn’t followed?
Could I just ask the ‘experts’ here a small question. Against whom will we be using lots and lots of very expensive and fast fighter planes, and who in our neighbourhood do we imagine is going to require us to use lots of very big and expensive Tanks and Aircraft carriers?
I love how the ‘big expensive military toy’ brigade succeeds time after time, in shifting debate on military expenditure away from the reasons for the purchases, and onto their ‘merits’ as pieces of equipment it would be nice to have, because, well, because it would be good for us to have them!
Who FFS, are we arming ourselves against, now? Anybody got a clue? Anybody care to put forward a target for all this very expensive ’stuff’?
Well said amused.
Certain people are quite happy to suspend their critical faculties that in other circumstances would be going into overdrive.
Un Zud, of course. Those evil Kiwis cannot be trusted.
Un Zud delendo est.
We haven’t had an aircraft carrier since 1982. As for the tanks, there are indeed serious doubts that they are of any use in the region (as distinct from being shipped off to the Middle East for Operation Imperial Folly II).
But as for fighter planes, they a) make it impossible for anybody bar the United States to get anywhere near our territory – something we couldn’t guarantee without them, and b) let us destroy any ships, vehicles, or buildings we can reach (and that reach extends a long way to the north).
That means that were a future Indonesian government decide that it wants East Timor back, or the Chinese government decides it wants to set up shop in the Solomons, we have the military capability to stop them. Without fighter planes, we don’t (or, at best, it becomes very militarily dicey).
Now, you might argue that such possibilities are unlikely (and they are), and not worth the billions we are going to spend.
In defence of the tanks (and I don’t support their purchase, but merely to offer the other side of the story), they are thought to offer an invincible strong-point when used in peacekeeping interventions (Timor l’este, Solomons). I can imagine a whopping great tank would be pretty intimidating and undefeatable parked downtown in TPLPC capitals. And with flechette rounds, they’re reportedly quite useful in clearing jungles.
But yeah, the above justification is bollocks IMHO. Is a tank the message you want to give? And most rebels would be lucky to have an RPG, so our range of APCs should be fine you’d reckon. And the flow on costs of tanks (C-17s) are crazy.
As Robert noted, we haven’t had an aircraft carrier in a quarter century. The two new amphibious ships aren’t ‘aircraft carriers’ as some have characterised them. They seem pretty useful to me, whopping great humanitarian utility. Wouldn’t ‘invade’ a failed state without one of them in the harbour in the future, there’s your hospital, supply, comms, civilian shelter, everything.
Robert, I think the case for the tanks being useless in the region is over-rated. There is an interesting discussion by Paul Monk here:
>
http://www.austhink.org/consulting_projects
>
which discusses why the Abrahms’ weight is not actually an issue – basically as a tracked vehicle it is able to spread its weight out and will probably be just as deployable in the region as Australian tanks were during WW2. Moreover it will likely be used in close infantry support, where tanks have a proven ability in terms of force protection, taking out strong-points, and acting as mobile C3I centres.
>
Monk concludes that the tanks were a good buy.
“Monk concludes that the tanks were a good buy.”
It’s my experience that a tank is only as good as the person left guarding it!
Robert,
Are you sure about the F117 and the cruise missiles?
I wouldn’t be.
Apart from which, I’m pretty sure that no aircraft suffers from a disability which precludes the attachment of such weapons. Hell even the venerable (and according to some people, prehistoric) F111 can carry cruise missiles of a very wide variety
my point about being outgunned and outflown in the region is not the point i was attempting to make,however it is correct.the truth is we rely on our allies however distasteful that be for some of us.and do you think they would take kindly to us buying migs?no.so we buy what they suggest we buy.as for in-flight fuelling en-route to china,do you really think that is on the cards?surely you are fantasising,as i seriously doubt our little white elephants would get anywhere near a refuelling point, let alone china. alister says we are a regional power and thats true.we can lord it over well..new guinea! and as someone else suggested nz let us not forget nauru and the solomons.we shall rule the failed states and banana-republics with an iron fist!
Pre-dawn leftist, a cruise missile is far too large to be carried by a smallish airframe like that on the F117 or F22. The Americans prefer to launch theirs from B52s, or even better, from a ship floating hundreds of nautical miles away, because after all, a cruise missile is its own stealth bomber.
As far as “maritime strike” goes, you’re thinking of anti-ship missiles like the Harpoon, which the RAAF and Navy currently carry on F-111s, F/A-18s and the old P3 Orions. The JSF *is* designed to carry them, I don’t know about the F22.
/warnerd
warnerd mode on:
Liam: there’s also the JASSM and AGM-142, missiles (the JASSM is a genuine “cruise missile”, the AGM-142 is relatively short-range) which can be carried by the “classic” Hornet and the F-111 respectively. Such weapons could also presumably be fitted to the F-22, though it would entail external carriage and thus loss of stealthiness and supercruising ability. However, it doesn’t currently support carrying such weapons, and the USAF would have relatively little interest in doing so so we’d probably have to pay for it.
The really stupid thing is that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying the JASSM for the classic Hornet (to cover for the retirement of the F-111) and then we bought the Super Hornets to replace the F-111, which can’t carry the JASSM!
warnerd mode off.
I love it when you talk dirty, Robert, but I thought the JASSMs were compatible with the Super Hornets, and that we were buying them for P3s as well.
Nope. We’re buying a bunch of JSOW’s to go with the Super Hornets.
This may be fixed at some point in the future, but isn’t now.
#2 Wilful
It’s still $271 million per unit, and I don’t know why it was the only potential one available. …
I’m sure it’s the best carrier plane going at the moment (well OK the Rafale M is probably better). Now all we need is a carrier to prove its worth.
…, $400 million cancellation fee…
COMMENT: IIRC the cost includes much of the lifecycle cost as well. This is like saying your $15,000 new small car, which you will drive for 10 years (say $6,000 PA) costs $75,000. It’s true, but misleading in context. The ‘cancellation fee’ would be to pay for work *already done* on this order. The first 2 aircraft are under construction, and the subcontractors are, of course, producing material and components for the rest. We don’t have a carrier, but aircraft designed for that role are marinised and very rugged.
#3Gandhi
What bugs me is that the new Defense White Paper has not even been published, and yet there is this unchallenged assumption by all involved that we MUST buy more US military hardware. Why?
COMMENT: How are these two statements logically linked? We are a US ally, of course we purchase some compatible equipment, and much of theirs is very good. Please note we are not buying US AWD or LPH, but Spanish.
#3Gandhi
Is there one single genuine military threat to Australia anywhere on the horizon which would necessitate the use of fighter jets? No.
COMMENT: The ADF is the national insurance policy for unforeseeable circumstances. Can you guarantee that there will be no such need between 2010 and 2050, the approximate life of this combat aircraft type?
#5 Wilful
The most interesting little bit of news has been the actual confirmation that the Australian government is potentially interested in the F-22. Meaning the previous mob had not asked and had not truly considered it.
COMMENT: Oh, nonsense. The interest has been there (we looked at a hi-lo mix of F-22 and F-35 about 5 years ago) but the cost was (and remains) exorbitant and we then had no need for a pure air superiority fighter. The US also refused to consider its export at the time. As circumstances have now changed, it is being looked at again. This is normal planning.
#6 and #7 Gandhi
COMMENT: While I hope not, you might have the “kumbaya redneck� view that everyone in the world thinks the way you do. If so you need to know that this view is fundamentally racist: it is a view to be avoided. You also apparently lack an understanding of history or just how fragile and unstable our region has become since the Empires departed. The world is and remains a dangerous place. Look how quickly a fragile and unstable region unravelled between 1909 and 1914. In such a world, you do not think we need an ‘insurance policy’. Why?
#9 Robert Merkel
Howard apparently decided, unilaterally, to commit to the JSF back in 2002.
Mind you, there are fairly solid reasons why the Raptor may not be the right option for us even if available. It will be more expensive than the JSF (though how much isn’t clear) both in terms of unit cost and lifetime cost, it doesn’t do certain things we want it to do (notably, maritime strike with cruise missiles), and we’d have to make a decision on it real soon, because it seems like the production line will shut down in a couple of years.
That said, one concern about the F-35 is that it’s a single-engined plane. I’m not sure that would be my first choice for flying for long periods over water.
COMMENT: You are routinely a source of dispassionate and logical comment on defence matters, Robert. AFAIK Howard ‘gripped up’ the options and made a decision some months before it was due, but that’s about it. As PM, he and the Defence Minister had authority to do that even if it astonished the CDF. F-22 is, as you say, a pure air superiority fighter with little strike capability. Engine reliability has improved so much since 1975 that overwater ops in a single engined bird can now be thought reasonable. This is the same reason why we are now using twin-engined airliners on long haul overwater routes.
#15 Paulus
Well, maybe in the period between the two comments he had been briefed on the “many secret and classified capabilities� of the F-18E that Greg Sheridan tells us about.
COMMENT: I am not in the F-18E game, but I have recently shifted my opinion on it. Janes is reporting that the USN has decided that their future carrier air groups will be an F-25/F-18E mix. So F-18E will have complete data interface capability with F-35 and be a standard node in the future network – and that’s our F-18E we will get. If so, that literally changes everything about how it should be perceived.
If Sheridan is poorly read in these circles, that indicates a deliberate refusal to even read well-regarded commentators who dissent from the common views held in these circles. That says a lot about these circles and none of it is good. Sheridan is very closely and carefully read indeed by politicians and APS/Military policy-makers in this town *irrespective of their political views.*
#16 pre Dawn Leftist
The Americans are replacing their F117 (stealth strike aircraft) with F22s.
COMMENT: No. F-117 is a light bomber, now obsolescent. F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The F-117 interim supplement is a network of aircraft and assets ranging from B-52, B-1 and B-2 to A-10 and Apache. Its physical replacement is F-35 (really F/A-35).
#16 pre Dawn Leftist
The JSF doesnt do certain things we need it to do – like provide a credible deterrent against the fighters certain Northern neighbours are bringing into service.
COMMENT: If considered as an aircraft only, this is true. An unsupported F-35 will probably be overmatched by an unsupported Su-30, but no-one fights that way any more. We no longer fight as we did in WWI, which is where this comparison comes from. F-35 exploits a wide variety of space based, air-breathing and ground-based situational and targeting data information advantages (which we enjoy under privileged access alliance arrangements with the USA and UK) to derive asymmetric advantages in air combat. There is a furious and passionate philosophical debate raging about this (quite invisible to most civilians) which is arguing about whether or not we are now moving beyond John Boyd in some areas of aerospace conflict. Personally, while it pains me to say this for reasons I will not expand on, I do not think we have. I think we are in danger of moving back into the philosophical/technological territory which gave us the Lead Sled and the Great Smoking Thunderhog as fighters (vice Heineman’s Rocket and Boyd’s Automatic Ace Maker). Lots of good men died because of that last time.
#22 Wilful
we can’t seriously occupy anywhere.
Not that this is a bad thing.
COMMENT: Erm… do you disagree with Howards intervention in East Timor, then? For we surely “seriously occupied� East Timor, didn’t we? Took the whole ADF to do it too.
BTW in Timor, due to us simply not having the amphibious and afloat command and control capabilities we needed, and the networked aerial capabilities we needed, or the direct infantry support tanks we needed *we had to ask the USA for them.* They provided them (and much more) very quickly indeed. Yes, the Peleliu had a USMC battalion aboard – with M1 tanks. Between the ADF, US support and Cosgrove’s most admirable brinksmanship the Indonesian Generals caved. We then learned the lessons involved and these are that we need big amphibs, AWD for the command and control at sea, something like the networked F-35/tanker/Wedgetail combo in the air, M1 tanks to economise in the lives of our infantry etc. That’s where these lessons came from, and that’s why we are getting these systems, and that’s why the US Alliance is absolutely critical to Australia: they helped us big time in Timor. Who else would have? The Euroweenies? They had to call on the USA to help them with the Bosnian war because they could not handle it! And that was a stoush in their own back yard between bandit gangs and a fifth-rate military: so much for their soft power.
#25 Robert Merkel
OldSkeptic: I wouldn’t be so sure. We’re not really in a position to know.
COMMENT: Correct. I catch some of the edge of this (I do not need to know more). This is a good enough aircraft, and if it does indeed have full data interface compatability with F-35 it will be an exceptional one.
#25 Robert Merkel
In at least some of the trade press, there are persistent claims that the Air Force have been keeping a close eye on the Super Hornets for years, as a backup in case the JSF was delayed.
But if that was the case, why was it a) never mentioned publicly, b) why was the decision to purchase done in such a hurry, and c) why is the new Defence Minister publicly stating the process wasn’t followed?
COMMENT: a) because defence does a lot of things the public does not need to know and this is sensible contingency planning (IIRC it also WAS mentioned in public in APDR I think) b) I do not know but those responsible for the flight safety of the F-111 fleet were VERY relieved so I suspect that there are drivers there we know nothing about (Carlo Kopp’s astonishing bombast notwithstanding) c) because he’s playing politics, how surprising
#26 Amused
Could I just ask the ‘experts’ here a small question. Against whom will we be using lots and lots of very expensive and fast fighter planes, and who in our neighbourhood do we imagine is going to require us to use lots of very big and expensive Tanks and Aircraft carriers?
COMMENT: We do not have aircraft carriers, and the amphibs are not carriers. Actually, the F-35 isn’t even fast. That has not been a tactical demand for 40 years, but it had better have very good energy state transfer characteristics. “Amused�, do you own a house or car? If so, do you insure them? If so, why? Insurance is expensive! Who in your neighbourhood is going to damage your house or car? You insure your car or house because you cannot predict the future, and this is your protection against the unforeseen.
The ADF is Australia’s insurance policy.
#26 Amused
I love how the ‘big expensive military toy’ brigade succeeds time after time, in shifting debate on military expenditure away from the reasons for the purchases, and onto their ‘merits’ as pieces of equipment it would be nice to have, because, well, because it would be good for us to have them!
Who FFS, are we arming ourselves against, now? Anybody got a clue? Anybody care to put forward a target for all this very expensive ’stuff’?
COMMENT: “Amusing� you will literally become a millionaire overnight if you truly have the ability to accurately predict the future. Can you absolutely guarantee that from now until 2050 (ish), the lifetime of these systems which form critical parts of our insurance policy, that there will not be ONE conflict, national collapse, war, natural disaster or anything else needing the ADF in the Indian Ocean, West Pacific and South Pacific oceanic basins? Because that is what you have to be able to do to throw away your insurance policy. And that is why the ALP in opposition and government has never agreed with you.
#30 Wilful
In defence of the tanks (and I don’t support their purchase, but merely to offer the other side of the story), they are thought to offer an invincible strong-point when used in peacekeeping interventions (Timor l’este, Solomons).
COMMENT: Their use in peacekeeping like this is almost purely psychological. They are very good for intimidating self-proclaimed ‘big men’ with a few hundred followers, these armed with rifles and machetes. They provide proof of overwhelming power, which tends to cause fun people like Harold Keke to stop murdering, stealing and raping, and to surrender. Which is *exactly* what Keke did, yes?
#30 Wilful
I can imagine a whopping great tank would be pretty intimidating and undefeatable parked downtown in TPLPC capitals. And with flechette rounds, they’re reportedly quite useful in clearing jungles.
But yeah, the above justification is bollocks IMHO. Is a tank the message you want to give? And most rebels would be lucky to have an RPG, so our range of APCs should be fine you’d reckon. And the flow on costs of tanks (C-17s) are crazy.
COMMENT: These statements are logically unconnected and do not form an argument. A handful of tanks in Honiara would have been enormously reassuring to the Guadalcanalese when the intervention started (so they have said to me, anyway, last time I was there). They would have to be placed back aboard ship within a short time, this itself is a powerful message that law and order has returned. C-17 were not bought purely to carry M1, but again to answer a problem identified in Howard’s liberation of Timor (and again, where we had to ask for US heavy transports to help out) but in the end they were not needed as we were just barely able to cover the need with what we had and an INCAT catamaran. I think there were far better, cheaper and more sensible options than C-17. That said, I note that they are doing marvellous work in Timor right now, work we simply could not have contemplated before. Marvellous asset, but hideously expensive.
#31 Ben Eltham
Correct. As shown by the comparison between the infantry casualty rates at Buna-Gona-Sananada with those at Balikpapan or Fire Base Coral during Vietnam. Tanks economise on infantry in close terrain, and infantry economises on tank losses in close terrain. There are some circumstances where APC can partially substitute, but these still tend to result in higher infantry (and APC) losses. An APC is not a tank. The argument against them on this site would ‘save money’ (to spend on progressive social programs, doubtless) and the PBI would die in greater numbers in consequence. No thanks. Been there, done that, lost the family members. It was called Fromelles, Pozieres, Passchendaele, Ypres, Singapore, Ambon, Buna…
#33 Predawn Leftist
Are you sure about the F117 and the cruise missiles?
I wouldn’t be.
COMMENT: You do not know the facts. The F-117 can ONLY carry weapons internally if it is to maintain low radar observability. The *weapons* are not ‘stealthy’. It was designed to carry free-fall laser guided bombs. It can now carry *one* of the following selections:
2 MK84 2000-pound
2 GBU-10 Paveway II
2 GBU-12 Paveway II
2 GBU-27 Paveway III
2 BLU 109
2 WCMD
2 Mark 61
In WWII parlance, it is a light bomber which carries two bombs. See FAS for details on these weapons.
#33 Predawn Leftist
Apart from which, I’m pretty sure that no aircraft suffers from a disability which precludes the attachment of such weapons. Hell even the venerable (and according to some people, prehistoric) F111 can carry cruise missiles of a very wide variety
COMMENT: ‘Disability?’ No, a necessary feature of a 1st generation ‘stealth’ (a misnomer if there ever was one) design. If you want really low radar cross section (RCS), then weapons have to be carried internally. This restricts weapon size. With really low RCS, you can get very close to the target. This means that you do not need ‘cruise missiles’ or long range stand off weapons, hence the short-range armament of F-117. When F-111 was designed in the 1960s, RCS reduction was unknown territory, you got close to a target by being low and very fast and dropping iron bombs on it. These were unguided. You needed a LOT of them so the F-111 was a bomb truck. As air defence systems got better, this attack method became suicidal. Check out what the Soviet supplied, built (and partially manned) air defences did to the Israeli air force when the Egyptians and Syrians launched their unprovoked attack on Israel during their Holiest day in 1973 (the Yom Kippur War). So people merrily developed stand-off weapons to reduce the risk to the aircraft in response. Still the air defences got better, so they reduced the aircraft RCS and got back to close range. Still the air defence got better, so now we are edging back to low RCS aircraft at longer ranges with low RCS weapons like Stormshadow. The developing counter is moving outside the aircraft and missile hardware box to exploit asymmetric advantages in a fully networked air environment. This is called progress and it has been going on for millennia.
MarkL
Canberra