Well, we’re still going to buy the Super Hornet fighter planes, the ones whose rushed procurement process has heavily criticised by me and others in the blogosphere.
This isn’t any great surprise, to be honest. As the Minister’s press release notes, the process of mothballing the F-111 had already begun, and even ignoring the financial penalties, there’s no way that the government could have cancelled the order and replaced it with anything else in the timeframe required. So the only other choice was to simply not replace the F-111’s at all, and rely exclusively on the “classic” Hornets for the period 2010-2015 or so.
So where does this leave us? Did Nelson get it right - even if he is off the hook for now? We’ll likely not know until the relevant Cabinet material enters the public domain or we get involved in an actual shooting war. That said, whatever the merits or otherwise of the Super Hornets, the process and the haste by which the acquisition happened remain horribly, horribly odd.
One thing to keep in mind is that Australia’s regional air superiority was never under any great threat in the short term. The “Russian jets proliferating in the region” are actually doing so at a glacially slow pace. According to a recent article in the Financial Review, the Indonesian Air Force’s plans to acquire a pitiful few more such jets has foundered on a lack of money; it’s fairly well established that they can barely keep their existing planes flying. Australia’s ability to drop bombs on Java - should the need ever arise, and heaven help us if it does - won’t go away; the only question is whether it was ever going to be seriously impeded any time soon.
In any case, the question now turns to what Australia will do with its air combat capability in the longer term, to feed into the broader defence White Paper. The second part of the air combat capability review - to examine this very issue - will release an unclassified summary. It’ll make for interesting reading.
For me, the question is still why do we need all these new military acquisitions? Where are we going to war such that we’ll need them? Or is it a trend that is being copied from the US? Sending taxpayers’ money to large defence corporations in the hope (after $6 billion, you’d think it’s a guarantee) of getting a job there in the future?
yeah, the arguments about our defence acquisitions is that while we live in a happy benign world (locally) right now, something could blow up in 15 or 20 years and we’re investing now for that distant possibility.
So why can’t we just wait for the JSF? What’s the actual risk in the so called gap between now and 2018? In the meantime we still will have gotten air-to-air refuellers and wedgetails, so it’s not like we’re suddenly defenceless.
Strange how the Indonesian thing comes up!And Russian invention!Seriously if we asked Indonesia,if one of our flypersons could have a go in one..would they say no!?Or if the Russians had an agreement with Indonesia that we couldnt ask,could we ask both countries!?And if Indonesians wanted to try some of our stuff would we say no!?Fitzgibbon spends to prove he can,blow-outs in Defence spending really offend me,and we as the population,really need to know our Defence Ministers better,some of the blow-out could have been spent on me,and I am jealous enough now!?There is no good reason,I reckon anyway,why Russians cannot dock and fly into our Defence bases.IF they had a civil emergency with their fighters,we just wouldnt say no.Dick Smith has now helicoptered into Russia,and driven through it..time to call the U.S.A. Republic bluff off.If we buy weapons from them[U.S.A],then let the Russians land.Who knows ,human rights might improve in Russia then.
Someone wanted this Super Hornet deal very badly. Enough to make a mockery of Australia’s defense procurement process. I just wish I knew who and why. I don’t believe it was Nelson as I can’t see him having the clout. I really had thought the Hornet’s would be cancelled and this whole issue would be forgotten about as the purchase had been started very late in electoral cycle and even when rushed these things take alot of time. The quickfire retirement the F-111 looks like it might have been the key to making this deal unkillable. Someone knew exactly what needed to be done to tie the new Labor governtment’s hands on this.
“We’ll likely not know until the relevant Cabinet material enters the public domain”
There’s a whiff of something around this story that might be attractive to an investigative journalist. Since we’re actually buying the Hornets the story will remain relevant for a long. There must be a lot of people who have some idea why this was done. You never know.
There was also the news that Nelson had advised the cancellation of the Sea Sprite project, but had been overruled by cabinet.
At what point do you decide to persist with a project, or cut your losses? Just because projects overrun their parameters doesn’t necessarily mean that cancellation is the right option. Most overrun projects do eventually get delivered and recoup most or all of their costs.
Cancellation was the right decision for the Sea Sprite, but this reveals the basic problem with many projects - military or otherwise. No feasibility studies, or funding for same. Tenders are let with requirements that no-one knows for sure can be met. Tenders are submitted, usually low-balled with all the requirements ticked off, but no-one has ever prototyped to see if those requirements can be combined feasibly. So you end up with not unpredictable problems such as combining a 60’s airframe with 90’s avionics.
No-one wants to pay for feasibility projects, but they don’t realise that not funding them probably costs more in the long run.
I was always confident that the ALP would realise the Super-Hornets were not the poor choice they were portrayed to be by people eager to beat the Howard government with whatever stick they could find. At least they’re relatively off-the-shelf. I’m tipping the next navy chopper will be the same.
The cost of dumping this project was too high to be financially prudent, which is not the same as saying that it is militarily prudent to proceed with the Hornet.
Unfortunately, the Rudd Govt was left with no other politically viable course of action but to crack hearty and to laud the “capabilities” of the Hornet, which in a different strategic setting may have been real.
As others have said, the Howard Govt Hornet decision represents a subversion of many tenets of sound government.
Unfortunately, cabinet secrecy appears to be an impenetrable veil for Howard government incompetence and/or cronyism.
Craig: we don’t know that. All we know is given the circumstances that they are the only viable choice. Whether there were better ones that could have been made years ago is an altogether different question.
Craig Mc wrote:
What problems? Aerodynamics science hasn’t changed much since the 1960’s, but electronics shrunk orders of magnitude. Most of those era’s airframes have enormous holes in them for all sorts of funky electronics that used to barely hold a radio. Think of all the crusty old bombers that ended up as “wild weasel” platforms. We should ship those f-111’s back out of retirement and fit them with as much electronic suppression garbage we can buy along with some big, fat fuel tanks.
You would think we’d have learned by now that a missile platform is little more than a trebuchet - the faster it can load and the farther it can fling your rock the better of you are. We can probably make the Super Hornets work (eventually), and it’ll be 50 years until we find out what kind of venal corruption caused their purchase in the first place. Wasn’t Andrew Peacocks stinky digit in there somewhere?
If the SHs were a disaster the Rudd government would not have missed the chance to beat up on the Libs. They’d complain how they’ve been blackmailed into going through with the deal even though they think it’s wrong.
In the absence of that, they’re saying they agree with the Libs.
“If the SHs were a disaster the Rudd government would not have missed the chance to beat up on the Libs.”
No, because beating up on the Libs here would mean beating up on both Defence and their US friends. Fitzgibbon is acting like most Defence Ministers - a plaything of his department.
So he’s grinning madly - and unconvincingly - while he swallows the shit sandwich.
‘At what point do you decide to persist with a project, or cut your losses?’
When you’re paying 6.6 billion dollars to escape a 400 million dollar fine sounds like the perfect time.
H&R: yeah. And to be honest, at least we’ll have something to fly…
H&R: that 6.6 billion dollar figure apparently includes running costs and maintenance over the next decade.
Furthermore, purchasing the Super Hornets may mean we have to rebuild less of our classic Hornets early next decade, which will offset some of the cost.
It’s still quite a lot of money, of course.
DD: They can tip the bucket on the Libs without tipping it on the US. It’s not the US’ fault they’re selling us what we asked for. And why would the ALP give a fig what defence thinks? They’re not the boss of Rudd.
So in other words, they believe it was the right choice. Don’t you think the purported conspiracy is becoming unsustainably big if Fitzgibbon is in on it too?
H&R: yes, it was definitely good money after bad, followed by another shovel of great money with those SSs. Paradoxically crap like this happens because people try to get away with cheap. Spending too little can cost more than spending too much.
In case you were wondering why we need this kind of things when we supposedly live in a benign threat environment, with no prospect of going to war any time soon - its precisely to prevent us needing to go to war and preserve that benign environment that we need these kinds of things. I wonder how long it would take for “friends” to become unfriendly if we didnt?
The ancient art of deterrance still applies.
I still dont think the Super Hornet stacks up on any realistic measure, but I suspect that Fitzgibbon was put into a corner by the poor negotiating skills of the previous mob when dealing with Boeing.
Craig: in mathematics, there’s a big difference between “locally optimal” and “globally optimal”. To grossly oversimplify, alocal optimum is the best you can get to from where you are right now. A global optimum is the best you can get to without taking into account the limitations of where you’re starting from.
Not cancelling the Super Hornets may have been a locally optimal decision, but been very suboptimal from a global perspective.
If that were the case, Fitzgibbon would be taking his free kick at the opposition for said skills.
I think there’s plenty of ’splainin to be done, especially since that evil mongrel Sinodinos is back in a position of influence. Something very smelly is happening in defence circles.
“If that were the case, Fitzgibbon would be taking his free kick at the opposition for said skills.”
Unless he’s backed into an impossible corner by said skills.
“Fitzgibbon would be taking his free kick at the opposition for said skills.”
Did you read the press release? He doesn’t sound like he’s singing the former government’s praises.
“There has been a lack of sound, long-term air combat capability planning decisions by the former Government over the course of the last decade.”
“The former Government’s decision to leave Australia’s air defences in the hands of the Joint Strike Fighter project was a flawed leap of faith in scheduling terms”
That the official minister
It’s hardly like we’d be defenceless for the period between 2010 and 2018.
FDB: then why not say he’s (or rather the country’s) been backed into an impossible corner by the previous government’s bad decisions? Answer: because they agree with the decision.
The cat doesn’t have their tongue. There is no way the government could be prevented from exposing what it thought were mistakes by their predecessors. After all, it’s not like they’re ignoring the Sea Sprite mess.
swio: no specifics about the SHs, and people here are asserting they exist. That quote doesn’t support the hypothesis. People here are saying that the new government won’t criticise the super-hornet decision because: a) they’re in on it - the corrupt bastards; or b) the previous government made a binding deal for all future governments to just STFU and smile when discussing the SHs.
Rudd has promised his mob will be different from the Rodent Kingdom, which I assume means he won’t drop shit on their heads from a great height at every opportunity for the lifetime of his government, bugger it.
I can see that this makes sense in sending a subtle message that Rudd won’t stoop to Liberal tactics etc, but my vengeance demon says: “Go for the Liberal jugular! Drink their blood and then tear out their beating heart before their glazing eyes, put your foot on their neck and laugh in the best Vincent Price fashion!!! And do it every week until I say you can stop!!” Bwahahaha!
#2 Wilful
So why can’t we just wait for the JSF? What’s the actual risk in the so called gap between now and 2018? In the meantime we still will have gotten air-to-air refuellers and wedgetails, so it’s not like we’re suddenly defenceless.
COMMENT: gear gets outdated and worn, and high level skills have to be kept up. The F-111 force is simply past it – we cannot complain, we got nearly 40 years out of them. If you gap the strike skills, you’ll lose the people who have them. Rebuilding them is then a really expensive task that will take a decade. Look at the problem the Navy is facing with trying to rebuild the anti-submarine skills it lost in 1982. Rebuilding them will take 10-15 years and mucho dollar.
#3 philiptravers
COMMENT: Can anyone explain what Phil was on about?
#4Swio
COMMENT: The ‘conspiracy’ side of it does not really wash. The root issue is the F-111. To be blunt, it was a great bird, but it’s getting very, very old. Think of you still driving a car designed in 1963 old, and still racing it at Oran Park old. That is what we are talking about. Nobody else flies it any more and we are in unknown territory with it in age and (IIRC) structural stress terms. Old planes are like old cars, they are less reliable and break more often. This is a bad thing in supersonic strike aircraft and tends to kill the aircrew. This upsets their mates a little. The thing has a huge radar cross section as well – not good. BTW, the cost of operating the things is very high and rising quickly – older gear has to be checked and repaired more often.
#6 Katz
“The cost of dumping this project was too high to be financially prudent, which is not the same as saying that it is militarily prudent to proceed with the Hornet.”
COMMENT: I had suspicions on the announcement that there was something missing from it. Janes have since confirmed these – there is a lot more to this acft than meets the eye because it has been given full data compatibility with F-35. That is most surprising, and it changes everything, and indeed changed my own personal opinion about the concept. What it means is that both can probably use each other’s sensors, and fire each other’s weapons, and receive and utilise the same offboard situational awareness feeds in the same manner. I cannot overstate the importance of that.
“Unfortunately, the Rudd Govt was left with no other politically viable course of action but to crack hearty and to laud the “capabilities” of the Hornet, which in a different strategic setting may have been real.”
COMMENT: No, I do not think so. This is a government which happily took the knife to Seasprite, carers, pensioners etc. This is a razor gang FAR more hard headed and ruthless than anything Howard’s government ever achieved IMHO. If this acft had not offered something extraordinary, it would have been cut. What I am beginning to suspect is that it offers a way to reduce F-35 numbers in that subsequent buy, saving a hell of a lot of money further in and spreads expenditure across the F-35 design spiral. That would also retire a LOT of risk. If that is true, then the original decision to buy them was extremely good. Think not buying 100 F-35A in one massive lump as we did with F/A-18A (hellooo bloc obsolescence) , but buying 24 F-18F, then 12 F-18G, then 24 F-35A, then 24 F-35 B, then 48 F-35 C (while backtrading the F-35A, say, or maybe some Hornets, to lower costs), all over a 15 year period. Much, much lower risks.
“As others have said, the Howard Govt Hornet decision represents a subversion of many tenets of sound government.
Unfortunately, cabinet secrecy appears to be an impenetrable veil for Howard government incompetence and/or cronyism.”
COMMENT: Again, these opinions no longer appear to hold any water. If this had been a ‘duff deal’ of some kind, they would have cut it and blamed $400 million or so of ‘waste’ on Nelson personally – what a GREAT way to score a political win! And what a win! But they didn’t. So the points above cannot be correct.
#7 Robert Merkel
COMMENT: Agree
#8 David Rubie
“What problems? Aerodynamics science hasn’t changed much since the 1960’s, but electronics shrunk orders of magnitude. Most of those era’s airframes have enormous holes in them for all sorts of funky electronics that used to barely hold a radio. Think of all the crusty old bombers that ended up as “wild weasel” platforms. We should ship those f-111’s back out of retirement and fit them with as much electronic suppression garbage we can buy along with some big, fat fuel tanks.”
COMMENT: It’s a bit more complex than that. This has been looked at years ago and it was extremely expensive, cheaper to buy SparkVarks as the USAF retired them. We didn’t. New systems into an ancient airframe – shades of Seaprite! I am informed that the RAAF is actually looking hard (and with Rudd Govt approval) at a second buy of F-18 F and G – the Growler. This is the new standard USN EW (old parlance – Wild Weasel) machine.
10 derrida derider
“If the SHs were a disaster the Rudd government would not have missed the chance to beat up on the Libs.”
No, because beating up on the Libs here would mean beating up on both Defence and their US friends. Fitzgibbon is acting like most Defence Ministers - a plaything of his department.
So he’s grinning madly - and unconvincingly - while he swallows the shit sandwich.
COMMENT: And missing the political opportunity to smash Nelson? I do not think so. Again, this argument just does not hold water, quite the opposite. Finding a dud deal of this size would wreck Nelson and let the Minister truly stamp his authority on the Department. This argument just does not wash.
Overall, there is still a lot we do not know about the F-18 buy. But one thing we can now confidently assess. It is far more capable than we knew previously, and it ties into F-35 in some way not yet fully clear..
MarkL
Canberra
“#3 philiptravers
COMMENT: Can anyone explain what Phil was on about?”
Don’t ask, don’t tell. Seems to be the policy.
WRT Phillip: all of us have a great deal of trouble understanding what he’s on about.
Phillip, if you’re reading this, a few minutes editing your posts to make them clearer would mean it would be much easier to engage with you. It’s not that we don’t like you, we just can’t understand!
Fair enough. I do research via a number of boards where English is not the first language of many interlocutors - and neither French nor German are my first languages by any estimate.
Short clear sentences and Babelfish. We get by.
MarkL
Canberra
Surely there’s a grand american conspiracy we can make out of this…
Hey guys, how come Krudd’s answer to the “disastrous $6Bn shortfall” left by Howard re the defence budget over the next decade, is a $10Bn budget cut to make the problem 1.6 times worse?
Garret, pre-election, was right: they are “just changing it all” after being elected. This will be lots of fun for we on the conservative side of the political spectrum, an ALP government headed by a million and whose policies are (monetarily) further right than Howard - for me uncomfortably too far right. What say you?
MarkL
Canberra