Review into Australia's Air Combat Capability

Perhaps I should have phrased it...

'the only political reason to hold such a public inquiry is to cancel the SH', rather than saying 'to reverse Nelson's purchase'. There is certainly no need to hold such an inquiry to endorse SH.

My question is - why hold a public review at all, when there is always the possibility that the review will return a result that the Rudd government won't like.

If the intent is to cancel SH, then that can be done just by 'stating' (with authority) that the F-111s can be maintained and therefore there is no gap to be filled.

If the intention is to align Rudd policy behind the SH, then why make it so public. That only re-affirms that Nelson made the right decision and Rudd was slow to see the light.

The only reason that I can see for having a public review, is so that a 'consensus' will demonstrate that the decision to purchase SH was wrong, and that the Rudd government is left no choice but to have to cancel the purchase regardless of how much it costs. That is, a decision reluctantly 'forced upon them' rather than the Rudd government spending $400m on cancellation fees and getting nothing in return.

The key here is that it is not just seen as a Rudd policy decision that will cost $400m or more, but something forced upon the Rudd government by the incompetent purchase of the aircraft by the previous government.

Whatever the real reason for the public review, I cannot see the conclusions reached by the review being anything other than what the Rudd government wants it to be.

It just doesn't make any political sense to establish a review that could return a result that you don't want, or which might prove embarrassing to you.

The Winged Wombat

Your post above left out one option - that no decision has been made, and therefore the Government isn't worried about what the outcome will be. Not saying this is the correct answer, but it is an option as well as them having a firm decision either way.

Anyway, this has turned into a bit of a Willard and Winged Wombat show. Where are the other usual suspects? Hell, I thought Iskander at least would have something to say!

Oh allright then boys, my two cents!

I think (and I know this is fence sitting, but...) you are both correct. The Rudd/Fitzgibbon team are taking the opportunity of using all political options. IF there is to be an order cancellation then they will NEED to publicly give a rationale and the reason is simple and right under our noses. Willard, the very fact that Nelson didn't give a good enough public case is the very well learnt reason that the Rudd government is going through this loudly trumpeted review. They saw the vicious and vociferous reaction in the press to a stupidly thought out piece of political spin made by Nelson, and in the reaction to the decision they saw two opportunities/leasons here.

One, discredit the opposition, especially as the former minister is now leader of a defeated party. Smash them hard now and you give yourself more political breathing space down the track.

Two, any decision the new government makes can now be seen as legitimised, no matter which way it goes because this one will be seen as a far more "proper" review. Even if they do come down in favour of the SH option they can fall back on the simple argument, "well unlike the last government we considered all possibilities and this turns out to be the right one". Its a no brainer, if they cancel they can send the Liberal party back into the stone age at precisely the time any new government wants to make all its radical decisions, in the first 6-12 months. If they end up going ahead with the contract they look sensible and considered in their decision and politically and fiscally it costs them nothing. In addition it puts pressure on the chief arms supplier (the US) and its major contractors to not take them for granted or try and pull any funnies during the new governments term as it might come back to bite them. A simple case of showing that the new dog has teeth.

As for my own take on this? I dont think the Rudd government is any different to any other. They (within reason) dont give a rats what aircraft gets purchased as long as it is acceptable to the public and they (govt) think the "good ol US of A" will be there in time of major conflict anyway. Im not saying that Fitzgibbon is a political phoney (I think he is potentially the best defence minister for some decades) but reality dictates that you take both the most sensible strategic/financial option as well as the most politically astute one. It could well turn out to be the SH decision stands, on the other hand we could be witnessing the begining of a major shift in in Australian political military/strategic thinking. Given how rapidly the Asia/Pacific region is militarily shifting, is this any wonder?

As I keep saying watch this space, its about to get REAL interesting in Canberra.

LEE.

Fair enough Lee,

I am simply taking the scenario one simple step beyond your assessment in that I'm saying that the Rudd government aim must be to cancel, because they would have absolutely no desire to publicly bolster Brendon Nelson's credibility by suddenly and very publicly discovering that he was right all along.

While they may say that it is just coincidental and that they did the research to arrive at that conclusion, Nelson and his party would undoubtedly say that they were right all along and the Rudd government (due to its inexperience - the current opposition attack) just couldn't see it - and therefore by inference that Fitzgibbon is unfit to be Defense Minister

Therefore, if anything but cancellation is the result of the review, I would see it as a serious political mistake on the part of the Rudd government, in that it publicly gives the opposition credibility and ammunition.

Note that I am making no judgment here on the right or wrong decision - I think we have established that we agree to disagree on what we feel Australia's defense capabilities should or should not include. I am looking here at the purely political.

This is why I think that submissions now are probably useless - because the situation has moved into the purely political arena and that the technical is no longer being considered.

So, unless I assume that the Rudd government is totally politically inept (which I don't think is the case), then I must assume that the inquiry will return a particular result, desirable to Kevin Rudd.

Still, it wouldn't be the first time that politicians have surprised me with their ineptitude, so we will see.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 21/2/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Fitzgibbon is at least claiming publically that he would keep the Super Hornets if that is the outcome of the review. Link to interview on Lateline, which discusses other projects under the pump such as Sea Sprite and Adelaide Class Frigate.

From ABC's Lateline

TONY JONES: It sounds like you're preparing the public to take the $400 million hit which will come if the contract is cancelled?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Oh not at all Tony. I've consistently said I will follow the advice of the experts who are doing the capability review. If they come to the conclusion or recommend that the Super Hornet isn't up to the job, I would have no hesitation in cancelling it. I hope, despite the lack of due process which was undertaken, and despite the rushed and maybe premature decision, I'm really hoping that the air combat review recommends that we retain the Super Hornet. In that case, we will avoid a more than $400 million penalty and that cost is growing on a daily basis, and we will avoid the sort of relationship strains you'd expect with our friends and allies in the United States for cancelling that contract. So no one will be more happy than me if we're able to take a decision to retain the Super Hornet, but I'll still be very, very unhappy about the deal that is $6.6 billion. Which is very expensive for this aircraft, and I'll remain very unhappy about the lack of process leading up to the decision.

TONY JONES: The Defence Secretary Robert Gates seemed to leave the door open for Australia to get out of that contract without hurting the relationship with the United States in an interview tonight with Kerry O'Brien. Is that the way you read what he said?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Yeah well he's a good guy. He understands our situation and he said something which I thought was very generous. This is a matter for the Australian Government. He's not going to interfere. That's not to say, of course, Tony that his administration and the US Navy in particular, wouldn't be concerned about a decision to cancel because see, the US Navy has entered into a contract with Boeing to purchase. They've made commitments. The thing's coming off the production line, so it's a pretty rude if you like thing to do to move in now and cancel the project, and I'd be very, very happy if we don't have to.

Also enjoy the squirming towards the end as Joel struggles to remember who in the region are going to be operating 5th gen aircraft. Ah, welcome to the hot seat!

OK, so it begins.......

"The Federal Government has cancelled Australia's $1 billion commitment to the Royal Australian Navy's controversial Seasprite helicopter project.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon made the announcement at a visit to a Newcastle engineering firm this morning."

Source..... www.abc.net.au...


..... Next!

The Winged Wombat

I like this bit:

"The decision taken by the Rudd Labor Government is one that should have been taken by the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, when he had the opportunity last year.

I think The Winged Wombat is correct. Any chance they have to bash Nelson they'll use.

And richly deserves to be smacked for. The whole project has been a monumental joke (albeit a joke that nearly resulted in dead aircrew). Nelson SHOULD have cancelled it last year when he had the chance. In fact, he should have canned it three years ago. Guess he's an optimist...

Originally posted by Willard856
And richly deserves to be smacked for. The whole project has been a monumental joke (albeit a joke that nearly resulted in dead aircrew). Nelson SHOULD have cancelled it last year when he had the chance. In fact, he should have canned it three years ago. Guess he's an optimist...

If you can take the report on Channel Nine news as gospel then Brendan Nelson wanted to can it last year but he was overuled by his own bosses at the time.

Either way I'm sure that most will agree with this opening decision of the so called review / political propaganda circus.

As far as I'm aware this has nothing to do with the review. The decision to can the Sea Sprite was made by the Minister due to the fact that the project wasn't breathing, had no heart beat, had turned blue, and smelled suspiciously like an old person's home. There was no need to review this one as there was zero chance of resuscitation.

Hmm, judging by my medical metaphor, it must nearly be time for House...

Originally posted by Willard856
As far as I'm aware this has nothing to do with the review. The decision to can the Sea Sprite was made by the Minister due to the fact that the project wasn't breathing, had no heart beat, had turned blue, and smelled suspiciously like an old person's home. There was no need to review this one as there was zero chance of resuscitation.

Hmm, judging by my medical metaphor, it must nearly be time for House...

True the decision was obvious, but in this day and age all decisions like this have to be used for all the political gain they can, hence the propaganda bit.

Which doesn't change the fact that i completely agree with your medical analogy there Willard, and yes it is almost time for House

[edit on 5/3/2008 by watto]

put seasprites into the air remote controlled
and blow them out of the sky.

Ah, gunning choppers. Is there anything more fun that that? Oh yeah, gunning Pigs...

reply to post by Willard856


is there a market for "hardly used choppers" "needs new home"
out there

utility roles maybe,
other users for spares,
or dive wrecks

What was the rationale behind the Sea Sprite debacle anyway?

Can anyone explain what they were thinking? Or what they thought they were thinking? (If that makes any sense )

reply to post by answerman


The SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite was designed specifically for the RAN?s Anzac-class frigates and are intended to carry two long range Penguin anti-ship missiles as well as anti-submarine torpedoes to extend the fighting range of the ships and engage adversaries from well outside the range of enemy weapons.

The problems with the aircraft stem from two sources; the original ITAS sub-contractor, Litton Industries, Los Angeles, grossly underestimated the difficulties in developing the system. Kaman terminated its contract with Litton in 2001 and awarded sub-contracts to CSC Australia and Northrop Grumman, Los Angeles, to complete development of the ITAS.

The problem which saw the Super Seasprites grounded previously arose from an anomaly in the air data computer within the DAFCS which caused uncommanded control inputs. This has been resolved, but the RAN and Kaman are still negotiating over whether to conduct further testing of other elements of the DAFCS to eliminate the possibility of further problems. This would delay acceptance of the aircraft by the RAN.

The difficulties in developing the ITAS are compounded, said French, by the fact the aircraft is required to have a two-man crew rather than the three or four man crew typical of naval helicopters. The high levels of automation required have made the ITAS a complex system to develop.

Kaman is still working under its original fixed price contract for the Super Seasprites, French told ADM, so notwithstanding the delays in the program the RAN isn?t paying extra for the helicopters.

Basicly small airframe,
Full automation rather than crew levels,
Not enough crew,
Too complex,
Best not to invent something unless someone else has paid for it and using it,

New Zealand loves their seasprites.

Thanks Jezza.

So, essentially they were trying to squeeze as much technology as possible into a small airframe, use only a 2 man crew to do the work of 4 and expect complicated software/systems to make up the difference.

EDIT; Deleted superfluous question.

Thanks again!

[edit on 9-3-2008 by answerman]

I think the Aussies should buy a load of Su-30s to fill the gap.

Won't happen. Way too many implications such as training, logisitics, weapon and stores integration, not to mention our US ties. Australia will not be getting Russian aircraft.

Looks like Winged Wombat's cynical world view needs to be reconsidered!

Government to keep Super Hornets

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will proceed with plans to acquire Boeing Super Hornet aircraft ordered by the previous government, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced.

Mr Fitzgibbon said the Super Hornet was an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region.

Basically Labor has slammed the planning processes of the Howard Government, especially with regards to JSF which led to a gap that they (Labor) believe can only be plugged by Super Hornet.

Also influencing the decision was the possibility of purchasing the EA version of the aircraft.

So all in all, the Pig will finally die, the Super Bug will live, and JSF becomes shakier. Interesting times!