Defence procurement bungles and wins

[DJC]

The Defence Department's acknowledgement that the AUKUS submarine deal is going to cost us $5B in payments to France before we even put a down payment on our new submarines got me thinking about how much of our defence budget is wasted on poor contract management and inappropriate purchases.

The Defence Minister recently announced that the MRH-90 Taipan multi-role helicopters were to be replaced by Sikorsky Black Hawks and Sea Hawks after the Taipans were found to be unable to perform the roles they were purchased for.  In fact, the Taipans were purchased to replace our Black Hawks and Sea Hawks.  In other words, we are replacing the Taipans with the helicopters they were intended to replace!

It was previously announced that our Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters were not fit for purpose and will be replaced with Boeing Apache Guardians, a helicopter that was in service before we chose the Tiger.

A significant part of our defence budget is going to the acquisition of F-35 Lightning multi-role, supersonic, stealth fighters.  They may well be the real deal but we forked out a lot of money to help with development.  On top of that, the F-35B version has vertical take off and landing ability and would be be a significant force advantage if deployed on our Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

Back on land, the Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle has been purchased even if it can only meet one of the Army's requirements for offensive firepower and anti-missile capability.  Then there's the Hawkei tactical vehicle that's currently withdrawn from service because the brakes don't work.

Of course, there have been some excellent military equipment purchases in the recent past but shouldn't we expect that all of our defence expenditure produces material that's fit for purpose and is state of the art?

[Thryleon]

Government departments make stupid finance decisions all the time.

They almost spend for the sake of it.

[DJC]

Government departments make stupid finance decisions all the time.

They almost spend for the sake of it.

They also make excellent decisions and get more bangs for their bucks.

Sticking with Defence, the decision to purchase M113 armoured personnel carriers can’t be faulted and the same can be said for the last three generations of tanks, the Bushmaster PMVs, Landrovers, Unimogs, patrol boats, destroyers, frigates, Hornets, F111s, Hueys, etc.

Problems seem to arise when we’re after something off the drawing board or want to modify an existing design to suit a real or imagined requirement.

[LP]

These are panels made up of military personal and bureaucrats they are not primarily political decisions, and the noise often comes from those who fails to win the tender.

No one solution is perfect, and most decisions come with compromise.

[Thryleon]

They also make excellent decisions and get more bangs for their bucks.

Sticking with Defence, the decision to purchase M113 armoured personnel carriers can’t be faulted and the same can be said for the last three generations of tanks, the Bushmaster PMVs, Landrovers, Unimogs, patrol boats, destroyers, frigates, Hornets, F111s, Hueys, etc.

Problems seem to arise when we’re after something off the drawing board or want to modify an existing design to suit a real or imagined requirement.

I agreed with you.

They waste money.

Now which is it. Do they do it well or don't they?

[Baggers]

They also make excellent decisions and get more bangs for their bucks.

Sticking with Defence, the decision to purchase M113 armoured personnel carriers can’t be faulted and the same can be said for the last three generations of tanks, the Bushmaster PMVs, Landrovers, Unimogs, patrol boats, destroyers, frigates, Hornets, F111s, Hueys, etc.

Problems seem to arise when we’re after something off the drawing board or want to modify an existing design to suit a real or imagined requirement.

Totally agree, David. In fact there is much about the Aussie -- with limited resources and small population -- military that is deeply admired by other nations, even setting examples. This reputation has been built over many, many decades under both major political parties.

[LP]

Australia is already well down the track to having a hypersonic weapons platform by accident, having spent many years in collaboration with NASA on space planes / launch platforms with transonic / hypersonic capability. I suspect that AUKUS see this as potentially a hypersonic cruise capable missile as apparently many problems of transitioning between subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic flight have already been addressed by the research, math done now it's an engineering gig.

One has to wonder what the researchers will think when AUKUS hijacks the existing research and turns it into another weapons project. It's going to be bitter sweet for some, they'll get the funding they wish they had always had, but it won't necessarily translate to the new hypersonic public access transport system they had hoped for!

Of course the next step might well be a hypersonic weapons or surveillance platform.

A lot of it will go dark, blacker than my heart! :o

For those interested in some of the background, it's a project between UoQ and NASA, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161...space-race

Oddly enough, I've worked with some of these people in the past, it turns out that R&D into additive manufacturing via kinetic spray requires the design of de Laval spray nozzles that just so happen to be ideal starting point for scramjets and hypersonic propulsion. I can tell you they won't be happy if the research gets restricted.

[DJC]

I agreed with you.

They waste money.

Now which is it. Do they do it well or don't they?

That's the quandary Thry; our defence purchases are often state of the art, fit for purpose and good value.  Then there are the purchases that have cost blow-outs and land the troops with gear that's not up to the job.  How do we get it so right ... and so wrong?

[Mav]

On The Project, it was claimed that the armed UAV program has been dumped. Bad timing, given that drones have proven very effective in Ukraine against the Russians. In the event of a hostile amphibious invasion taking advantage of remote coastline areas, you'd think UAVs would be very effective in disrupting advances on populated areas. And they'd be a lot cheaper than F35s.

[LP]

In the event of a hostile amphibious invasion taking advantage of remote coastline areas, you'd think UAVs would be very effective in disrupting advances on populated areas. And they'd be a lot cheaper than F35s.

It's interesting, they are certainly effective, but maybe not as cheap as people think. A military grade drone, one that is comms secure and hardened against hacking, EMP, laser, etc., etc., can cost million$ For every F35 there would be dozens or even hundreds of drones required to do the same job, modern fighter aircraft are really a platform, so a simple comparison is not really valid.

Also, I note that launching drones is not simple either, not from the technical perspective but from a tactical perspective, the smaller drones do not have ranges measured in thousands of kilometres. As you launch a drone it comes up on / over the horizon as a bright RF source, launch too many from one location and it's like putting a pin on the map for your enemy to reference. So generally they have to be transported and launched from diverse locations.