Tag Archive for: Defence Materiel Organisation

Option J for FSM—a Japanese solution?

HMAS Collins transits through Cockburn Sound at sunrise.Andrew Davies raised some interesting issues regarding the possible acquisition of Japanese submarines for Australia in his recent post, ‘Getting the submarine we want’. I’d like to take a closer look at the suitability of the Soryu.

Comparisons with the Collins class are difficult given the scarcity of published information and the fact that the Japanese platform and combat system components have been developed in an environment isolated from competition with Western/NATO suppliers.

Still, the table below provides a comparison of the Soryu and Collins class submarines using publicly available information. Read more

Time for a sensible defence industry policy

HMAS Hobart keel laying ceremony at the South Australian Government's User Facility (CUF) in Osborne, Adelaide., 6 September 2012.The 2015 Defence White Paper will come with a library of supporting documents, including a new Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS). This year is therefore an opportunity finally to develop a sensible defence industry policy: one that reflects the situation within which the ADF operates, one that provides a proper basis for the local defence industry, and one that establishes a base for the future development and sustainment of that industry.

The current policy for defence industry—as laid down in DIPS 2010—does none of those things, and is little more than a series of concepts floating in free space. Still, recent efforts by DMO Industry Division to connect up some of the concepts have been worthwhile, and hopefully the fruits of those efforts will be reflected in DIPS 2015.

I outline here a conceptual, joined-up framework for defence industry policy. The framework consists of three pillars, namely:

  1. Determining strategic alignment
  2. Seeing industry as a capability
  3. Creating an investment environment

Read more

Defence reform after the National Commission of Audit

Aerial photograph of Russell Offices. Mark Thomson writes that while it might be politically expedient to quarantine military personnel from scrutiny, they represent more than three-quarters of the Defence workforce and are the most expensive on a per-capita basis. The multiple military headquarters maintained by the ADF are likely to be every bit as overstaffed as those on Russell Hill.

The National Commission of Audit’s report created quite a stir last week; pension ages to rise, family payment to fall, and a new model for federation. For those who lack the time to study the Commission’s five volumes, a summary of recommendations for Defence is here. The recommendations fall into three categories:

First, in the politest way possible, the Commission recommends that the government base defence spending on an analysis of capability options and strategic risks rather than adhere to its commitment to spend 2% of GDP. This is a sound recommendation, but it’s not one that the government is likely to embrace publicly given the politics of promises.

Second, there’s a series of discrete recommendations about a grab-bag of issues, including budget processes, ministerial directives, reintegrating DMO into Defence, professionalisation of Capability Development Group, new performance indicators, sale of ASC Pty Ltd, privatisation of Defence Housing Australia, closing the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme, ceasing the Skilling Australia Defence Industry Program, and assessing the potential of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation for outsourcing. Read more

Putting the CAP into capability

Since the Defence White Paper 2013 emphasises the Defence of Australia, it’s useful to look at where we would be able to project force under the cover of our own airbases by having a standing fighter patrol, or ‘Combat Air Patrol’ (CAP) overhead. The picture that emerges is perhaps surprisingly limited.

The map below shows approximate ranges for that air cover. The concentric lines are our best guess at the distances at which an air-to-air configured F-35 JSF aircraft can remain on station for an hour. The inner line is the unrefuelled range, while the outer one assumes that a tanker aircraft can refuel the F-35 at 500 nm range from base. (This in turn assumes that the tanker itself—which would represent a high-value target for an adversary—can be safely operated at that distance.)

Figure 2. Approximate ranges from Australian bases at which an F-35 JSF aircraft could remain on station for an hour. The inner line is for unrefueled aircraft. The outer line assumes an air-to-air refuelling at 500nm from base. (Source: ranges estimated from December 2009 Selected Acquisition report data.) Range rings for the Super Hornet with a weapons payload would be smaller.

Read more

Defence skills golden triangle: right people, right place and right time

In a recent speech to RUSI, Raytheon boss Michael Ward outlined how the Australian Defence industry had dropped from close to 30,000 people down to about 25,000 people over the last three years. Given the government would like to see 34,000 people upwards in that space over the coming decade I would suggest that the golden triangle for a skilled defence workforce is on very shaky ground.

‘In his July 2009 speech to the Defence & Industry Conference, the then Defence Minister, John Faulkner, predicted a defence industry workforce of 34,000 by 2013,’ Ward told his audience. ‘Much has changed since then but the reality is we will soon have a defence industry workforce some 30% smaller than the Government expected.’

Since this time guidance to industry has been a mixed bag. The White Paper of the day sent many a mixed message on the strategic outlook and the hows and whys of the wider defence landscape. Financial details were slim to be filled in at the budget and we all know how that went. Just read anything on ASPI’s site or blog by Mark Thomson on the Defence budget and the complete lack of detail on future spending. Rhetoric is great but the numbers just don’t match up. Read more