2. Introduce business like accountability and make defence project management competitive

Transcription

1 To whom it may concern, I work allot I wasn t really able to go into detail about the reasons for what I would like the government to consider so I will try my best to put a brief reason behind what I would like the government to consider. 1. Reduce Defence public servants Reason: it should not take around 20,000 people to support a defence force of 59,000 people, jobs are not a reason for inefficiency, Reinvest money into capability and even providing more frontline positions. 2. Introduce business like accountability and make defence project management competitive When projects like the sea sprite and AWD s are mismanaged taxpayers funds are wasted, 1 good manager is worth 10 bad ones. Instead of looking internally for project managers and decision makers headhunt quality managers with sound risk practice management and get experience into the government, the government should not be afraid to fire managers that are not up to the challenge. 3. Provide higher education and experience placement options for DMO workers Reason: By growing educational tools such as advanced risk and cost benefit management skills into the team and industry experience, acquisitions will likely be better managed. 4. Make available again the HOT ISSUE BRIEFS so that defence can once again be accountable again Reason: not only did I enjoy the unique perspective of the defence force that these Hot Issue Briefs provided it added another level of public accountability, and seriously scandalous stuff could always be withheld by the minister. 5. Make Defence procurement flexible Australia had the opportunity to buy surplus Dutch? Pzh 2000 weapons, and did not do so as it was not a competitive tender, Australia missed out on a good deal for weapons we will no longer get due to process not being flexible enough to view bargain market opportunities for stated capability goals, we did it for the Bay class from the British why wasn t such an approach considered for the SPG s. 6. Don t build the future submarines in Australia As the Australian Shipbuilding industry proved with the AWD s, we can t build even existing designs to international cost standards, meaning that if we choose to buy Australian we are wasting money. If the Japanese or whoever is selected build our submarines, the estimated cost of a purely MOTS solution has been around 20 Billion dollars (obviously we would want American combat systems, weapons and probably increased range but I ll get to that at a later point). Compared to the 36 Billion Aussie built/designed subs we could put 16 billion dollars into other programs in defence or build roads (or northern bases) which could generate Australian jobs and capability in other areas for minor less risky capability losses in the submarines which can be mitigated.

2 7. Buy a 4 th AWD (which could also operate as a mitigation for the loss of submarine work) Reason: We previously had 4 AW vessels, with the increased risk of supersonic, sea skimming missiles, and larger fleet assets such as the LHD s which don t have protection will need escort. Also economies of scale mean that a 4 th vessel purchase will be cheaper than the first 3, and will spread unit costs across more vessels. 8. Do build the future frigate off the AWD Hull to achieve cost savings, Rationalise Australian shipbuilding to surface vessels and submarine maintenance as they can specialise in an area which if planned correctly can have constant work and bring the Future frigates forward to prevent the valley of death and pay for that by retiring Anzacs early. Reason: Saves money, continues shipbuilding. 9. Buy F35 B, Modify LHD s for F35B, Consider V 22B for Special operations and refuelling F 35B. F 35B is a capability we can get with little cost, the cost difference for the B model can be countered by purchasing 24 rather than the 28 planes remaining. The LHD s are designed to operate F 35B and could be modified to operate them. Benefits of F 35B: Can refuel from buddy tanking superhornets and from hose and drogue, meaning a strike package with a mixed fleet of aircraft could tank quicker from a MRTT than an all A model fleet. Can take off from where the A cant. (MASSIVE BONUS). Saves ADF from having to expand northern bases as much as an LHD with F 35B could be forward positioned there when needed and operate as an alternative airbase. Can strike targets quicker and more frequently during power projection than from land or by tanking. The LHD s mean a squadron of F 35 can be pre positioned closer to the required area, reducing the demand for tankers and the speed of reaction. Will be able to provide fleet air defence, when the airforce cant. Detriments: More Expensive (Manageable) Could buy from later in the production line, less planes etc Smaller Payload (Manageable, still can use 2,000 pd on external and could drop 2 x1000 on the same target where stealth is needed) Higher maintenance costs due to two types (design similarity mitigates this issue) Range Shorter (can be mitigated through super hornet buddy tanking, MRTT and V 22B Tanking aircraft) V 22 would also be incredibly useful for Special forces Ops 10. Buy buddy tanking kits for F 18 Reason: The ability to buddy tank EA 18G, F18 and potential F35B would reduce demand on tanker assets considerably and enable further strike. 11. Consider option to: convert pre wired F 18 to EA 18G, and retain F 18F for tanking/secondary bombing

3 Reason: If need be Australia could have up to 136 Frontline Combat Aircraft (100 JSF, EA 18G, 12 FA 18F) 12. Consider buying more than 12 submarines Savings from an external purchase could go towards more submarines and still be cheaper than an Australian option, increasing capability also ask Hugh White (Who I totally agree with). 13. Chinooks, Chinooks, Chinooks Afghanistan has demonstrated how useful these aircraft are, and how little we have, after 2 losses we had to get more from the Americans, there is a reason why these aircraft have a huge order backlog, they are cheap (compared to JSF anyway) and will always be useful, can mobilise our M777 increasing the doctrine of combined fires, and are IED proof. 14. Exercise the option for P 8 and consider P 8 AGS We have approx. 21 P3 we may have as little as 8 P8 or almost a 60% reduction in airframes, ASW is the navy s biggest weakness (luckily we got our flashy new dipping sonars on the way) and it s about to get weaker, no amount of sensors can mitigate the loss of having as many aircraft in the sky, for example the Maylasian Airlines search Response of 4 aircraft off our coast with the new aircraft would take half the fleet, 12 is definitely needed. Also the Global hawks aren t armed p 8 s are. Also the p 8 AGS would be very useful for battlefield surveillance, worth considering. 15. Land 400 Look at unique capabilities similar to the BVS 10 which are amphibious (will work well with the LHD s) being both internally carriable by Chinook (if they aren t there is a smaller crawler that does) and swimmers. Would be a good replacement for the LARC s and could operate in antartica which is a future source of economic prospertity and conflict. Can also carry radars and mortars!. A mixed fleet of vehicle types enable different vehicles to do different missions meaning that the demands on one type of vehicle can be less. 16. Do not peace dividend the army. Reason: Consider the International Roadmap Superhornet Upgrades Reasons: Extra range (Australia is too big, JSF are short range, IRST is game changing) just all round good options to hedge JSF and maintain a long range strike capability the F 35 will not be able to provide without supporting aircraft. 18. Reapers Get them. That is all. Could swap 1 Triton for many Reapers. Reapers whilst not seeing as much ocean could be in two places at once, are weaponised and could make strike options safer. We already own hellfires too so that makes them cheaper. Also have naval versions that could multitask naval surveillance and provide strike/isr options for airforce. 19. All of the above proposals could be funded by savings made by buying Modified MOTS Subs. 20. Submarine Tenders

4 Conventional option for expanding the range of submarines without having to build them into the submarine, could refuel subs on their return so the mission secrecy remains secret and are cost effective. Worth considering with forward basing. Darwin having submarines could reduce range requirements substantially. 21. I agree with getting JSM to mitigate the range deficiency of the F 35A and B could also consider for the OCV s. 22. I completely agree with the decision to source new fleet oilers/replenishment ships overseas 23. Consider developing stealth drop tanks for F 35, could be cheaper than new tankers and safer, however tankers more flexible 24. I agree with the decision to buy 2 more C 17A as the fleet is overworked, government should rush and get the two further options as the aircraft are necessary, and we need more. 25. I agree with buying more MRTT, They are force multipliers and can take the load off the C 17A also agree with one to be fit out as a VIP. 26. Consider unique capabilities for army such as Bridge layers for the engineers and Assault Breaching Abrams 27. Unmothball our tanks Reason: They are an important part of high end warfighting capability and would not cost much to regain significant levels of capability 28. Consider Selling surplus F 18F to USN to fund V 22 or F 35B. 29. If F 35B is not selected Tiger ARH could be upgraded to carry mistral which could provide limited air to air. 30. Special forces Chinooks Our special forces do amazing things, but with American aircraft, the ability to operate our own would be a substantial capability boost. 31. Diving capability (Get them better equipment or a dive tender or something) Our Navy Divers whilst highly trained do not have anywhere near the dive depth capability that other navy s have, with asymmetric warfare increasing navy divers must be able to meet the challenge 32. We should remain allies with the united states Same values, similar goals, American military support enables our military spending to be lower. 33. I agree with the shift to the north of Australia. Prepositioning submarines in northern Australia will reduce the range requirements for the future submarines 34. Consider all the bespoke surplus British equipment for sale from the downsizing of their military The British have many surplus utility military vehicles which could bolster Australia s army at bargain prices. 35. Purchase the rented equipment from the Canadians 36. Identify Civil Military collaborations such as the British MRTT s to enable capability to be drawn from civil areas, like cranes and bulldozers 37. Buy amphibious vehicles that can replace the LARC V s Reason: The LARC V s are old, and the LHD s can carry allot more LARC s than we have, IE BVS 10 type vehicles.

5 38. Provide cheaper defence engineering University Bonded Degrees where the student not only does not pay for it up front but gets a cheaper rate for taking longer bonded positions. 39. Enable the new Australian Icebreaker to be militarised I.e. fitted for but not with to enable a southern military presence if needed. (We definitely need an icebreaker) 40. Consider new forms of land based artillery IE rocket artillery and Land based Anti Ship missiles. HIMARS and land based mobile NSM s could increase strike and deterrent capability considerably without large cost. See aspi analysis on Land based Anti Ship missiles. 41. Only build the Future frigates in Australia if Australian Industry represents good capability for the cost Australian naval shipbuilding can survive and become viable if it gets constant work, and takes a low risk approach such as building the future frigates off the AWD hull which we have already built. By bringing forward the future frigates and mandating the use of the existing destroyer hull as the base, a low risk viable building plan could be implemented for industry where the valley of death could be avoided and constant work provided as there could be a slower deadline to replace the Anzacs if we started building earlier, and retired them earlier (potentially gifting to Indonesia as per ASPI opinion articles). I apologize for not really going into depth, for me there are allot of capability boosting options that could be taken at minimal cost to develop a higher level of overall capability. The way I see it is a cost capability sensible purchase of submarines could mean drastic capability increases in other areas or in submarine numbers and jobs if the money was to be spent elsewhere. I would take 18 submarines, a few submarine tenders and a new northern submarine base with change to spare for other capabilities such as P 8 which could also add to that capability and Land Based Anti ship missiles which could also provide a significant deterrent and be airlifted into the Asian pacific region than a bespoke submarine, with a high risk built in Australia to create jobs, which will be poorly managed, leaves us as the parent navy again and prevents spending in other areas because it costs more than it should. The future submarine decision is crucial, don t build in Australia just for the sake of jobs, jobs will be generated in Australia in mantainence anyway, and by having more subs more jobs operating the subs could also be created, so there is minimal job costs to building overseas, but large cost saving potential. + you could always put some of the extra money into job creation for crucial stuff that must be built in Australia such as roads. Instead of building a gold plated submarine let s buy a Toyota and get a reliable useful submarine that is good at sinking ships, not creating jobs. I know this was essentially a shopping list, but selecting a few of these options would be within our means given the right decision on the submarines. Kind Regards, Alex P.s. Don t know why we haven t considered submarine tenders earlier they would be quite useful.