Australian Army Discussions and Updates

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Is it just me,or is history and hind sight starting to demonstrate that, with the exception of FMS sourced projects, that the Howard government was particularly bad at defence procurement and project management? Some of the decissions seem just loopy.
They were certainly in love with European and US risky, developmental projects.

KC-30A, Wedgetail, C-130J-30, JSF, MRH-90, Tiger ARH, JASSM, HF Mod, Vigilaire, LCM-2000, LW torpedo, Project Overlander and so on...

All Howard era projects and all ran into differing and mostly significant levels of issues...

Edit: Not to mention the completely failed projects like SPH, lightweight automatic grenade launchers, Sea Sprogs and the initial implementation of the Tactical UAV for Army...
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They were certainly in love with European and US risky, developmental projects.

KC-30A, Wedgetail, C-130J-30, JSF, MRH-90, Tiger ARH, JASSM, HF Mod, Vigilaire, LCM-2000, LW torpedo and so on...

All Howard era projects and all ran into differing and mostly significant levels of issues...
Add MU-90 to the euro list but please don't forget M-113 upgrade, FFGUP, LCM2000, ordering the Seasprite after cancelling the platform they were intended to operate from. Actually we can add the ACPB as well because if the planned corvettes hadn't been canned we woldn't be breaking patrol boats by trying to use them as OCV's.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Add MU-90 to the euro list but please don't forget M-113 upgrade, FFGUP, LCM2000, ordering the Seasprite after cancelling the platform they were intended to operate from. Actually we can add the ACPB as well because if the planned corvettes hadn't been canned we woldn't be breaking patrol boats by trying to use them as OCV's.
MU-90 is there, as is LCM-2000 and the Sprogs after an edit. M113AS4 and FFG-UP I'll give them a pass mark on. They were initially proposed before their time, though they expanded the projects no doubt about it...

ACPB is a beauty too. Definitely a wise investment...

:rotfl
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Is it just me,or is history and hind sight starting to demonstrate that, with the exception of FMS sourced projects, that the Howard government was particularly bad at defence procurement and project management? Some of the decissions seem just loopy.
To be fair, most of the purchases were supported at the time.

I distinctly remember everyone stating that buying the MRH-90 was the way to go at the time. Ditto KC-30, JASSM, Wedgetail etc.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I know in their later years they were very pro defence and without a doubt dramatically increased spending but it I wonder if they must also hold the record for the greatest number of problem projects for a single government.

Realisticly we could / should have had either a hell of a lot more for the cash we spent or have spent much much less for what we got.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To be fair, most of the purchases were supported at the time.

I distinctly remember everyone stating that buying the MRH-90 was the way to go at the time. Ditto KC-30, JASSM, Wedgetail etc.
I find it interesting that where the Army was heading in 96 was not that different to 2007 with HNA and now in the 2010s with Plan Beersheba, it just seems to take time for the ADf to educate the government on what is needed. Most mistakes are made early on with things getting back on track in later terms when they have more experience under their belts. The exception is the current mob that started off ok before being hijacked by the unelectable student union politics mob who rode their coat tails into government.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I find it interesting that where the Army was heading in 96 was not that different to 2007 with HNA and now in the 2010s with Plan Beersheba, it just seems to take time for the ADf to educate the government on what is needed. Most mistakes are made early on with things getting back on track in later terms when they have more experience under their belts. The exception is the current mob that started off ok before being hijacked by the unelectable student union politics mob who rode their coat tails into government.
HNA/ELF and Plan Beersheeba have nothing to do with what was happening in the '90s. HNA was a result of not being able to commit conventional forces to the invasion of Iraq, ELF was the result of the Army not being big enough to sustain ongoing ops and Plan Beersheeba is the result of being on ops for 10+ years, and trying to find a sustainable orbat to enable an efficient force generation cycle. None of these pressures existed in the '90s.
 

Gordon Branch

New Member
HNA/ELF and Plan Beersheeba have nothing to do with what was happening in the '90s. HNA was a result of not being able to commit conventional forces to the invasion of Iraq, ELF was the result of the Army not being big enough to sustain ongoing ops and Plan Beersheeba is the result of being on ops for 10+ years, and trying to find a sustainable orbat to enable an efficient force generation cycle. None of these pressures existed in the '90s.
Just a small point - Could those who use acronyms please spell the total meaning out the first time before continuing?

Those of us who are either not "in the know" or who have forgotten find these posts incomprehensible.

HNA = ? ELF = ?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
To be fair, most of the purchases were supported at the time.

I distinctly remember everyone stating that buying the MRH-90 was the way to go at the time. Ditto KC-30, JASSM, Wedgetail etc.
With the exception of MRH-90 (should have gone with UH-60M or MH-60S) and probably MU-90 (should have gone with domestic Mk 54 upgrade of existing Mk 46 torpedos) and M113-UP, (should have gone with Bradley relife and M109A6 relife for Arty, which I think uses the same chassis and running gear as Bradley) I still think those decisions were largely the right way to go.

I was just commenting on the idea that they certainly had a great appetite to invest in risky projects.

Some of the projects were just downright ridiculous though. LW AGL, SPH and Sea Sprogs are probably the most glaring projects that in hindsight were utterly stupid and should never have been allowed to develop the way they did.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Just a small point - Could those who use acronyms please spell the total meaning out the first time before continuing?

Those of us who are either not "in the know" or who have forgotten find these posts incomprehensible.

HNA = ? ELF = ?
HNA - Hardened Networked Army.

ELF - Enhanced Land Force.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just a small point - Could those who use acronyms please spell the total meaning out the first time before continuing?

Those of us who are either not "in the know" or who have forgotten find these posts incomprehensible.

HNA = ? ELF = ?
Hardened Networked Army

Enhanced Land Force (I believe but will stand corrected, Ravens knowledge is far more current then mine)
 

phreeky

Active Member
Realisticly we could / should have had either a hell of a lot more for the cash we spent or have spent much much less for what we got.
It was an era of under-delivering (and not just in defence). If you look back at the money that was flowing into gov hands at the time it seems quite sad - high tax revenues and sales of large public assets.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Quite interesting:

Defence shows off new fitness standard | News.com.au

Doesn't sound that different in concept to the old combat fitness test, is this a case of everything old is new again?

I do actually remember that many of the guys who aced the BFA usually found the CFT a lot harder and the bigger blokes who weren't so quick in a pair of runners often cruised through the CFT. Go on exercise in 40°C + temperatures, 20km route march with full pack and it was the guys who did well on the CFT who were still going often carrying another guys weapon / webbing or even pack at the end of the day.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Quite interesting:

Defence shows off new fitness standard | News.com.au

Doesn't sound that different in concept to the old combat fitness test, is this a case of everything old is new again?

I do actually remember that many of the guys who aced the BFA usually found the CFT a lot harder and the bigger blokes who weren't so quick in a pair of runners often cruised through the CFT. Go on exercise in 40°C + temperatures, 20km route march with full pack and it was the guys who did well on the CFT who were still going often carrying another guys weapon / webbing or even pack at the end of the day.
The PES test basically is a CFA, just one designed by DSTO to be relevant to each job. The article only lists the all-corps PES test, but there is also a combat arms PES test, plus a specific PES test for Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Engineers. The tests for these corps are much tougher than the general one.

The difference between the old CFA and the PES test though, is the PES test is the barrier to get into a corps. For instance, if a soldier joins up to be an infantryman, they will have to complete the combat arms PES test while at Kapooka and then the infantry specific PES test while at IETs. That is actually pretty tough for a new soldier to complete.

The problem with the PES test though, and why it will be a massive waste of time and effort, is that it won't replace the BFA as the requirement to remain AIRN compliant. Once you have completed the PES test to get into your corps, you won't have to pass one again until (or unless) you deploy. In the meantime, each six months you will still only have to complete the BFA, which of course has a different standard for females and ages. When someone is tapped for deployment, they will have to complete a PES as part of MST.

This is the problem - soldiers, especially females, will train very hard at the start of their career to pass the PES to get in, then never have to complete one again, returning to their old, unfit ways. Even if a deployment comes up, I can pretty much guarantee that failing a PES won't get you kicked off the trip. This happened on my trip last year, when the brigade commander decided that completing the all-corps PES test would be a deployment requirement. However, after every single female (and a few males) failed, they realised that you can't afford to kick everyone off and waived the requirement. It made a mockery of the whole process.

This is one reason why integrating females into the combat arms is going to end in tears. I can guarantee that many well intentioned females are going to train their ass off to pass the initial PES test then, once the fear of failure has passed, return to a more normal level of fitness. They will then go bush, not be up to the physical standard required, get broken, end up in rehab platoon, and be medically discharged. I am willing to place a very large bet that the rate of females getting broken in infantry battalions is at least four times that of the male rate. Once this happens, it will hit the media and it will all be Army's fault somehow, and Ms Broderick will get to do another review into why those knuckle dragging males in the Army just wont let females compete equally.

Mind you, not all that many females are putting their hand up to join the combat corps anyway, so the problem may not be as bad as I said. Not a single female in the most recent RMC class put in a preference for a combat corps. Only one female soldier in my whole brigade has applied for a corps transfer, and she failed the PES.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
That problem's easily fixed. Once people start breaking down doing the PES or heavens above, actual time out bush, WH&S will declare these activities far too arduous and dangerous and such will be banned.

Especially if they're done outdoors where all that deadly UV is present, not to mention a myriad of other dangers...

:rolleyes:
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I know in their later years they were very pro defence and without a doubt dramatically increased spending but it I wonder if they must also hold the record for the greatest number of problem projects for a single government.

Realisticly we could / should have had either a hell of a lot more for the cash we spent or have spent much much less for what we got.
True, but the current Government's ways are just as bad and will, IMHO, do more damage due to lack of money all for the sake of a lie on the bottom line of the budget, and I think could/will result in the loss of capability and take some time to overcome

Cheers
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
True, but the current Government's ways are just as bad and will, IMHO, do more damage due to lack of money all for the sake of a lie on the bottom line of the budget, and I think could/will result in the loss of capability and take some time to overcome

Cheers
deleted
 
Last edited:
Top