“It’s about $37 million for the CTOL aircraft, which is the air force variant.”
- Colonel Dwyer Dennis, U.S. JSF Program Office brief to Australian journalists, 2002-
The Australian Senate will decide today on whether to examine the details of the F-35 purchase for the RAAF.
Like all F-35 participants, Canberra and thus you, the public, have been fed a Chinese-style firewall of misinformation in regard to advantages of the aircraft when, in fact,there are no advantages. All arguments for the F-35, point back to boiler-plate group-think and spin by Government, the U.S. and Lockheed Martin.
To date, in Australia, there has be no, robust debate on why Australia needs the F-35.
Canada, our closest analog in the style of government administration, has been able to break through all of the fraud and ask the question, "should we be doing this?" Canadian elected officials determined that portions of their government lied to them in regard to risk and capability of the F-35. They have decided to use deeper analysis to look at all of the options to replace their old, F-18 aircraft that are similar to our old RAAF jets.
Back in 2002 when Australia decided to participate in the F-35 program, Howard, Hill and Houston made the announcement based on no credible risk assessment.
“It will be affordable because already there are 3,000 aircraft on the order books.”
—27 June 2002, Air Marshal Houston, Defence press announcement, Australia joins the F-35 program—
". . . US$40 million dollars . . "
-Senate Estimates/Media Air Commodore John Harvey, AM Angus Houston, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003-
This should worry us because, say what you want about the federal government, they are awash in manuals which show how to perform proper risk assessment on major projects. Why were these processes ignored for what is now to be an over $24B waste for the F- 35?
" . . US$45 million in 2002 dollars . ."
-JSCFADT/Senate Estimates, Air Commodore John Harvey, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003/2004-
The sales pitch for the aircraft resembles that of a Ponzi scheme. Everyone: industry and defence of the nation win.
". . average unit recurring flyaway cost of the JSF will be around US$48 million, in 2002 dollars . . "
-Senate Estimates/Press Club Briefing, Air Commodore John Harvey, 2006
Yet, that which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
". . the JSF Price (for Australia) - US$55 million average for our aircraft . . in 2006 dollars . ."
-Senate Estimates/Media AVM John Harvey ACM Angus Houston, Nov. 2006-
By the late 1990s, the entrenched defence bureaucracy had purged most of those that dared give robust arguments to bad decisions. The long trail of bad entrenched defence bureaucracy decision making, looks like the behavior of a family member we care about that has severe mental health challenges.
“…DMO is budgeting around A$131 million in 2005 dollars as the unit procurement cost for the JSF. .”
-AVM John Harvey Briefing, Office of the Minister for Defence, May 2007-
From then to today, the bureaucracy has sought to farm out any hard analysis of large defence planning. If such an important organisation has to farm out their thinking, what does that say about them when critical decisions during a war have to be made?
“There are 108 different cost figures for the JSF that I am working with and each of them is correct”
-Dr Steve Gumley, CEO of the DMO, Sep./Oct. 2007-
Our tax dollars in the billions are invested in outside care-givers by-any-other-name because our entrenched defence bureaucracy is unwilling or unable to make rational decisions.
“…I would be surprised if the JSF cost us anymore than A$75 million … in 2008 dollars at an exchange rate of 0.92”
-JSCFADT Dr Steve Gumley, CEO DMO, July 2008-
Today, we are at the point where foreign interests own the process. Government-funded think tanks as only one example. Another example: Defence lacked such thinking in the Collins replacement process, that we have handed over that process to the Americans. Got a defence problem? Throw some money at RAND or (anyone) but inside defence.
Either the ability to think doesn't exist, or, when it does, it isn't listened to because it is counter to what very senior decision makers (and their mates inside and outside of government) want.
Self-before service.
Selling off everything that isn't nailed down in Australia isn't new. Port-of-Darwin management for China? Not new. The proof in concept was in the late 1990's. Boeing took over management of F-111 maintenance. Are you surprised that somehow we ended up buying Boeing Super Hornets to "replace" the F-111?
Qantas had an important, secondary role providing home military aircraft maintenance. That was too much trouble for the self-before-service kind and their mates. That capability? Sold off it was.
Sell it off. Sell it all off because the Entrenched Defence Bureacracy had no
loyalty to Australia as a nation other than what can be extorted from the taxpayer.
Sustainment for the F-35 will be similar.
Confirmed previous advice i.e. A$75 million in 2008 dollars at an exchange rate of 0.92,
-JSCFADT Dr Steve Gumley, CEO of the DMO, Sep. 2009-
Without the dishonest top-cover by the entrenched defence bureaucracy, pointing out the large amount of F-35 program defects is low-hanging fruit.
We as a nation can reject the F-35 because it will get shot down in combat; it will be too expensive to own and operate; and, its prime capability besides money-for-mates, is that it can lose us a war.
" ...about $77 million per copy."
-Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Feb. 2008.
So there you are.
Also of interest, no one, to date, has provided a robust argument against this document.
Why is that?
"The cost of running the 58 Joint Strike Fighters announced by the Abbott government will double the price tag for the cutting-edge planes to a towering $24 billion, it was revealed on Wednesday." -Sydney Morning Herald, April 2014-
.
No comments:
Post a Comment