Monday, November 21, 2011

Unknown what Australian and Indonesian security agreements will produce

A real security concern for Australia is to stop illegal immigration. While a previous PM John Howard may have been many things, at least his boat policy was better.

As for the neighbor to the North, it seems Australia will give Indonesia 4 used C-130 cargo aircraft and the U.S. will sell them 24 used F-16s.

And here is a smart play. Australia will hand over $112M to Indonesian farmers. Gee, that is what we really need in the region: help the most populous and impoverished country get even bigger. Real smart.

Gillard says the basing of 2500 U.S. Marines in Australia is not pointed at any specific nation.

Ms Gillard then told Dr Yudhoyono - known by his initials SBY - that the US and Australian forces could train with Indonesian military personnel to improve disaster management.

''After Ms Gillard's explanation, SBY was very happy. SBY suggested that the military training involved all ASEAN members, and that she should also invite China,'' said presidential spokesman Julian Aldrin Pasha.

Involving China would improve trust with the US, particularly given tensions over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. It would also increase stability and provide a security environment conducive to economic growth, the Indonesian leader said, according to accounts given to The Age.

Yes. Because China has been so peaceful about their intentions in the South China Sea.

.

40 comments:

Bushranger 71 said...

The most vital military capability for operations in the regional wet tropics near neighbourhood is tactical airlift. Yet Australia continues to shed Iroquois, Blackhawk, Seahawk, Sea King, Hercules C-130H pretty low time airframes that are all refurbishable via manufacturer upgrade programs.

Why are these well-proven wholly-owned assets not being optimised for ADF use instead of the taxpayer funding refurbishment/upgrades and then either donating the platforms or selling them at modest cost to other nations, like intended by Team Romeo?

Australian politicians and the DoD seem determined to continue down the track of progressively diluting ADF military capacity and preparedness while acquiring dubious merit new hardware at exorbitant cost to subsidise defence industry employment. Simply, abject failings of leadership!!!

Anonymous said...

Can only agree.
Why are we donating useful equiupment and cash to an economy that is booming, and can easily be funded by themeselves.
The C130 astounds me.What, the purchase of 2 more C17's replace the tactical C130?
Correct,BR, abject failed,and crimnal leadership

Anonymous said...

You are correct. Indonesia's GDP is $1 trillion for 2010, a smidgen less that Australia.
Their growth rate is 7% indicated for next year.Australia, maybe 2.2 %.
Why on earth is the government handing over MY money etc to such a rapidly expanding economy, who do not need it!

Bonza said...

Indonesia may have a trillion dollar a year GDP, but it can't spend that much money. It's Government revenue was (as of 2010) $119.5b. It's expenditure was $132.9b, meaning Indonesia is running a deficit budget of $13.6b a year at present.

Australia's GDP is $200b per year bigger, (1.23t) and we have a far bigger Government revenue base of $399b per year (though bigger borrowings too at $445b, meaning our current Government is running a deficit budget at $46b per year. Last year. Wait till EOFY 2011...

Hence why our military budget is so much larger than Indonesia's, even though their GDP "expenditure percentage" is on the surface higher than ours, in reality our Government's ability to purchase things is nearly 4 times higher than Indonesia, just on revenues alone, when you take into account that those revenues also have to support 220 million less people and a population that is mostly centred in a handful of moderate density cities (meaning Government can concentrate it's services, rather than having to support much larger services all across the country), it's no surprise why we can afford things like this and Indonesia can't (on it's own) support.

We can afford to offer 4x H model Hercules to them. We've already retired them anyway. We are retaining the 8x -H model Hercules that are actually useful to us and they can pay to refurbish the old worn out airframes that we don't have a use for without expending significant amounts on them... Save's us the disposal costs of aircraft we'll never use again anyway.

Albatross said...

Bonza, you say; "and they can pay to refurbish the old worn out airframes".

Will that be the case? I understood that (dare I say 'as usual') the long-suffering Australian taxpayer will fork out the $25 million (all borrowed!!!!) to refurbish the 4 H models before they're passed on to the Indonesians.

Oh, how I'd love to be told I'm wromg.

Anonymous said...

Hi,BR I thought you said that we need these platforms, why do we give them to someone else. They have a lot of life in them, as you have stated.Look at what NZ has done.
The USA has numerous C130E platforms, totally applicable to what they have,if they really need them. Fly a hundred hours a year, if lucky.
In any case most of their current fleet of 18 is grounded because they do not spend money on maintaining them, it gets stolen by the military.
What does another 4 airframes sitting on the ground achieve?
They can of course spend $1 billion on 4 Amphibious ships from Korea.
How much on Sukhoi's?
How much on the training aircraft from Korea?
Hardly a basket case.
Just a few points.

Poor buggers.

Bonza said...

Hi Albatross,

Obviously you'll be horrified to hear that we alreaydy give Indonesia $558 Million per year in aid money then?

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/country/indonesia.cfm

Even if we do pay for the refurbishment of these Hercules and then gift them to Indonesia, the cost of that will form part of our yearly aid money.

$25m is fairly small change when you consider the amount we currently give them...

Bushranger 71 said...

5 former RAAF C-130E were recently refurbished (with another airframe provided for spares) and introduced into service by the Pakistani Air Force.

Foreign Minister Rudd has managed to sway huge increases in Australia's foreign aid budgeting while the nation continues to borrow to fund all else that is ongoing. Just mindless benevolence.

Years back, I recall the notion existing in Canberra that budgetary allocations MUST be spent (often wasted) or lost, a mindset that seems to prevail. 'Tis hardly responsible governance to squander funding that could be better used elsewhere.

Why not spend the $25million refurbishing 4 x C-130H for Australia's tactical airlift needs; alternatively, upgrade 12 or more Hotel model Iroquois awaiting disposal to Huey II (or acquire that many 'new' ships) to replace the vital utility helo capability being forfeited?

The goal in DoD should be to maintain continual adequate and credible military capacity with sufficient reserve assets (appropriately stored). It is just mind-boggling to forfeit wholly-owned military hardware that the rest of the world sees as very useful.

Anonymous said...

I'll be the dissenting voice here.

This appears to be solid leadership and shrewd business/chess playing move by Indonesia, not only to enhance their interests but also for more stable regional prospects.

Remember, Indonesia is stuck in the middle between some heavy weights. They need to play their cards well if to be a sustainable, sovereign state and not crushed by hordes of Australian Super hornets hehe, or PLAF J-10B and J-15.

As a bonus, to be a broker between the US and China at a time when both need an escalation in disagreements and tension defused more than ever, this is a good move by both Indonesia and Australia I think. I wish them both luck.

Nothing wrong with playing a good game of chess where both sides can win.

Bonza said...

$25m would go pretty close to getting us an 8th CH-47F Chinook too Bushranger, but I can't see it happening.

Indonesia may be paying this money anyway. There was nothing in that article that says we ARE paying it. Only that we ARE donating the 4 C-130H aircraft.

They are paying the USA $750m to regenerate and upgrade 24 F-16's. The aircraft and engines they are getting for free.

I don't see many arguing that US taxpayers are paying that $750m. So may it be for our $25m. That will also be $25m in work for an Australian Contractor regardless of the payer. It's my understanding the 4 aircraft aren't currently flyable.

Bushranger 71 said...

Hi Bonza; I would be all for contract work for Australian-owned enterprises, but much of defense industry is foreign-parented these days sucking profits out of the country - see the composition of Team Romeo. Alas; political job creation usually takes precedence over cost-effective military capabilities.

Bonza said...

For those interested, RAAF Newspaper dated 8 December 2011, confirms that the deal to gift Indonesia the 4x C-130H's is subject to Indonesia agreeing to pay the $25m refurbishment costs, transport costs etc, with which ever commercial operator they so choose. The work will have to be done in Australia however as the aircraft are not currently flyable. Given we'd likely pay that amount in disposal costs anyway, it seems like a good deal to me.

Anonymous said...

I do not understand, they have 18 E& H models that spend most of the time on the ground due to the lack of spare parts, and corruption.
Why gift them another 4 to end up the same way.
They are needed here. The C17 cannot do everything, as BR71 has pointed out.

Bonza said...

We haven't had 24x C-130's since 2008, when we had 4x C-17's in-service.

We now have 20x C-130's in-service but we have 5x C-17's with one more on the way.

I'd be terribly interested to hear how we were able to meet our requirements with a fleet of 28x C-130/C-17, which included 24x C-130's but can't with 26x C-130/C-17 which includes 6x C-17's with the well known increase in capability of the C-17 over the C-130...

I'd also be terribly interested to hear how it is that RAAF hasn't been meeting it's airlift requirements in the 4 years (practically) since we had 24x C-130's in-service? I've not seen evidence of RAAF being unable to meet it's requirements with the reduced fleet. Perhaps someone could show something, even a single mission RAAF has been unable to complete in that time, due to the absent 4 aircraft?

As to why Indonesia would want these aircraft, er cost to get them flying again? Airframe life left compared to their predominant E model force? Whether they can sustain them or not is their concern. We aren't returning these to service anyway and this is more likely a cheaper option to rid ourselves of unwanted airframes than formal ADF disposal activities.

Anonymous said...

Simplistic crap.

Bonza said...

Obviously, you make a claim, fail to support it in any way whatsoever, let alone with ANY real world examples of why this decision leaves us short-handed and I am guilty of simplistic crap?

Whatever dude. We haven't needed these aircraft for over 4 years now.

The FACT that prior to 2006 we had 24 large airlift aircraft in total and now we have 25 with one more on the way isn't relevant either, obviously...

Perplexed said...

Anon, you are nearly correct.
Bonza is part of the spin Department at Defence.
He spends his time defending the indefensible.

Perplexed said...

ie., probably unofficialy.

Bonza said...

What's indefensible is the opinion of those who think we were better off with 24x C-130's than we are with 20x C-130's and 5, soon to be six C-17A's.

I too would like ADF to have both (24x C-130's AND 6x C-17's), but that is unrealistic within the current level of funding of ADF. If you want those 4 C-130's back, you're going to have to give up the C-17's and so on. You can't forgoe future capability because the funding to operate those C-130's needs to be taken from funding available NOW.

That is how reality works within the ADF. They are directed by Government to maintain certain capabilities. Wish-lists unfortunately don't come into it.

In relation to Bushrangers assertation that these airframes are "low hours" those C-130H's were delivered to RAAF in 1978 and flown constantly, usually more than 320hrs per year. With a design life of 10,000hrs, I'm sure the luminaries on this board can work out what 32 years of flying in excess of 320hrs per year adds up to?

It certainly isn't "low hours" that's for certain...

Perplexed said...

Anon, further to my previous posting, I think you are more than correct.
With regards to, Bonza, it would appear that he has little understanding of concepts such as attrition, wear and tear, and any appreciation of history.
The point is, if there is a major conflict then, aircraft are lost and they wear out. Hercules aircraft are a rare item and hard to get hold of. Those temporarily deemed to be of no use should be kept in reserve. (Lessons of history)

In addition I would also defer to comments made by BR71 regarding the need to access small airfields through the islands north of Australia, lessons of history.
I would also bring your attention to 1999 and Timor, when we had to rent Antonov 12’S.

With regards to the funding, it is not a problem, simply disband the waste that is the DMO, and save $1.3 billion a year, plus $300 million in unfunded liabilities. Simple.

With relation to the design life of the C130H, it is a nominal 20,000 hours, easily extendable with upgrades similar to that undertaken by New Zealand recently. They are indeed low hour airframes. Bushranger is correct, and indeed the C130E, previously with the RAAF, are flying elsewhere.

You must really find it frustrating, but you can't wield a red pen again, from your favourite, sycophantic love in website.

Those who are unfamiliar with the true character of the anonymous Bonza, please feel free to access the following link, to get a feel for the person who loves a good debate and listens to anyone with a contra view.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/raaf-procurement-plans-11613/

What a lovely chap.

nico said...

To Perplexed:

Yeah, I noticed too how quick that thread got locked . I don't see why that thread couldn't have been moved or merged with some of the other similar threads (RAAF acquisition?)on DT. I like to debate on the other threads but I pretty much never go on the JSF thread as you can't really have a negative or different view than what is acceptable on DT when it comes to JSF, you get shouted/locked down immediately.

Bonza said...

You're concerned about wear and tear, but you're not concerned about a 32 year old airframe that has flown beyond it's 10,000hr design life? Wow. Just wow...

Concurrency? Hmm. How much concurrency between strategic airlift and tactical airlift did we have when C-130 was required to fill both roles? Because they were. Yes Antonov's were leased on occasion, but C-130 did the bulk of strategic inter-theatre lifts. Now we have 20x C-130's available for tactical airlift. The C-17's I'm sure even you'd agree are better suited at handling the strategic airlift role? Some in ALG might say we are just a tad better off now, but then what would they know, huh? Probably all career yes men who don't want "what's best" for Australia, just a steady line of pay rises and promotions...

20,000hrs? Again, wow. So RNZAF Hercules will be flying over 10,000hrs per airframe in less than 6 years? That's quite frankly an amazing number. I hope RNZAF are recruiting huge numbers of extra crews and maintenance staff because those log-books are going to fill up awfully quickly flying at a rate of 6-7 times as much per year as they do now...

Sorry. It would be amazing if it were actually true, which of course it isn't. The only part about that comment that is true is that RNZAF DO have a $250m acquisition (plus additional in-service support) project to gain 6 years additional life from their C-130H's before they reach even their LEP life of type in 2017. That's roughly the cost of a brand new C-17A, by the by to gain 6 more years. Gee, can't understand why ADF is more keen to put it's precious defence dollars into new-builds rather than upgrades...

Obviously a good investment for ADF then, I mean the circumstances are exactly the same aren't they? RNZAF has no other choice but to upgrade. They can't afford a new airlifter and don't have any others to help carry the load, pardon the pun.

Australia has C-130J-30's and C-17's with plenty of life, so clearly a refurbishment of 32 year old aircraft that will cost as much as a new C-17A to gain us 6 years extra service will obviously be an excellent deal? Not to mention how well technically that particular upgrade has gone. What's the schedule overrun? 2.5 years and counting? Maybe you can figure out a way to blame the DMO for that one?

Obviously such a proposal will also attract the tremendous support we've seen recently when NO-ONE in RAAF or Government sees even multiple C-130's as a better deal than even a single C-17A...

Perplexed said...

Suggest you check what NZ has done with their upgrades to the H model.
And wonder how all those E models in the USAF are still flying?
Check what upgrades are being undertaken.
Miss your little red pencil, and ability to cut off conerversation when you are incorrect and do not agree with some one else? Must be frustrating.
Sorry I do not have a fancy title either.

Perplexed said...

Not the best source,but typical.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130-mods.htm
Averag hours on E model 19,800 hours.
The upgrades to wings, trailing surfaces, avionics are being done, and do work, increasing the life by many years.
As indicated do some research into the work done byNZ.

Bonza said...

You're correct there, not the best source, because the two aren't comparable. Before you go on about hours, you've got to realise (because it says it even in your link in black and white) that is an average estimate. It doesn't suggest how the aircraft has been operated nor does it say anything about RNZAF's aircraft. Not all flight profiles impact aircraft the same and not all forces fly the same loads in their aircraft in the same conditions. Not all Air Forces maintain their aircraft to the same condition and so on. I suspect Indonesia's C-130's for instance are VERY low hour airframes. Does that relate to their servicability? No of course not. They are "low hour" because they are mostly grounded...

On top of this you need to consider that when you've got a fleet of over 500 aircraft, you can spread the load out amongst those airframes. When you've got 5 or 12 aircraft and virtually NOTHING else, they've got to carry everything.

In addition to which different parts of the aircraft have different structural life rating. The outer upper wings (for instance) have a design life of over 60,000hrs because they are one of the least stressed parts of the aircraft. The centre wing is rated for 30,000hrs and the inner wing boxes are rated at 10,000hrs.

You talk about the USAF E models at 19,800hrs? They've already had their wing's replaced once in that timeframe just to get to 19,000hrs... They have virtually run out of the airframe life they were nominated as having in 1992, but massive SLEP programs have kept them alive. That doesn't mean it has been cost effective to do so, just that the USAF hasn't ever been able to afford to replace the whole lot in a short timeframe and operating mixed fleets is a BAD idea when it comes to sustainment costs.

Again, just like RNZAF it's a cost benefit issue, which you clearly don't understand. Neither USAF or RNZAF can afford to replace their entire fleet, but they can afford to give continual service life extensions. That doesn't mean it's the most cost effective idea in the long term, it just eases short term pain.

The NZDF Long Term Development Plan states in black and white that the LEP C-130H's operated by RNZAF are to be replaced in 2017. That is what the reality of $247m spent on upgrades gives you. Short term relief from budget pain. It does not give long term relief, which is why anyone who can avoid such, does so like the plague.

In 2017 NZDF will be buying a new transport aircraft to replace those LEP'd C-130H's. Add the cost of thouse 4-5 aircraft to the cost of the LEP program and see how that compares to 1x C-17A which will provide roughly the same total airlift capability and will be a whole 5 years old by that time and see how "cost effective" the idea is.

Here's how much a single C-17A costs:

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2011/Australia_11-49.pdf

Perplexed said...

Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza. My original point was that the valued airframes should not be given away even though they may be deemed surplus at the moment, although that is debatable.
It would appear that nobody takes in the lessons of history, and the normal operation of aircraft seems to be based on training hours and some arbitrarily suggested figure.

This may come as a shock however situations change overnight e.g. East Timor, Libya etc. Airframe hours then skyrocket, as does the need for the maintenance during such times of conflict or other disaster. (By the way, who provided the major helicopter assets at short notice in East Timor?) Your comment regarding fleet size is correct; we don't have a large fleet and reserves are needed.

With regards to my link regarding airframe hours, I did not mention any other references, as they basically said the same thing, including some academic studies properly referenced.

Therefore it would be prudent to hang onto your assets, especially as our long way off being due for retirement.

In addition a C17 does not do what C130 does or vice versa. Bushranger 71 has a valid point when he mentions our previous military history in the region, requiring the ability to move between the various areas of Southeast Asia. The premature and dishonest retirement of the Caribou, is another indication of the lack of real thinking in those that run the defence force.

From what I've read you are correct about the use of Indonesia's C130's and they mostly grounded due to lack of spares and maintenance and probably do have very low hours. I understand there are 18 of them, so we contribute another four that will inevitably sit on the ground when maintenance is required joining the rest of the fleet. In addition, Indonesia is hardly a basket case when it comes to funding and expenditure.

With regards to your assertion that New Zealand will replace its aircraft in 2017, I suggest that you are incorrect. New Zealand has a canny ability to undertake projects that both work and are achievable at a low price, the Orion being a recent example, where the wings were replaced some 10 years ago to extend the life of aircraft. They were the first Air Force to do so, and that upgrade undertaken in Australia is now being mimicked by the US Navy and others.

When the aircraft were originally inspected by Marshals of Cambridge on contract, they indicated that after LEP, the aircraft had a life of an additional 15 years. Add in the press release by the Defence Minister at the time where he also indicated that New Zealand was to add 15 years of life to the aircraft.

You may also refer to the New Zealand Auditor General's Report, which indicated that on expenditure of the sum of money already mentioned, the aircraft had a life of an additional 15 years. L3 also indicate an additional 15 years of life. As you will be aware apart from the structural repairs, the electrical, hydraulic and avionics have been mostly replaced, mitigating problems with ageing aircraft, the subject of which you are aware.

The other subject is that you retain skills and a workforce of artisans instead of exporting funds to other countries. Another question, where is the heavy maintenance done on C 17?

Only recently (2010) the present Prime Minister John Keys indicated that the aircraft would serve until approximately 2025, with input from the Defence Review due in 2015 as to the potential replacement along with the Orion aircraft.

It would appear that your assertions regarding the life of its aircraft and utility are somewhat inaccurate, and the airframes should be preserved not donated.

It would appear, again that New Zealand understands what a cost benefit issue is, following on from previous successful projects, such as the Orion. Hardly short-term pain.

Another question, is there anything that defence force or the RAAF does is not perfect?
Private Perplexed

Perplexed said...

By the way, the C130's in NZ are 45years old.
And going on Bonza's theory, I wonder how the B52 and the KC 135 are still flying?
And it would appear that we will now have the F15 flying to 32,00 hours, due the failure of the wonder jet.

Bonza said...

There is plenty the Australian DoD and DMO does that isn't perfect and I've made any number of comments on that fact.

But your personal antipathy towards them is just nuts.

They manage more than 300 projects simultaneously worth more than AUD$70b and even the ANAO has admitted they bring their projects in on budget in more than 93% of the time and yet you still complain.

Your solution? Dismiss the whole lot of them. Awesome solution. Clearly very well thought through. You wouldn't even see the refurbishment of 32 year old C-130H's that you desire so much under such a scenario, there wouldn't be anyone to run the project...

If a contractor stuffs up it's DMO's fault. If DMO brings in a project on time and on budget, the contractor gets the credit...

$300m in unfunded liabilities you said earlier too? Pray tell explain what that even means? The most recent annual report said it was $258m but even that didn't give an explanation of what that liability was.

Very interested to know what you think that liability was and why DMO should be disbanded because they have it...

Sounds serious though. Still other organisations carry very large unfunded liabilities at the end of each financial year. Look at Workcover Queensland. They had a AUD$2.6b claims liability at the end of FY2010.

Maybe they should all be sacked? I wonder if you can read into that, clearly what you read into piddly little DMO unfunded liability of $300m?

ELP said...

What we may need are continuous updates on industry's perception of the DMO.

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-dangerous-is-defence-material.html

Ely said...

Bonza,
I would be grateful if you would please provide the source of your ANAO admission re 300 DMO projects worth 70b are "brought in" on budget more than 93% of the time.
Ely.

Perplexed said...

Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza, in the previous post I thought were talking about future of the C130H, I cannot see where I ever mentioned the DMO.
Now that we have established that the C130H can be successfully upgraded and operated for the near and medium future, (in the case of New Zealand with an older aircraft, another 15 years) save file I'm a loss to understand your reaction regarding the DMO. Tadd sensitive aren't we.
Now that you have mentioned the subject, I will comment further. I have no antipathy towards the organisation.
I would point out that the Defence Force got along without them before 2001, and with less problems in any of the major projects, that we have now. Each branch was technically skilled with appropriate personnel undertaking procurement etc. They have now been deskilled by the public service.
The fact that we now have an organisation of 7700 people and climbing, with a budget of $1.590 billion for 2011 – 12, to look after purchases of about $10 billion for approximately 56,000 uniformed personnel is without peer. Considering the failed projects, of many billions of dollars the cost is quite staggering and debilitating to the Defence Establishment.
Properly skilled and managed, each branch of the services could undertake purchasing and sustainment without any problems as they once did, before the public service took over. You mentioned the refurbishment of a 32-year-old C130 being unachievable with the DMO, quite achievable. For example look at way New Zealand handles such projects. For the upgrade of the Anzac Frigates, they managed to replace the diesel engines, modify and rebuild the gearboxes and appendages, with a project management team of three.
Private enterprise manages to undertake such projects without the disasters that seemed to envelop the DMO.
Regarding contract stuff ups, you have a basic misunderstanding of what the DMO does or is supposed to do. It Is the Manager, it is responsible, no one else is, in considering the resources they have there should be no excuse at all. Most organisations have heard of something called” Risk Management.”
Regarding the $258 million of unfunded liabilities, I suggest you get expert advice regarding accounting tricks undertaken by the Federal government. It means that they have future liabilities which any firm in private enterprise would make allowance for on a yearly basis. It has to be paid back one day. It's pretty obvious as to what that unfunded expenditure is.
Regards to WorkCover Queensland, they did state in their end of year financial accounts a unfunded liability of $2.6 billion in claims,(Mainly Common Law) and having worked with them for many years, this is normal.However their assets are greater than their libilities.They operate within the Act.

WorkCover Queensland has been run badly for many years, and last letter year showed an underwriting loss of $375,000,33 , however after returns on investment the deficit for the year was $41,336 000..

Should they be sacked, probably not, but it would help if they were privatised or run properly. Unlike the DMO, WorkCover Queensland is funded by private industry and not by the taxpayer.

In any case who really knows the exact state of DMO and their accounts due to the fact that before a recent Senate committee, the Department Head admitted that they had between four and six accounting systems which will take at least four years to fix, that I don't understand. The word incompetence comes to mind.

Regarding ANAO, see report 2009, about page 19 to see how successful DMO are.

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Documents/2008%2009_major_projects_report.pdf
Regarding further info from the relevant Senate Enquiry:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fadt_ctte/procurement/submissions.htm
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jcpaa/defenceannual0310/fullreport.pdf


Private Perplexed

Perplexed said...

Further regarding WorkCover Qld, Bonza:
The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 outline specific requirements WorkCover must meet to be considered fully funded. In keeping with other workers' compensation schemes, WorkCover is fully funded if its total assets are at least equal to its total liabilities. WorkCover satisfied this requirement at 30 June 2011.

WorkCover Queensland has been run badly for many years, and last letter year showed an underwriting loss of $375,000,33 , however after returns on investment the deficit for the year was $41 336 000. Its insurance rates are well behind other states, and its failure to rein in the common-law system contributes to claims of over $500 million a year not including legal costs. Common-law costs are 46% of claims paid. The board has a policy of settling common-law claims of an arbitrary basis, encouraging more claims, and most claims having little merit; however with a Socialist government that is predictable.

Bonza said...

You are getting forgetful again Perplexed, we haven't established anywhere NEAR 15 years for RNZAF's C-130H upgrade.

SO that you can hopefully remember, the C-130 LEP was to enable those 5x C-130H's to get to 2017 from this year. Got it? Here is the exact quote from Long Term Development Plan 2008 -

"Timing

6.37 The first upgraded aircraft is scheduled for delivery in 2008, with fleet
modernisation expected to be completed in 2011.

Cost

6.38 This project is expected to cost around $234 million. The C-130 fleet is scheduled to serve until around 2017. Whole-of-life costs are estimated to be around $670
million." Page 32 - LTDP September 2008 update.


Okay, clear enough for you now? There is no "15 year service" available from the RNZAF C-130H fleet post LEP and it is in the words of the staff doing it, the MOST extensive refurbishment ever done to a C-130.

Now there has been a 2 year schedule blow out to this program, the RNZAF C-130 upgrade won't be complete until the end of 2013. They are getting 6 years service from 5 C-130H's for the same cost as one of our C-17A's in acquisition...

Here is the direct quote from the most recent NZDF that confirms the new timeline,

"the life extension programme will allow the nZdf to maintain an independent airlift capability. the
upgrade of all aircraft is scheduled to be completed in late 2013, with the upgraded aircraft expected to be in service until about 2020. The aircraft will be replaced at end of life with an equivalent—or better—
capability." Page 32, 2011 NZDF Defence Capability Plan.

So now that yet another inaccuracy of yours is out of the way, let's look at your nice Workcover dodge. Care to explain why the DMO is "so" incompetent with it's $258m unfunded liability in 2010-2011, yet Workcover is "so" competent with a $2.6b unfunded claims liability in 2010-2011?

I challenge you to provide one single source that shows incompetence is the reason behind the DMO reported unfunded liability.

Ely, I'll get back to you. I saw that percentage in the 2010-2011 DMO Annual Report. Got to check my ANAO files...

Perplexed said...

Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza,
Is this where you found your reference to the black and white proof of the 2017 date for the C130replacment of the C130 in NZ.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A59c03f8e-362e-4c6f-ab0a-92d89729dbd2&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Dear me, please do better next time.
Please assess your sources before quoting same.
Regards
Private Perplexed

Perplexed said...

Oh dear just read your latest utterings. Oh dear.
"Only recently (2010) the present Prime Minister John Keys indicated that the aircraft would serve until approximately 2025, with input from the Defence Review due in 2015 as to the potential replacement along with the Orion aircraft."

"When the aircraft were originally inspected by Marshals of Cambridge on contract, they indicated that after LEP, the aircraft had a life of an additional 15 years. Add in the press release by the Defence Minister at the time where he also indicated that New Zealand was to add 15 years of life to the aircraft.

You may also refer to the New Zealand Auditor General's Report, which indicated that on expenditure of the sum of money already mentioned, the aircraft had a life of an additional 15 years. L3 also indicate an additional 15 years of life. As you will be aware apart from the structural repairs, the electrical, hydraulic and avionics have been mostly replaced, mitigating problems with ageing aircraft, the subject of which you are aware"
Re:
So now that yet another inaccuracy of yours is out of the way, let's look at your nice Workcover dodge. Care to explain why the DMO is "so" incompetent with it's $258m unfunded liability in 2010-2011, yet Workcover is "so" competent with a $2.6b unfunded claims liability in 2010-2011?"
You are a dill.WorkCover is not competent, they just play within the legislative rules. Please talk to someone with some accounting skills, oh dear.And actually read what I said.Would be a change.

Re:"I challenge you to provide one single source that shows incompetence is the reason behind the DMO reported unfunded liability"
I quote me.And it is not incompetence, it is creative acounting,putting off payment until later, and we all know where it is going.
You should get a job with defence as a spin master.Need a red pencil?
Kind regards
Private Perplexed

Private Perplexed said...

Oh and for bedtime reading please puruse the following. Should give you nightmares.
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Documents/2008%2009_major_projects_report.pdf
Regarding further info from the relevant Senate Enquiry:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fadt_ctte/procurement/submissions.htm
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jcpaa/defenceannual0310

Bushranger 71 said...

May I broaden the excellent recent contributions by Perplexed this thread.

Historically, when highly skilled technically, the RAAF in particular aimed to optimise the online availability of expensive aircraft assets, thus affording the taxpayer best achievable value for investment. For example; during 5.5 years (2,000 days) of Vietnam War operations, 9SQN averaged 83 percent of unit aircraft establishment on line (13 Hotel model Iroquois from 16) while conducting 250 major 'D' servicings and about 1,800 intermediate level servicings. This was achievable by carefully maintaining a progressive maintenance stagger irrespective of fluctuating operational demand and the troops worked their butts off as required. The Huey was/is pretty uncomplicated technology and lesser levels of online availability were of course achievable for more complex types, like C-130 and P-3C.

Coincidentally, this was discussed at a recent fighter squadrons association luncheon and an experienced engineering type mentioned it was difficult to maintain an adequate maintenance stagger under the now out-sourced maintenance system (for Hawks and Hornets) as the goal of the contractor is commercial. Over the past 2 decades, there have been times when Army Aviation substantially overflew their budgeted rate of effort resulting in a whole bunch of aircraft being pushed back against a fence gathering birdshit while awaiting servicing. Similarly, where the flying training system encountered delays due weather or whatever and the contractor would not work employees overtime at penalty rates to allow accelerated flying effort. My point is Bonza that the ADF no longer achieves the same potential value from its expensive resources, or put another way; 24 x C-130 would not now provide the same on-line potential capacity that once existed.

Post-WW2, Australia's DoD has exhibited a keenness to shed potentially useful and mostly comparatively low time airframes by world standards, either by donating them to whoever or just scrapping them. Abundant unused dry climate storage facilities existed at Woomera for decades and a facility like AMARC in the US could have been gainfully established. Sure it costs money to store aircraft not in service, but modest acceptable insurance to facilitate surge capacity for unforeseen operational contingencies. Consider the lead time and costs these days in acquiring new assets compared with refurbishment of platforms that have been suitably stored. Types like A-1, B-26, C-46, C-47, C-119 were pretty quickly reintroduced by the USAF for operational service in Vietnam and upgraded versions are still in service worldwide today, like the BT-67.

Bonza; there is at least one former RAAF C-130A in service elsewhere and the USAF would have snapped up the 4 x C130H being thrown at Indonesia for conversion to special operations roles. More likely we may have somewhat offended the Americans by not giving them first option, just as Australia and New Zealand have done by successive diplomatic failings allowing China a strengthening foothold in the SW Pacific.

Why has the Australian DoD steered right away from a C-130 gunship capability when others like the USMC are moving in that direction and long range/endurance all weather firepower is essential for regional archipelago ops? Also, Blackhawks flight refuellable from C-130 are appropriate in our region for special operations, submarine support and search and rescue within Australia's vast area of international responsibility.

Private Perplexed said...

Bushranger once again you make sense.
And this is relevant:The Basler.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/12/09/the-heat-is-on-australias-antarctic-ice-runway/

And for Bonza this is for you,this shows you the idiot that was in charge for too long. He bought shares in a fuel tablet company.
I rest my case.

Private Perplexed said...

Sorry about that:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/12/07/is-retired-defence-chief-angus-houston-the-right-person-to-chair-airservices-australia/

WorkCover Independent Contractor said...

During your medical review a Work Cover medical professional assessed your injury and the result of the assessment was given in the form of a percentage.