ABC Home | Radio | Television | News | More Subjects… | Shop

Email

Labor 'inherited Navy nightmare': Fitzgibbon

Posted January 2, 2008 09:13:00
Updated January 2, 2008 11:09:00

The Adelaide Class frigate, HMAS Sydney

Not up to the job: Adelaide Class frigate HMAS Sydney (Department of Defence)

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the previous federal government is to blame for serious problems with the Royal Australian Navy's frontline fighting ships.

It has been revealed the 1970s-built Adelaide Class guided missile frigates still cannot be sent into battle zones, despite a $1.5 billion upgrade.

A whistleblower has told News Limited newspapers the situation is so bad, sailors are quitting the Navy.

Mr Fitzgibbon says he is working to rectify the failings of the Howard Government.

"Trying to make a 21st Century warship out of such an old vessel always carried very significant risks," he said.

"The important thing is that we're determined to get value for taxpayers' money and we're determined to deliver the Navy and other services the capability they need.

"These are significant nightmares we've inherited, but we're determined to set them right."

Tags: defence-forces, navy, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia

Comments (88)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.

  • tim:

    02 Jan 2008 3:38:34pm

    Your not in opposition now Joel, you wanted the job, now do it

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Just a gal:

    02 Jan 2008 2:01:36pm

    This will only be the tip of the iceberg of 'great economic management' legacies of the Coalition government.
    But what's new?
    This happens in Defence every time there is a change of government. Doesn't matter whether it is Labor or a Coalition.

    Plenty more cost saving disasters for the Australian people to discover across all areas of governance.
    Australia's economy is a 'house of cards' and Kevin Rudd has inherited a poisoned chalice.
    Wait and see.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Andrew:

        02 Jan 2008 3:38:44pm

        Always a great escape for an incoming government to blame it on the past. It just shows they have no answers, just fingers to point.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jim Bendfeldt:

    02 Jan 2008 1:58:53pm

    Now that a re-evaluation of Australia's defence equipment is underway, will the Rudd Federal Government consider purchasing the type of hardware required to cope with the brave new world of climate change?

    For a fraction of the $6 billion budgeted by the previous Government to purchase 24 stop-gap F/A-18F Super-Hornet jets we could have our own fleet of specialist fire-fighting aircraft, including Erickson Air-Cranes. Korea and Italy recently purchased their own Air-Cranes (at $US25million each) and are no longer reliant on the availability of those based in the USA.

    To combat poaching of our marine and environmental resources, and control the pending influx of immigrants from climate change affected countries, we should consider building a fleet of high-speed catamarans similar to the Australian (Tasmanian) designed Incat HVS-2 Swift, which at a cost of $21million each, are the fastest boat on the block, and being bought up by the US military, e.g. the Spearhead (TSV-1X).

    Instead of buying those massive cumbersome Abrams Main Battle Tanks, which are completely unsuitable for our region, we should consider getting more of the APCs that have been effectively protecting our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Time for a serious re-think! What about it Joel?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        02 Jan 2008 2:16:16pm

        Unless we intend to drown our enemies, I suggest we stick with combat aircraft rather than aircranes.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Jim Bendfeldt:

            02 Jan 2008 2:39:23pm

            The issues wmc, are the real threats to our national security. Bushfires (and other natural disasters) have killed more people and livestock, and destroyed more property in Australia than all of the wars/conflicts that we have been involved in to date.

            You talk of our present enemies, and I ask, who are they?

            The Taliban tribesmen in Afghanistan or Iraqi insurgents? Brendan Nelson's F/A-18F Super-Hornet jets, couldn't even make a return flight from Darwin to Djakarta without refuelling, let alone get to within a radar blip of Kabul or Baghdad!

            What I'm suggesting is that we spend SOME (not all) of our defence hardware funds on the type of equipment that will save lives here, instead of trying to win friends amongst the US miltary-Industrial complex.

            Theere is one current enemy that we need to 'drown' and that is bushfire. Look at what is happening in WA and Victoria right here, right now!

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Peter:

        02 Jan 2008 2:21:23pm

        Boeing Super Hornet deal was oiled along by then-president of Boeing Australia, Andrew Peacock, Liberal lobbyist.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • James:

            02 Jan 2008 2:42:56pm

            Clearly, because Andrew Peacock and John Howard were renowned for being such good friends!
            Get real, Super Hornet was selected because it was the best plane for the job. DoD was working on this for at least a year before the decision was announced.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Peter:

                02 Jan 2008 2:56:51pm

                Four Corners program (October 2007) was the messenger, don't shoot, er, sink, the messenger. More to come.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • James:

                02 Jan 2008 3:11:53pm

                That Four Corners program was a joke, as anyone who has studied the subject would understand. That's not shooting the messenger (or not shooting them for the message but shooting them because they are incompetent) that just trying to get the real message through.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Steve D:

        02 Jan 2008 2:39:11pm

        here, here, interestingly it seems Australia only seems to want to do business these days with U.S arms manufacturers, I would have liked to have seen the Abrahms, Merkava, and Challenger II go head too head in Australian conditions.. I suspect that we as a nation have been buying what our friends tell us we need rather than making requirement based decisions.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • James:

            02 Jan 2008 2:53:26pm

            It's more complex than that, and you should know that. Abrams was the best tank for Australia for a variety of reasons, starting with the long term availability of spares. And you should recall that the contest came down to Abrams Leopard 2 and Challenger II. Merkava wasn't considered (none available second hand).
            Also, I think the previous government did show that it was more than willing to select non-American equipment when it saw fit: European NH-90 instead of Blackhawk, Spanish F-100 instead of the American Gibbs & Cox design, European MU-90 instead of American Mk.50, British ASRAAM instead of American AIM-9X.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Adam:

    02 Jan 2008 1:31:39pm

    ok - so we've established that there have been stuff ups under previous Liberal and Labor governments in terms of Defence purchases.

    In the end, Ministers act on the advice that the Department of Defence, and others in the public service, give them. If Ministers are presented with crap advice, they'll probably make a crap decision.

    The responsibility for these cockups should not only lay with former government Ministers.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Snorri:

    02 Jan 2008 12:55:56pm

    It's just another of the Howard government's failures and snide coverups that's been exposed.
    More proof of them being the worst government this country has ever had.
    But there is a pattern here with the Liberals.
    The last Liberal government before Howard, the Fraser government, (of which Howard was it's hopeless treasurer), ran defence down into the ground, and it took the Hawke Labor government to modernise and rebuild it to a decent standard again.
    Now, again, after neary 12 years of Liberal defence failures, this time with Howard as PM and directly responsible, it will take another new Labor government to rebuild and fix the Coalition defence damage.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        02 Jan 2008 1:28:42pm

        I was in the army during the Hawke/Keating years.

        We couldn't wait for them to be voted out so a coherent, sensible defence policy could be developed (as opposed to the ludicrous 'defence of australia' doctrine developed under Labor).

        While he was cutting other government programs and repairing the appalling budget left to him by Labor, Howard maintained defence spending, so at least the ADF was able to scrape some sort of effort together for East Timor. He also had the foresight to bring a second brigade to combat readiness well in advance of that operation.

        Thanks to Howard's fantastic economic record and strategic vision, Australia has a vastly more capable defence force now than it did when he came to office.

        Fitzgibbon and the other union hacks will undoubtedly undo all that good work.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Peter:

            02 Jan 2008 2:06:09pm

            Then you cannot avoid the fact that Brendan Nelson is an ex union hack that contributed to the mess. Thank you.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • wmc:

                02 Jan 2008 2:29:59pm

                There's nothing wrong with having the odd unionist around.

                There's a lot wrong with having an entire government made up of unionists, as Australia has found time and again when Labor has been elected to power.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Peter:

                02 Jan 2008 2:46:18pm

                So a unionist isn't that bad now since someone has just discovering Brendon is one, lol. Now we can work on the "entire government made up of unionists" try 70% or 46% which one is it? Doesn't really matter now, since H.M.A.S. Liberal sunk about a month ago.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • seajae:

        02 Jan 2008 2:25:13pm

        snorri, where did you get that bad abvice, labor all but decimated the armed forces, they bought useless submarines, tanks with no spare parts(they knocked back an offer to build our own spare parts factory) and and like every previous labor govt they let them go down hill. Just ask any ex serviceman and they will confirm it. Howard upped the spending on our forces and modernized it, he gave it back its pride. When whitlam was kicked out the defence forces were feeding their families ration packs, I know because I was one of them, they actually wanted us to take leave without pay to save their necks because they stuffed up that badly, the libs had to fix this up and they did then hawke had his go at buggering it all up again by buying crap but his unions wanted him to do it so he did. Get your facts straight next time.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Steve D:

            02 Jan 2008 2:43:13pm

            Kinda had too.... if ya wanna play Cowboys and Indians with Gee Dubyah yah gotta have your own six shooter.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • S Lee:

    02 Jan 2008 12:53:16pm

    When will the bad stories of FFGs going to end. Alot of of bad stories since the upgrade started. But the contractor and the Navy alway says good things. Who to believe.
    The ABC should investigate and run the story so to get to the bottom of it and put it to rest and let these ships sail in good spirits

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mark:

    02 Jan 2008 12:44:05pm

    My mate went to San Diego to pick up HMAS Adelaide. At that time the Navy had just decomissioned HMAS Melbourne and the only other ships available were the DDGs such as HMAS Torrens. The FFGs were a huge jump in technology, speed and capability but it was well known amongst the sailors that they were made of aluminium and were more likely to burn than sink.

    At that time they were state of the art - why are we bagging them now.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Steve D:

        02 Jan 2008 1:15:12pm

        Torrens was a DE (river class destroyer escort) not a DDG. and while the upper works of the FFGs are substantially aluminum the hull is steel

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Graham Bell:

            02 Jan 2008 3:20:26pm

            Steve D:
            Bet that was a consolation to the families of ship's crew burnt to death during the Falklands War. Actually, special-purpose plywood would be far cheaper, far safer and much better than aluminium for superstructure. Shrapnel? Would aluminium really be superior to special-purpose plywood in protecting the crew? No.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 2:47:13pm

        It's a minor point, but structural aluminium doesn't burn much more than structural steel. It does soften at a slightly lower temperature than steel (about 650-degrees rather than 750-degrees if I recall correctly), but by that point you're already in very serious trouble. Also, Steve D is right, only the superstructure of the Adelaide class frigates is constructed of aluminium.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Stephen White:

    02 Jan 2008 12:42:16pm

    The DDG Air Warfare capability replacement for which the FFG Upgrade has been raised, should have been well in hand by 1996. The Coalitio Government originally tried to impove the ANZAC class with an Air Warfare Improvment program. But it was found these vessels, ordered by the Hawke Gorvenment did not have reserves of weight and power required to give them an Area Air Defence capability. So the current problem goes back to the Hawke/Keating government lack of defence investment - despite Kim Beazely's 1987 Defence White Paper calling on 2% of GDP to be spent on Defence.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • D of BNE:

    02 Jan 2008 12:28:08pm

    I am a serving defence member and a labor voter. I have to be fair, Defence (minus the human rights abuses they dragged us into) was better run under the last government than the previous labor governments. I have no doubt there are mistakes that can be pointed to - but this will always be so in defence. Nelson was a pretty good defence minister and with his recent small ' musings perhaps should consider applying for a job as defence miniter in the Rudd government. It would be a good choice.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • nivek:

    02 Jan 2008 12:23:25pm

    There should be an inquiry into arms dealing generally. This is a very shady area tied up with politics and big business and a lot of money gets thrown at things we don't understand. There is also a lot of corruption. An inquiry would be great entertainment and would expose a business which is now full of secrets.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 1:05:29pm

        There was an inquiry, it produced the Kinaird Report. It was commissioned by the Howard government in an effort to work out how the ALP managed to get the procurement of the Collins class (amongst other things) so badly wrong. They've followed the Kinaird Process ever since then (including on the Super Hornet) and it's producing good results.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Robert2:

    02 Jan 2008 11:55:07am

    Australians suffer from the incredible bumbling and boondoggling by successive irresponsible government attitudes to our defence.
    As a nation we deserve a better standard but tradition seems to consolidate the buffoons and boffins into areas of strategic importance, Labour with it's "closer to god than thee attitude" is nothing new either.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Derwent:

    02 Jan 2008 11:52:56am

    Next chapter of the ongoing defense bungles, both large and small over very many years by both libs and labour will surely be the replacement of our Collins class subs.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • George:

        02 Jan 2008 1:29:03pm

        Nope - I'm sure the JSF project will be making headlines before then.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mick Warren:

    02 Jan 2008 11:47:19am

    HMAS Adelaide is due to decommission on the 19/1/2008 after a distinguished career. I do not believe this vessel can be held up as a combatant in any future events. If the vessel, in fact, was deficient in any way, the crew did the best it could with the equipment it was provided.

    I was also under the impression that this vessel and its sister ships were ordered during the Hawke (Labor) governments watch when the x train driver Scholes was the Minister of Defence.

    PS they also ordered the Collins class submarines when Beazley was the Defence Minister. We all know the disaster this purchase was.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 12:35:16pm

        Actually the first 4 Adelaide class frigates were order by the Fraser government, and the last 2 by the Hawke government (although the project for those frigates started during he Fraser years too, but the order was held up by contractual difficulties). The FFG were of course ordered because Whitlam canceled the Australian DDL program in 1975 and Fraser et al. were left to pick up the pieces.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Steve D:

        02 Jan 2008 12:37:13pm

        Your right about the Collins Class, But unfortunately you cant blame Hawke for the FFGs, H.M.A.S Adelaide's Kell Laid in '77 and commissioned in '80.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Ken:

        02 Jan 2008 12:50:36pm

        The Collins sub is a great design, unfortunately when you give a contract to the lowest bidder you are always going to have trouble.

        The first and only government to not allow competition in final contract decisions was the ...................... howard government:

        F 35 high speed target drone.
        Not so Super Hornet low speed target drone.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Lam:

            02 Jan 2008 1:55:14pm

            Sorry Ken this is the usual rubbish about poor tender management.
            The deal is to specifiy quantity and quality; have absolute specification in the contracts and manage the contract. Thats what most governments do so badly, and by the way, most companies are as bad.
            Remember that your house, your car and your office were all built by the lowest price bidder; all roads and hospitals etc.
            Poor project management is the problem not lowest price tender.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Vivienne:

        02 Jan 2008 1:29:15pm

        Stop bagging the Collins class subs - they were/are basically excellent and the problems relatively minor. Howard just couldn't stand anything which came out of the Hawke/Keating governments and actively sought to denigrate the Collins subs.
        Read National Insecurity to find out the truth and how Howard over-ruled all existing purchase protocols, especially regarding the fighter planes.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • seajae:

            02 Jan 2008 2:32:59pm

            vivienne, the collins clas subs made that much noise they couldnt sneel up on a deaf person, the oberon subs were far superior and they even got one into pearl harbour undetected.
            The navy did not want the collins but hawke overode their decision with all his wisdom on naval warfare, they stuffed up severely.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    02 Jan 2008 11:40:06am

    I wonder if the Liberals still think they are the best to manage national security.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        02 Jan 2008 12:25:59pm

        They don't wonder whether they're best able to manage national security, they know.

        Joel Fitzgibbon has barely been in the job for a month and already demonstrates that he's out of his depth.

        I'm worried that someone like him and a union hack (Combet) have carriage of defence policy.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Peter:

            02 Jan 2008 1:06:56pm

            Keep thinking that way and the new government is guaranteed a second term.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Adrian:

            02 Jan 2008 1:46:49pm

            How does being an ex "union hack" as you put it make you any less capable of carrying out defense policy? Need I remind you that the leader of your beloved party is also an ex "union hack." According to your logic, you should be worried about him having carriage of the liberal party.

            And in what way has Joel Fitzgibbon even begun to demonstrate his incompetence? He has announced some inquiries into large purchases made by the previous government, which I happen to believe every new should do instead of blindly spending money on projects they no nothing about.

            And how can the libs know they are the best? Defense spending is about as far removed from political ideology as you can get in politics, so why does the very fact that you are a liberal mean you are automatically better?

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Andrew:

    02 Jan 2008 11:38:13am

    Here we go, blame blame blame... New Leadership was the mantle of Labor, so show leadership, not passing the buck.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Ex 35699 Korea 51-52:

    02 Jan 2008 11:37:11am

    Now we are in a position to build our own vessels instead of left overs from other Navies - the frigates are too big and slow for our border defence and too expensive to run- we need 50 meter twin engines of a hull design capable of 2 hour speeds of 45 knots and long range fuel. A fleet of 40 based from Broom to Cairns supporting the long range Orions seems appropriate into the future where the risk of environmental migration is a risk

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Stephen:

    02 Jan 2008 11:34:17am

    Wasn't HMAS Melbourne and Newcastle delivered in the early to mid 90's? These are both Adelaide Class Frigates built at Wiiliamstown Dockyards in Melbourne. Aren't they battle ready?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Lament:

    02 Jan 2008 11:34:17am

    This is just typical polly talk.
    No Minister ever makes a decision over tea and biscuits; Defence Procurement and others have all the expertise, the Minister only has the purse strings to make the best available decision.
    We could probably go back to Kim Beasley for the initial decision and blame, blame and blame.
    The new Minister really should not be looking for excuses this early in his tenure; key question is what is the current solution or are you going to do a Bracks through the looking glass?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Stewie:

    02 Jan 2008 11:34:16am

    Thats 2 successive Governments that have shafted our armed forces...I wonder if this will be number 3? Anyone taking bets?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John:

    02 Jan 2008 11:30:25am

    Seems like we need a new fleet.

    We have plenty of talent to get them built .

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 12:19:23pm

        New fleet is already ordered and being built. To their credit, the previous ALP government ordered the 8 Anzac frigates. The Howard government ordered upgrades of their sensors and weapons (they were ordered without much equipment to save costs), which will make them very capable vessels.
        The Howard government also ordered 3 Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) to be built in Adelaide and 2 amphibious ships (LHD). There is an option to build more AWD, which the current government has not ruled out.
        Finally, the Howard government ordered upgrades of the Collins class to rectify the faults. The first fully upgraded sub was back out on patrol last year, and is doing very well.
        All in all, the navy's prospects are looking very good, even including the problems with the Adelaide class frigate upgrades (FFG-UP) and the SeaSprite.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • wmc:

    02 Jan 2008 11:29:06am

    Good old Joel, with his graduate diploma in management, making pronouncements about the supposed incompetence of his predecessors.

    At least the Coalition had the sense to dump Labor's laughable 'defence of Australia' doctrine, which resulted in the army being gutted (yes, that's the same army that bears the bulk of the load associated with current operations).

    Labor has nothing to be proud of when it comes to defence policy.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Billybob:

        02 Jan 2008 11:51:50am

        Isn't it amazing what short memories the socialists have! The Australian defence forces were gutted by the Hawke/Keating governments with spending more than doubled by the coalition.
        Anyone remember the Collins class submarine debacle that the coalition inherited in 1996? When the first one was commissioned in 1996 the welding on the hull was that bad they couldn't even go under water, the billion dollar weapons system didn't work and it broke down regularly.
        Labor blaming the coalition for problems in the defence department is pure hypocrisy but that is what our new exalted leader does best.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Peter:

            02 Jan 2008 12:31:42pm

            And conveniently skipping over some wastage of the last government's watch - Seasprite naval helicopter, sub standard Super Hornets, and topic at hand, missile frigates.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Ken:

            02 Jan 2008 12:46:33pm

            Your obviously not a KRudd fan so I am most probably wasting electrons pointing out that it wasn't the government doing the welding but the contractor.

            What the government did do was buy a great design and an excellent weapons system the contractors then when about stuffing it up. Keating was voted out, Bonsai was voted in and went about burning every business relationship we had with the European suppliers who then stopped their support and then this is were the software fell to poo.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • James:

                02 Jan 2008 1:01:54pm

                A great weapons system. Oh boy have you got the wrong end of the stick: The combat management system (CMS) ordered by the ALP in the 1980s was a joke, which is what the US Navy and the Royal Navy told the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Government when asked for their opinions (it was far too ambitious for the technology of the day). But Beazley wouldn't listen (neither would the RAN, for which they have to shoulder their portion of the blame) and so the Collins class was ordered with a CMS that was never going to perform as required. It's cost over a billion dollars to fix the problem, and the new CMS ordered by the Howard government from the US (it's the same CMS they use in their latest submarines) is finally making the Collins class a worthwhile investment.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Billybob:

                02 Jan 2008 1:21:36pm

                The Labor government decided on the contractors, so the final blame has to sit with the decision makers. This is no different to AWB where the blame was placed on the federal government even though AWB is a private company.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Adam:

    02 Jan 2008 11:18:44am

    Nothing to do with blame game - the current Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, should have to account to the Australian public how this miss arose under his watch.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 12:13:30pm

        In 1997 the minister of defence was Ian McLachlan, not Brendan Nelson. So perhaps while we're asking Dr Nelson to explain, we can also ask him to explain the actions of the Hawke/Keating government in starting the FFG-UP in the first place (the Howard government signed on the deal in 1997, but the project started in the Keating era when the government was unwilling to fund a replacement for the frigates forcing the navy to examine the refit option).

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • P Q:

    02 Jan 2008 11:14:44am

    It is not surprising that our Navy, Air Force, etc are in a mess. That was why it was important that the Liberals retain power to cover up. Once a new party won government and investigated how decisions were made they would show that there were serious errors. Just think of the money we spent on Super Seaprite and the order for Superhornets.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • TJ:

        02 Jan 2008 12:53:37pm

        I don't think there is a cover up here P Q. Just incompetence.
        Terrible decision making regarding Defence in Aus goes way back and is on all side of politics.
        Ministers take on (or are given) PortFolios with little or know previous knowledge of the complexities of runnnig a defence force and unfortunatley the advice they recieve is at best outdated and at worst complete BS.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • TJ:

        02 Jan 2008 1:09:52pm

        I don't think there is a cover up here P Q. Just incompetence.
        Terrible decision making regarding Defence in Aus goes way back and is on all side of politics.
        Ministers take on (or are given) PortFolios with little or know previous knowledge of the complexities of runnnig a defence force and unfortunatley the advice they recieve is at best outdated and at worst complete BS.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Geoffrey Chaucer:

    02 Jan 2008 11:14:39am

    Yes, the blame game is started and rightfully so.

    The Navy problems is only the beginning. The commitment by Brendan Nelson with almost no consultation to acquire 6.6$bn worth of jet-fighters that a budgie could outfly and a further long-term commitment to purchase another fleet of fighters still on the drawing board is another disaster which Labor MUST fix.

    And guess who'll foot the bill.

    That's what happens when politicians with no expertise in their field of responsability make decisions which they are not qualified to make.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 12:10:07pm

        The department of defence was actively considering the purchase of the Super Hornet at least a year before the decision was announced. Just because the media wasn't invited to the discussions about Super Hornet doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
        Similarly, at least half of that $6.6 billion is on things other than the planes themselves. That cost is actually the cost of purchasing and running the for 10 years. The running costs are, incidentally, considerably less than the running costs of the F-111 (which the Super Hornet is replacing).

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Ray:

    02 Jan 2008 11:13:01am

    The blame game is justified providing the problem is corrected. While they're at it, how about getting us out of this debacle with the so-called Super Hornet - a lemon looking for somewhere to happen!! Similarly, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter is going to become the 21st century second string fighter that will end up costing more than the best!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 12:07:10pm

        You do realise that the Super Hornet is probably the best multi-role fighter currently in squadron service don't you? Criticism of the Super Hornet buy usually comes from the ill informed or from people with an agenda to push. Which one are you?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Steve D:

            02 Jan 2008 1:35:18pm

            Squadrons Flying the F-16, the mig 29 and the su 27, but probably the most annoyed will be those flying the Eurofighter Typhoon, currently in service with the RAF, The Luftwaffe, the Italian air force and the Spaniards. but every one is entitled to their opinions .. worth noting probably that one of the reasons given for the choice of the f18 over the f16 for Australia originally was that the f16 has only one engine ... much like the f35.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • James:

                02 Jan 2008 2:34:05pm

                You're right about being entitled to an opinion, and when it comes to fighter aircraft it is usually a case of horses for courses (i.e. the right plane for one task will be the wrong plane for another task). That being said:
                *I agree that the Typhoon is a very capable aircraft, however at present in the Tranche 1 form it has only very limited air-to-ground capabilities. Similarly the CAPTOR radar in the Typhoon at present is a mechanically scanned radar, as opposed to the AESA in the Super Hornet. Which is where my comment came from: at present the Super Hornet is the best multi-role aircraft is squadron service. That will change over time, however at the point when the decision was made (and at the time we receive our aircraft) that still be the case.
                *True enough about the one engine argument in favour of the Hornet being somewhat ironic with regards to the Lightning (although range was also a considerable factor, as was the innate BVR capabilities of the F/A-18A over the F-16A pre-AMRAAM). However, since that argument was made (close to 30 years ago by the time the F-35 are in service) the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) for engines has sky rocketed. Basically, with one engine the F-35 is less likely to experience engine failure than a double engine failure on the F/A-18A. It's just the march of technology my friend.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Huck:

    02 Jan 2008 11:00:48am

    When did the blame game stop? It's called accountability Frank. It's time the coalition took some.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Simon:

    02 Jan 2008 10:41:42am

    But early to say the blame game is just starting, perhaps the Minister is just telling the truth about the state of the Navy he has inherited.

    Lets be honest about this, the whole time Howard was in Government the Navy suffered badly, kids overboard any one?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        02 Jan 2008 12:05:28pm

        Suffered badly? The previous government has paid for the Collins class to be fixed (they didnt work primarily because the order, under the previous Labor government, was atrocious). The Anzac class are receiving upgrades, which will transform them into capable warships able to operate in high threat environments, rather than the glorified patrol boats ordered under Hawke/Keating. The Amphibious squadron is being replaced with new and capable ships (as opposed to second hand rust buckets purchased by the Keating government). The old Perth Class destroyers are finally being replaced by the AWD (note that the Keating government made no effort to replace the navys air warfare capabilities).
        Yes FFG-UP and the SeaSprite have not gone well, but most of the blame for that can go to poor advise from the department in the late-1990s that had become so used to having to give the cheapest choices to government (since Keating was unwilling to spend more than the bare necessity) rather than the best options.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Steve D:

            02 Jan 2008 1:39:14pm

            I disagree, the probable reason for the Collins class issues would have more to do with Australia never having built a submarine before therefore having no experience whatever, but then again its just like building an airfix model isnt it?

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • James:

                02 Jan 2008 2:38:36pm

                Construction was a big part of the problem (although incidentally, at least some of the poor welding was done in Sweden), but the overly ambitious requirements for the Combat Management System (CMS) was the most persistent problem. Basically, when the Collins class were ordered, they were ordered with an all-singing-all-dancing CMS to be designed and built in Australia, which was way too complicated for the technology for the day. Rectifying the problem has cost a bucket of cash, firstly on interim fixes, and finally on a replacement. The replacement CMS is the American AN/BYG-1 (the same CMS that they use aboard their newest submarines, the Virginia class SSN) and it is very capable. We're the only nation that the AN/BYG-1 has been exported to, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans were unwilling to export it else where.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Derek:

    02 Jan 2008 10:41:18am

    It appears that there is good reason for the 'Blame Game' to begin. The debacle with the 'Super Hornets', Navy Helo's etc, etc, shows how lazy and incompetent the Howard Government had become. A reason so many people are leaving a proud Service. Hopefully we will see a change in both Material and Personnel practice.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Spider Dijon:

    02 Jan 2008 10:39:45am

    I suppose this reflects somewhat poorly on the current opposition leader.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • James:

    02 Jan 2008 10:37:20am

    What Mr Fitzgibbon is not mentioning is that the FFG upgrade program (FFG-UP) was only necessary in the first place because the Hawke/Keating governments hadn't developed a replacement plan for either the Adelaide class FFG or (the now long decommissioned) Perth class DDG. In the circumstances there were few options but to keep the Adelaide class going and try and make the best out of a bad situation (also, soon after, the Howard government committed to the AWD program in order to provide a long term solution, as the Keating government should have done in the first place).
    That the FFG-UP hasnt gone well is unfortunate, but blame isnt really appropriate unless one wants to blame a whole lot of people (the Keating government, the DoD, the DMO, the contractors, the Navy, and the Howard Government).

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Steve D:

        02 Jan 2008 11:46:53am

        What are you talking about? the first FFG keel was laid down in 1977 and commissioned in 1980, and they must have been ordered at some time before that. As i recall Malcom Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983 and a replacement would not have been needed for at least 20 years one would have thought? The upgrades are intended to replace and enhance weapons system that have been outdated. and from memory the howard government only decided on the replacement for the FFG after 10 years in government so it seems like Hawke and Keating didn't really need to be in that great a rush since the Howard government hardly saw it as urgent.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • James:

            02 Jan 2008 12:31:39pm

            First off, the AWD project started in 2000 (i.e. after the Coalition had been in power for 4 years) and was originally scheduled to coincide with the exit from service of the FFG-UP in the middle of next decade. Program slippage in the FFG-UP mean that the original schedule is now out of kilter (the full FFG-UP will only be available for a few years before AWD arrives).
            Regarding the blame that Keating et al have in this matter: The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (the American name for the class) were designed with a 25 year hull life, which means that a responsible government would have been aiming to have a replacement on line for the FFG in 2005. Unfortunatley putting together a program of the scale of the AWD takes at least a decade between the start of the program and the first unit being ready for operations (this is true in any country you care to examine), which means that to have had an AWD on line by 2005 would have required the program to have started in 1994-1995... during the Keating government.
            By 1997 there was very little choice but to upgrade the Adelaide class since there was no way that a replacement could be online in time to replace them. Like I said, Keating has a large part of the blame to shoulder here.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Steve D:

                02 Jan 2008 1:11:44pm

                I dont follow your logic, hull life of 25 years; 10 years lead time for new project; AWD project started in 2000; and the contract awarded in 2007 and the first ship expected to deliver in 2014.
                Thats 14 years in total between commencement and delivery.
                that means if i am correct that the replacement planning should have started around 1990 not 1994-95, so.... either the previous government waited to long to see to an urgent need (4 years) or they dragged their heels on the AWD project.
                My point being that hindsight is 20/20 and that what is important is that in the end is what is done about, it not who is blamed for it.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • James:

                02 Jan 2008 1:28:03pm

                As I said 'at least a decade'. I was being optimistic. The AWD program points out an essential feature of such projects: in 2000, final decision (main gate) was expected in 2006 with IOC of AWD 1 in 2012. That slipped to 2007 and 2014 respectively, and that's before cutting any steel. So, you're probably quite right, if a dovetailed replacement for the FFG was being pursued, the program should have started in the early 1990s, not the mid-1990s. Also, this backs up my contention that by 1997 it was laready far too late for the Government to be persuing a direct replacement for the FFG at the 25 year mark.
                And, incidentally, I agree that blame is unimportant compared to results. However, when somebody like Fitzgibbon (or journalists) are busy throwing around blame I think it is important to be clear about where that blame should lie.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Frank:

    02 Jan 2008 10:28:21am

    The blame game is starting....

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Al:

        02 Jan 2008 10:39:10am

        It appears so, but at least Labor have stated that they will endeavour to fix the problem unlike when the blame game with the states was happening under the previous govt and nothing was done.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Alex:

        02 Jan 2008 10:59:08am

        Yeah Frank well if you had any relations in the navy you will also know that the ships they bought from the US were actually rust buckets that had to be cut in half and the front halves completely replaced... why? because They were not allowed to inspect the boats before they were purchased.. 11years of govt neglect is already showing up but i suppose that is labors fault some how according to all the people still bitter from the election loss.. maybe it was the union bosses?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • James:

            02 Jan 2008 11:57:13am

            What on earth are you talking about. The LPA were purchased by the Keating government, and were indeed rustbuckets. However, this only became apparent when they got to Australia for refit as the pre-sale inspection had focused on systems (which were fine) rather than hull and structure, which were not.
            On arrival in Australia they were modernized and refitted (not cut in half, or anything of the sort) which included removing the gantry over the bows and turning them from LST (essential a transport) to LPA (transports with command and control facilities along with better helicopter facilities).
            If were to be perfectly honest, the LPA were a bad idea, brought about by penny pinching by the Keating government. A better solution is the purpose designed and built LHD ordered by the Howard government.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Oz:

            02 Jan 2008 12:06:28pm

            Agreed. Recently we just seem to be a dumping ground for second-rate or obsolete US crap and the Howard government loved to over-pay for the privilege. I guess we can put it down to "strengthening the alliance". It's the reason of choice every time we make humiliating concessions to our ANZUS overlords.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Alex:

        02 Jan 2008 11:04:34am

        Or we are discovering more cover-ups.

        Remember how many FOI requests were denied by the previous government?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Peter of Marino:

        02 Jan 2008 11:09:42am

        Wait for the Malcolm Turnbull donation for cloud seeding. Should make for an entertaining question time.And of course there are the fighter jets courtesy of Dr Brendon Nelson.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Glen:

            02 Jan 2008 12:07:17pm

            It is all well and good to upgrade our current capabilities especially wrt the Navy e.g. 12 x new subs however the powers at be need to recruit and RETAIN the people to crew these platforms starting tomorrow! Speaking from personal experience, there is still not much incentive to remain in the forces beyond 6 to 10 years.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • mut:

            02 Jan 2008 12:43:36pm

            Ministers are easy targets. When it comes to military technology, surely it's the boys and girls of the defence forces who should know what they're doing and be accountable for spending more than $10 billion a year!

            Agree (0) Alert moderator