4E wrote
"Are the Chinese Islamophobic for incarcerating and psychologically torturing the Muslims ... or are the Muslims Sinophobic for objecting to it?"
Hahahaha! Good one, 4E. As usual, Brian seems blissfully unaware that his "humanitarian" values and attitudes are a two edged swords that can cut both ways.
How about this? "The Muslims, who have been the world's pre eminent cultural genocidists and monoculturalists, are complaining that the Chinese are doing to them, what they have been doing to everybody else that they can get to sword point for the last 1400 years."
Briney wrote
Such as the non-existent helicopter crash into Sydney Harbour?
Oh, it crashed all right. I remembered it because it was so funny. And also because I am always concerned about how incompetent the Australians defence procurement mob are. But I knew that DoD could not be so stupid as to purchase a helicopter which crashed on it's demonstration flight, right in front of them. I should have known better.
Briney wrote
I have never suggested that the Department of Defence is not without failure.
Brian, you spent seven pages denying that the numerous examples I gave of defence acquisition fiascos was in any way a problem. Now, you seem to be moderating your position. Did my examples become so glaring that you finally had to admit I was at least partially right? That is not like you, Brian. Usually, you will deny to the death that your position could ever be wrong, no matter how many undeniable facts and reasoned arguments I throw at you. Score one for Bogan.
Briney wrote.
It is not perfect but as I have demonstrated, it is only as bad and often better than what has occurred overseas in our enemies' and our allies' own defence procurement decision making. Do I need to recount them again?
No need. I completely reject the argument that it is OK for the Australian defence procurement officials to be totally incompetent and waste tens of billions of taxpayer funds, jeopardising the defence of the realm, just because their overpaid public service counterparts overseas are arguably just as stupid.
Briney wrote
I have never denied that mistakes were not made, Bogan.
Ummm, yes you have. But if you are retreating to a more defensible position, then I will let that one pass.
Briney wrote
My main point has been that what you describe as "mistakes" were honest decisions made on the basis of the evidence in front of the deciders - at the time. Some of the decisions have since, on the basis of new evidence, been shown to have been incorrect but there were numerous ones which have been proven correct.
Brian, we pay our top defence bureaucrats a shitload of money to not make these mistakes. If they can't handle the job then sack them and replace them with their tea ladies. Their tea ladies would have more common sense than our present officials, who seem to be down in the garden dancing with the fairies. It is not just a matter of a few mistakes, it is something that just keeps happening, over and over, and over again, costing the taxpayer tens of billions, and weakening out already miserable defence capability.
Briney wrote
You like to point to the F/A-18. Well, that aircraft has performed well for the RAAF in the last 30+ years, despite what you proclaim. It has performed well for the other airforces which adopted it - the Swiss, Finnish, Canadian, Malaysian, Kuwaiti and Spanish air forces.
The F-18 has performed well because it has never came up against a Soviet aircraft like it's Soviet contemporary, the Mig 29, which can outperform it. I will grant you that it is pretty good at dropping bombs on Australian citizens, that people like you wanted to import into Australia, who were fighting for our enemies in Syria,
But the F-18's performance was so bad that the US Navy wanted to cancel the whole damned project. But it could not, because it was an international venture and too many foreign parties had been conned into financing the development of this disappointing warplane. If other nations are using the F-18, it is probably because the yanks are trying to get rid of them so they are selling them off, cheap.
Briney wrote
Indeed, the Canadians recently purchased from the RAAF excess F/A-18s which we no longer required. Yes, there were better aircraft and yes, there were worse ones but it was a political decision, not a decision made by the Australian Department of Defence as to which one the RAAF would fly.
WHAT? Why the hell is Australia, with a total air force warplane strength less than a US attack carrier, doing selling off our warplanes to Canada?
This is just incredible. How is it that the Canadians value them and we don't? Why don't we just build a hanger and stick the damned over priced things in there just in case we need them? I read an article in a defence journal which claimed that the Soviets never threw any defence equipment away. They were even taking the turrets off old T-34's and making fixed pillbox positions out of them in mountain passes.
Having the most modern equipment available is very important, but never possible. And in a war, numbers still count. I recently watched a youtube video about the war in East Africa during WW2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbYVJlzY0Zs&t=530s There were the British and South Africans, soldiering on against the Italians with a collection of post WW1, near museum piece aircraft like Gloster Gladiators, Hawker Furies, and Fairy Battles, because it was all they had. And they still won.
Briney wrote
You love to point at the Tiger helicopter. You know, the one which you claimed crashed spectacularly in front of the entire nation into Sydney Harbour? A crash which there is absolutely no record online about. Funny that.
That does not detract from the fact that it happened.
Brian Ross wrote
The decision to adopt it was covered by a competition between the Rooivalk, the Cobra, the Tiger and the Apache. The Tiger was judged the winner - twice. Bell, the makers of the Cobra protested the first time and it had to be run again. The Cobra still lost.
Brian, the Australian defence procurement officials in WW2 conducted two tests with the Owen sub machine gun against the sten gun and they announced that the sten gun, which was a complete piece of shit, was superior to the Owen. The Owen was probably the best WW2 SMG of the war, and even the yanks considered buying it. But our wonderful defence procurement people told they yanks the Owen was no good. The reason why they did that was because of their prejudices. They could not admit that a gun made in Australia could be superior to a British gun, so they rigged the tests. I don't trust the defence procurement officials or their tests. Even their tea ladies would have known that the Apache was, and still is, the finest attack helicopter in the world. And it was $13 million dollars a throw cheaper than the Eurocraptor piece of shit.
Briney wrote
Has the Tiger been a success? In a limited way, yes it has. It has provided valuable experience to the Army in the operation of an armed helicopter.
That's putting a positive spin on a $320 million total disaster, Brian. Perhaps DoD will stick you in their public relations department?
Briney wrote
It has to be admitted that it hasn't been a total success and so they are now seeking to replace it. Perhaps the Apache might win this time. Who knows?
It better. Or it would be safe to assume that the ethnicity of Australia's defence acquisition officials is either Chinese or Muslim.
Briney wrote
As for what other armies are doing, it is interesting isn't it that armies around the world are moving away from tracked IFVs for the most part to wheeled ones. The Australian Army has adopted the German Boxer IFV an 8x8 wheeled vehicle. The British have also adopted the Boxer. Just like the Germans. The US Army has adopted the Stryker IFV. The Russians have adopted the "Boomerang" IFV - another 8x8 vehicle. The Israelis are doing something similar. Funny that, hey? You're behind the times..
You could be right on that score, Brian. I have not been keeping up on my usual interest in defence, probably because you can guarantee that whatever defence acquisitions we make, at least on major projects, it is usually the wrong ones. After a while you get sick of banging your head against a wall at the stupidity and incompetence of DoD and you lose interest.
So congratulations, Briney. After 10 years of trying, you have finally scored a point against me. Score one for Brian Ross.
Briney wrote
Bogan, to err is human. Forgiveness belongs to the divine. Yes, public servants make mistakes, just as do politicians.
Brian, the F-111 purchase was a huge mistake, but I forgive that because we got blinded by the sales pitch and we trusted the yanks (for good reason) that whatever aircraft they designed, it would be a world beater. But the F-111 was so crashy that we waited eleven years for delivery while the yanks got rid of the bugs. That should have taught DoD a lesson. Don't buy aircraft off the drawing board. You don't really know what their performance is going to be until they fly, and their overly encouraging price tags always skyrocket.
Then we repeated the same mistake with the F-18 and we bought a pig in a poke. Like Einstein said, the definition of insanity is, "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result."
Briney wrote
All too often procurement decisions are made by politicians without reference to bureaucrats at all. The Piranha LAV 8x8 cavalry vehicle was made by Kim Beazley 'cause he liked the look of them and told the DoD to buy 100 of them for trials purposes. The COLLINS class submarines were made by Beazley and the ALP cabinet 'cause the Germans couldn't get their act together and the British subs were duds. The Leopard MBT decision was made by Gough Whitlam 'cause the yanks couldn't supply their M60 MBT in sufficient numbers. The list goes on and on. Yet you always blame the bureaucrats...
While bureaucrats routinely blame politicians for their bad advice. Australian federal Politicians get elected for three years but bureaucrats are there in their departments for their entire careers. Most politicians know nothing about defence and they depend upon their DoD advisors to give them the proper advice as to what our defence policies should be. That advice has been very poor. Everything from officials convincing Bob Hawke that aircraft carriers are obsolete, and that when we took delivery of the Invincible, we should sell it. Then they got egg all over their faces when the Falklands war broke out and the Brits took our carrier to war after we had already bought it, and paid the first instalment on it. Now, everybody is building aircraft carriers, either of the catapult of VTOL variety.
Then there was the decision to sell New Zealand out Skyhawks before somebody in DoD realised that we still needed them, so we leased them back. This caused as much hilarity in New Zealand as it did at the time that our America's Cup yacht sank.
Briney wrote
No, what I attempted to do was make you understand them within the context of when they were made. There is a difference, Bogan
Brian, at the time of the fighter force replacement, I was intently interested in which fighter we should purchase and I read everything I could get on the subject. One source was the old Pacific defence reporter edited by former officer Graham Young. The PDR was emphatic that the RAAF wanted the F-15. Of the other four contenders, I thought that the F-18 was the least likely aircraft that we would purchase for the same reason as the F-111 stuffup. It was a drawing board plane of unknown price and performance. But I had underestimated the capacity of the DoD defence procurement officials to always buy the wrong thing. And as usual, we got a plane that was more expensive than an F-15 with much inferior performance. If you won't replace our incompetent defence acquisitions officials with their tea ladies, perhaps you might consider electricians for the job?
Briney wrote
Australian bureaucrats have a reputation for honesty, Bogan.
Compared to their counterparts in Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Venezuela, and Uganda, they do.
Briney wrote
Despite your usual insinuations you simply refuse to understand reality. You live in a cloud-cuckoo land inside your mind which doesn't exist outside it. The French, the Yanks, have tried numerous times to bribe Australian officials and been turned down cold.
I still remember the fiasco involving retired DoD officials who used their influence in DoD to block the sale to Mexico of our 12 C-130A Hercules transport aircraft, because they saw an opportunity to get control of these aircraft and sell them themselves. They sold one to the French Air Force, and another to a Columbian Drug cartel before the FBI blocked the delivery. That plane sat on a runway in the USA for years accumulating parking fees. What eventually happened to that plane, I don't know.
The remaining C-130's sat in the weather at Laverton for so many years that eventually they could no longer be considered airworthy and they were cut up for scrap. Loss to Australia from the Mexico deal? $30 million dollars. Somebody in DoD must have got their palms grassed to make that happen. Tell us again how incorruptible Australian defence force officials are, Briney?
Briney wrote
My concern is trying to understand why decisions have been made the way they have been made. I do not believe they are dishonest. I believe they have been made on the basis of what is known - AT THE TIME. You love applying 100% perfect hindsight.
Well, here is a bit of foresight. If we have one FFG frigate left, then anchor it in Sydney Harbour with some anodic rust prevention blocks. And don't sell any more of our scarce F-18's to Canada. Build a warehouse in a dry place like South Australia and park them in there, because one day we might need them. Same for our Leopard tanks. The Leopard 1 may be obsolete, but four men in an obsolete tank is a lot more a dangerous proposition than four men running around on the ground with the most modern rifles firing ammunition more suited to killing rabbits than men.
Briney wrote
I wonder, have you ever made a bad decision in your life, ever?
I have made plenty of mistakes. But I learn from my mistakes. I don't keep repeating them. You can get a good man once, but never twice. And nobody is paying me $300,000 dollars p.a. to keep repeating my mistakes.
