|
| Last
Updated: Fri May 16 04:19:50 UTC 2008
|
Open
Sourced, Closed Minds
|
|
Air Power
Australia - Australia's Independent Defence Think Tank
|
Air Power Australia NOTAM
16th July,
2007
|
Peter Goon, Head of Test and Evaluation,
Air Power Australia
|
| Contacts: |
Peter
Goon
|
Carlo
Kopp |
|
|
Mob:
0419-806-476 |
Mob:
0437-478-224 |
|
|
|
The treatise by Colonel of Aviation Grigoriy "Grisha" Medved
(retd) on ‘How to Destroy the Australian Defence Force’ is alarming in its
simplicity but more so in the fact that the various ways in which ADF
forces can be defeated which he outlines are all based upon ‘open
source’ information.
Statements
like, “I have absolute confidence that our country will
be well and truly protected by our upgraded F/A-18s, a squadron of
Super Hornets, and that they will also be able to ensure the safety and
security of the men and women who will fly it” and views that rely upon “five
per cent which is classified” are not a basis for confidence and are
clearly non sequitur as arguments.
If scenarios based upon open source
information show defeat as a high probability, then no “five per cent
which is classified” or superlative confidence expressed by a
politician is going to change that strategic fact. To think
otherwise is both foolish and arrogant in its extreme for, inter alia,
it assumes the opposing force does not have their own “five per cent
(or more) which is classified” and/or
assumes one knows all there is to know about the capabilities of the
opposing forces. Anyone
with any experience in Operational
Analysis put in the context of the Australia DoD’s AIPS, DAPES and
other scenario modelling knows this as a strategic fact.
Other examples of such non sequitur thinking may
be found in statements that are self contradicting right through to
those that totally misinterpret the premise upon which they are based.
One
need look no further than the contradiction in the following:
The Super Hornet, the Block 2, the most
advanced version of it, is a very capable, very stealthy aircraft. The
F-22, whilst it is a brilliant air to air combat capability is not the
correct aircraft for, would lose stealth capability once we put bombs
on it.
The Super Hornet
(Block 2 or otherwise) can only carry bombs and any other stores
externally. Therefore, by this very statement, it cannot be ‘very
stealthy’ and is, in fact, not stealthy at all – even without the
bombs! The Defence Minister has been clearly misled.
The basic premise of the 'system of
systems' concept is where 'the capabilities of the whole are
greater than the sum of the individual parts'. This
concept is laudable in theory and can be quite effective in
practice, PROVIDED that it is not used to justify building a system
using parts of a lesser capability.
In his keynote
speech to the 2004 Air Power Conference, the then Chief of Air
Force, ACM Angus Houston, stated :
“……operational circumstances
may demand making a ‘silk purse out of a sow’s ear.’ ”
However, as Norm Augustine,
the former aerospace
industry chairman/CEO whose escalating costing prediction for future
fighter aircraft started this whole JSF genre, was also heard to say, "when trying to turn a sow's ear into a
silk purse, 'tis best to start with a Silk Sow".
Other noteworthy statements in this keynote speech, such as the
following, give pause to reflect upon the historical importance of this
speech in the context of what has been said and done since it was
delivered:
“….developing
robust feedback mechanisms and pertinent measures of effectiveness.”
“The job of the Chief, in partnership with other senior leaders in
Defence, is to make sure those people are well supported and well led.”
“…..going forward will
require some clear thinking, robust risk management, and collegiate
force prioritisation sustained by open, constructive relationships.”
“I might add that dumb bombs are also operationally-and cost-effective
in particular scenarios, and should not be written out of the analysis
yet, if ever.”
Readers are encouraged to
review this
speech in its entirety.
The strength of any chain is measured by its weakest link and the
currently weakest link in the new air combat capability debate is the
inability of the Minister and his Department to see that 'systems' will
come and go, but the platforms that make these systems effective must
serve us well for over 30 years. Systems do not an aircraft make, they
only enhance or reduce its ability to do the job efficiently and
effectively.
|
|
|
Air
Power Australia Website - http://www.ausairpower.net/
Air Power Australia Research and
Analysis - http://www.ausairpower.net/research.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Artwork, graphic design and text © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Carlo Kopp; Text © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Peter Goon; All
rights reserved. |
|
Recommended browsers
Mozilla/Firefox, Konqueror. |
|
$Revision: 1.325 $
|
| NLA Pandora Archive |
| Notices |
| |
![Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]](apa-analyses.png "Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]")
