Author Topic: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers  (Read 4595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,682
  • I am a poser
Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« on: May 23, 2006, 17:00:02 »
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Army-may-accept-belowpar-choppers/2006/05/23/1148150256239.html

Army may accept below-par choppers
May 23, 2006 - 9:40PM


The army may accept up to six Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters (ARH) that don't meet its specifications, a parliamentary committee has heard.

Defence agreed to take some helicopters which are not quite up to scratch without any record of proposed changes in writing, the committee was told.

Colin Cronin, from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), told a Senate estimates committee that the first ARH that would meet the government's requirements would be number seven.

But Finance Minister Nick Minchin denied it meant the project was a dud.

Labor frontbencher Chris Evans asked what it would take to actually make a project a dud.

"Everything on the bloody thing doesn't work," he said.

An ANAO report earlier this month found that early aircraft failed to meet 14 airworthiness requirements for weight, engine power, crash resistance, ability to fly over water and weapons system performance.

The most important problem appears to be with the electronics, which means Tigers cannot yet operate at night or in bad weather in Australian civil aviation airspace.

Defence has provisionally accepted some Tigers but with limitations on their operation including a requirement that they may only be flown by instructors and experienced aircrew.

The committee also heard that Defence had agreed with the manufacturer to alter the specifications, but the agreement was not detailed in writing.

Mr Cronin told the committee that in February 2006 the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) had informed the ANAO of changed specifications from the original December 2001 contract for the Tigers.

However, there was nothing in writing to detail the changes.

© 2006 AAP


Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,957
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2006, 17:17:23 »
Does Australia have the same patronage problems Canada seems to have suffered from in the past in regards to suppliers?? ;)
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 26,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,648
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2006, 17:32:24 »
The UK had a somewhat similar problem with some CC130s just recently. They did not meet UK updated specs. AFAIK, the CDS said "gimmie" and bugger the specs. (another thread around about that little incident).

Why does everyone think that we are the only ones who go thru this stuff?
Chimo!

Offline Canadian.Trucker

  • Roadrunner Actual
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 12,449
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 574
    • G&SF Website
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2006, 18:12:41 »
Why does everyone think that we are the only ones who go thru this stuff?

You mean we aren't?  Well my world is crashing down around me.
Tenacious and Versatile-G & SF

"Nevermind, I'll do it myself" - Me

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
- George Orwell

Offline Digger Hale

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 567
  • Striving for Mediocracy in a world of Excellance
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2006, 19:16:02 »
Ah, it makes me proud, I'm a member of a defence organisation that seems to think a picture and a verbal guarantee ("Oh yeah...it works dead good, whats that? You want to be able to fire missle's? They're overated, dont worry about them") is proof enough for them. SHOCK HORROR, they rush into things and dont think through their decisions regarding our capabilities, just as long as they can say we've got those capabilities. I mean seriously, what are we doing? The Tiger and the SeaSprite? Bought, bumpled and wasting money. They'r probably still going to work and work well, we tend to improvise and make things happen, but to have the first 6 being techinically useless and the government still saying that doesnt make them a dud, its genuinly funny, especially with Chris Evens response.
We need Wes! Come back from Pucka mate and make an impact on this forum!
Have you Canucks got anything thats this out of control? Any Chopper skeletons in the closet? It seems we could lend you some! ;)
"Then imitate the actions of the tiger, stiffen the sinews, conjure up the blood...
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath, and bend up every spirit to his full height..."

Online Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 44,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,275
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2006, 19:23:20 »
Any Chopper skeletons in the closet? It seems we could lend you some! ;)


You're f$%cking joking, right?  ::) The CF invented the Amityville Hangar.
Living the lean life

Offline cobbler

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 164
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2006, 07:54:36 »
And another stuff up by the Defence Material Organisation at the cost of mere billions to the Australian taxpayer  ::)
Not to mention the effects this will have on operational effectivness.

Why cant DMO seem to get their act together?

Of course the incompetence of a largely civilian body affects the image of the entire ADF to the point where the ignorant civilian cant distinguish that incompetence in procurment by bean counters doesn't equal incompetence in the field. But try telling the lefties that.

Great now I've gone off on a rant.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 08:08:02 by cobbler »

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,957
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2006, 08:34:46 »
Duh...I guess we're not the only ones...Kim Campbel will be proud  :o
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2006, 10:58:48 »
One of my primary talents is contract-writing and I've never understood how these procurement deals don't include protection for the buying nation from sub-standard work, late delivery, etc. with penalty clauses in concert with deposit schedules that hold-back large portions of the purchase price until after delivery and certification.

Is it just that the government representatives in these negotiations don't know what they need to be demanding, or what?


Matthew.   ???
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,765
  • Freespeecher
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2006, 12:46:20 »
One of my primary talents is contract-writing and I've never understood how these procurement deals don't include protection for the buying nation from sub-standard work, late delivery, etc. with penalty clauses in concert with deposit schedules that hold-back large portions of the purchase price until after delivery and certification.

Is it just that the government representatives in these negotiations don't know what they need to be demanding, or what?

Or maybe these government reps are hoping to find employment with said company after doing their "20". The job interview might not be so friendly if "you" were the guy who insisted on all these provisions being in place.....

BTW this isn't a slam at just defence contractors. I once came across an article which pointed out a member of the city staff (City of London, ON.) quit the city shortly after the deal was signed for the John Labatt Centre hockey arena/entertainment complex, and was working for that organization soon afterwards. He was being paid by the taxpayers before, and since the taxpayers are absorbing all the costs/losses of the complex today we can say he is still being paid for by the taxpayers of London.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Aussie Army may accept below-par choppers
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2006, 13:12:01 »
Or maybe these government reps are hoping to find employment with said company after doing their "20". The job interview might not be so friendly if "you" were the guy who insisted on all these provisions being in place.....

BTW this isn't a slam at just defence contractors. I once came across an article which pointed out a member of the city staff (City of London, ON.) quit the city shortly after the deal was signed for the John Labatt Centre hockey arena/entertainment complex, and was working for that organization soon afterwards. He was being paid by the taxpayers before, and since the taxpayers are absorbing all the costs/losses of the complex today we can say he is still being paid for by the taxpayers of London.

Funny example....I'm looking at the JLC from my office window right now....


Matthew.   ;D
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!