Defence acquisitions projects are by the nature challenging. They are technically complex and involve long lead times. It is true that in some cases Defence has had difficulty delivering to schedule.
However Government has moved to address these issues as a priority and has committed to the ongoing reform of Defence and its purchasing agency, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), as means of delivering capabilities to the ADF on time and on budget.
In response to the series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald it would be difficult to respond directly to each of the assertions made by journalists Gerard Ryle and Brian Robins. The articles were old news and often deliberately misleading. The journalists were not ill informed. Defence has provided the Sydney Morning Herald with detailed responses to a raft of questions over a period of approximately four weeks. The journalists have chosen to totally ignore the facts provided by defence in response to their queries. This consumed significant resource, with approximately twenty workdays being dedicated to questions covering thirty-five different topics.
With this in mind, I believe it is important for Defence to point out a few of the more obvious inaccuracies and misleading statements made by the journalists.
The article contends that Global Hawk is a "spy plane disaster”. This is not true. Defence has not purchased the Global Hawk or any other UAV. However expenditure is allocated within the Defence Capability Plan 2004 – 2014 for a mature high altitude, long endurance UAV.
With regards the reliability of Global Hawk, the main point to note is that all of the incidents occurred on 'Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator' aircraft, rather than production aircraft. In other words, given the experimental and test nature of the aircraft, high loss rates were expected.
The aircraft referred to actually flew for considerably longer than intended. In fact trials of the Global Hawk demonstrator have been so positive that the US Military deployed the aircraft on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq with significant success. Assertions with regards the Bushmaster project are also factually incorrect.
The Bushmaster prototype project commenced in the mid 1990s. Two experimental vehicles were deployed briefly to East Timor in 1999. With the creation of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) in late 2000, the project was reviewed. Options were considered ranging from project abandonment through to a total overhaul.
The matter was referred to the Government and it was announced in 2002 that a revised contract would be signed. This did not involve any real increase to the total project cost approved previously by Government. The number of vehicles to be delivered was reduced to 299 to offset cost pressures resulting from capability enhancements. ADI agreed to proceed without having a formal profit component in the contract.
Since signing the new contract, the project has run to schedule. Prototype trials were successfully completed on time in early 2003. Production began on schedule later in 2003, and trials are at present under way on the first production vehicles.
In relation to the Abrams tanks, the article alleges that the Abrams tank is a poor purchase because it is too heavy and is not invulnerable The facts are that at a combat weight of 63 tonnes, the Abrams is only slightly heavier than its competitors and will be able to deployed throughout the region using in-service naval vessels and land-based infrastructure
As for vulnerability, the simple fact no armoured vehicle is 100% invulnerable. However the M1A1 has a proven high level of survivability – with no fatalities amongst crews in the recent Iraq conflict.
In relation to the Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, the article alleges that the Tiger helicopter will be six months late and that the Hellfire missile system is in doubt.
The facts are that the first two Tiger helicopters are on schedule for delivery to the ADF in December this year to commence crew training with a fully operational Hellfire missile capability.
The article is also critical of the ANZAC frigate program.
The facts are that the $7 billion ANZAC Ship Project, which is the largest Defence project ever undertaken in Australia, has seen the delivery of vessels of outstanding quality on time and on budget. Approximately 73% of the Contract price is being spent in Australia and New Zealand.
The article also quotes several of the criticisms that were levelled at the DMO during the course of the Senate References Committee Inquiry into Defence Acquisitions.
However, it does not mention the Senate Committee’s principal finding, in which the Committee expressed confidence that, the organisational, structural and process reforms already implemented by the DMO are providing the disciplined basis necessary to deliver project outcomes on time and on budget.
The Government commissioned, and then accepted the recommendations of the Kinnard Review last year, which are now being implemented by Defence and should lead to the more effective management of major Defence projects.
The record shows that Defence acquisitions have improved as a result of these reforms, with projects such as the Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft and the Armed Reconnaissance helicopters running on time and on Budget.
(signed)
Dr Stephen J. Gumley
CEO
Defence Materiel Organisation
