I hope this guest post of yours has been of some use to you.

My concerns remain [i] That there is an obsession with too narrow a range of technologies and specific aircraft types. and [ii] That all the talk in the world is a waste of time - or worse, can lead to dangerous and even suicidal delusions - if problems with the human factor are ignored or minimized. (Just for fun, have one of your staffers look up what happened with military and naval procurement in late Qing [Ch'ing] Dynasty China and especially how the Japanese flogged the Chinese Empire in their war of 1894).

SkepticLawyer and Jason Soon:

Thanks for having Dennis Jensen on Catallaxy.

Hi Tony,

I see you may be suffering from the same affliction many in the senior ranks of Defence have - selective comprehension of the written word. Suggest you go back and re-read my last post to you. You will see it supports and agrees with the position put by Dr Jensen.

Nice try but this sort of ‘projection’ rarely carries any weight.

As for your other assertions here, please point out where anyone here, let alone APA-Carlo has been, how did you say it, “effectively denigrating the expertise of experienced combat pilots in the project teams”?.

While you are at it, who are these “experienced combat pilots in the project teams”? Last time I looked at the NACC Project, there weren’t any folks there who would call themselves ‘experienced combat pilots’.

Could you also explain why you said - “Also, I don’t think you should be discussing people by name here.”

I see nothing wrong with APA-Carlo mentioning the people he did - I have nothing but praise and admiration for AVM Peter Criss and ACDRE Ted Bushell. What is your problem with this?

there being

But disagree with you when you say,
” “The question is, “How can it all be fixed?”

The problem is, it can’t till those involved recognise, acknowledge and accept that it needs to be fixed. In fact, if this was to happen, the fix itself is very simple” “.

On the contrary, you and many many others like you can do something immediately without waiting for The-Powers-That-Be to come to their senses.

Selection for appointment to Defence procurement decision-making positions should be on the basis of professional expertise alone - ceteris paribus. However, if or when any such appointments are made on the basis of an unspecified key selection criterion of being able to hop onto the gravy-train without upsetting it whilst having sufficient professional expertise to avoid appearing a complete goose in public, then everyone connected with the shonky process should be identified and exposed.

Any threats of legal action for defamation and other outbursts of petulance are miniscule when compared to the threats to all our lives by allowing such people to remain in their positions.

I would rather see the reputations of, say, a dozen, dodgy decision-makers crash-and-burn than see a dozen of our cities become burning ruins ……………

We can no longer afford the luxury of well-meaning but mistaken “loyalty” to fellow professionals, or to others with whom we have regular contact, who can be identified as being dishonestly appointed to Defence procurement decision making positions.

Out with them.

You’ve been making excuses for these tax-eaters LONG ENOUGH.

Now what the hell is going on here?

Time to put your cards on the table.

There’s something you are not telling us.

Its taken awhile but I have seen through your prevarications.

Carlo, I think some of your comments are out of line, where you’re effectively denigrating the expertise of experienced combat pilots in the project teams. Also, I don’t think you should be discussing people by name here.

Thats just bizzare. If it means we are more likely to have these up in the air at any given time it affects our readiness.

It surely means greater reach. I mean we can plant refueler Jumbos around the world. But what other plane could do an out and back punitive mission to Iran just for example? Even with a few Jumbo refuelers here and there?

Taiwan pilots sit in their cockpits in the hot afternoon sun.

And China hasn’t yet attacked.

Readiness can make up for a great deal of other deficiencies.

It means a superior enemy is likely to put things off until next year. And the year after that. And in the end they never get round to causing trouble.

We must put aside the personally worthy deeds in the past of such people like Dennis Hughes. It looks like he’s gone native.

This is too important a matter to let old worthy deeds deflect us from getting things done.

Even if it means a relentless clobbering–time of the current blood-sucker-central incumbents.

Hughes sounds like he’s been overcome by the same sort of mindless smug-buggery we see over at Deltoid on a daily basis.

“Even if you do favour the F-35, what harm could finding out more about the F-22 do?”

We’ve identified already that they are full of shit. Now supposing they had some sort of KILLER-FACTOID that they were holding up their sleeve which they hadn’t told us about….

Some killer-factoid that completely turns the argument around.

Well that will come out in the extended shaming process. And that scenario in-and-of-itself would make the shaming justified and worthwhile.

There’s no use wondering anymore. We just have to assume that they’ve fucked up (which they have) and get on with the process of abusing and discrediting them.

“I stand by my analysis Carlo …..
you say that those bureaucrats then managed to convince Hill and numerous Cabinet Ministers. I think right there you’ve got a failure on the part of the government.”

In a somewhat obtuse sort of way, Tony, I think you are right if, as I assume, you are referring to successive governments. But, I suggest your reasoning is somewhat off the mark.

Under the norms of governance and fiduciary duties, the Minister, the Cabinet, the Government and the Parliament - in fact parliamentarians of all persuasions - have every right to expect the advice they receive from the Departments is, firstly, frank and fearless expert advice and, secondly, provided in the interests of our Nation. After all, that is what people in public service, particularly the very well paid senior bureaucrats (in or out of uniform) are being paid for.

However, they (the parliamentarians who make up both the directing and oversight levels of governance over the departments), in turn, have a responsibility, in fact a fiduciary duty, to ensure that, firstly, the people providing the advice are actually experts in their fields; secondly, that these experts are appropriately resouced and working in an environment conducive to the provision of frank and fearless advice; and, finally, that the basis of the advice is in the national interest and not tainted in any way by political, careerist, individual, or other conflicting interests.

Recent history as well of history far further past is riddled with shortcomings and failures in the provision of expert advice to the Government and the Parliament and the acceptance of same. However, the cause of these failures is a bit of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation - a ’self eating water melon’ if you get my drift.

The question is, “How can it all be fixed?”

The problem is, it can’t till those involved recognise, acknowledge and accept that it needs to be fixed. In fact, if this was to happen, the fix itself is very simple.

Just read Janis and Drucker or any other internationally recognised organisational management guru.

As an ordinary voter, taxpayer and Morlock.
I don’t really give a d*mn how it is done … all I want is for baddies to be kept at bay so I can sleep soundly in my bed.

And much of the discussion here …. at a time when Australia is lurching from one international relations crash to another - Iraq, Fiji, Solomon Islands, etc. - has done nothing to make my sleep restful at all.