Ausmarine Editorial – May 2015
I understand that the Federal Government is starting to get serious about replacing the so-called Pacific Patrol Boats that we gave to a number of our Pacific island neighbour nations about two decades ago.
While the gifted craft were much appreciated, and it was very generous of Australia's taxpayers to provide them, they did have a number of deficiencies. Mostly, they tried to be mini-battle ships. They had few other possible capabilities.
I wrote on this subject a decade or so ago but I don't think the denizens of Canberra read much. Anyway, I'll try again.
First, I hope and trust, but am not very confident, that our Foreign Affairs and Defence bureaucrats are asking the likely recipients of these boats exactly what they need and would like us to supply.
Some years ago I had a lengthy conversation with Sitiveni Rambuka, the previous military dictator of Fiji. He is, despite the "dictator" appelation, a charming, erudite and very knowledgeable man.
We talked about aid in general and the Pacific Patrol Boats in particular. I hope that his comments get back to someone influential in Canberra.
Essentially, he said: "I don't want to appear ungrateful and I know that beggars can't be choosers, but the PPBs were far from ideal for our purposes.
"What we need", he continued, "is not mini-warships but something longer, simpler and much more versatile."
What General Rambuka described was closely akin to a modern crew/supply OSV with, as he put it, a "pop-gun" on the front. He described the main roles of the PPBs as chasing fish poachers and in disaster relief. Thus the need for versatility, load and people carrying and reasonable speed.
Such vessels, which are well proven in the offshore industry can be designed, built and maintained very economically. That means they are not, unfortunately, what too many of the decision makers in Canberra regard as a ship.
Thus, regrettably, we will probably end up with another expensive orphan such as usually results when Canberra gets involved in vessel specification and design. Worst of all, it will most likely be built by and mostly for the benefit of a foreign owned warship builder and the venal unionists that such companies employ. How sad.
Some good new on Defence
Perhaps I shouldn't be so negative but half a century of studying Defence operations and, particularly, purchasing, in this country make it hard to be positive.
Anyway, while I held out little hope for improvement when Kevin Andrews replaced the honest but hapless Senator David Johnston as Defence Minister, I have to admit I have been very pleasantly surprised by Andrews' early moves. They are encouraging.
While I was hoping for a 90 per cent pruning of Defence Materiel Organisation's (DMO) 8,000 odd staff, I guess I should be satisfied that it is being effectively closed down and some 3,000 of its staff eliminated. There will be other satisfying cuts elsewhere in both the uniformed and bureaucratic areas of Defence. They are both decidedly top-heavy.
Given this encouraging start to his reign, it can only be hoped that Minister Andrews will follow through with further necessary and substantial trimming of his department.
There is a lot more that can and needs to be done without in any way detracting from our overall defence capability or readiness. Indeed, a thorough clean out will make most of those who remain in Defence happier and more productive. Like Australia's tax payers, most of the effective members of our forces are tired of carrying around parasitic passengers.
So, hopeful signs in Defence in terms of both personnel and purchasing. Let's not get over-confident though. Those Canberra "shiny seats" can be very wily.
Neil Baird
