This article takes the cake for troubling Defence news. In it whistle-blowers claim that security checks on a variety of Defence personal and contractors are faked to try and reduce a backlog of background checks and personal security reports.
It involves claims of threatening those employees to pick up the pace and fake documents to get things done.
If true, it is one of the most serious breaches of security to be made public.
An investigation should be launched with an outside agency that doesn’t directly report to Defence. The Federal Police would probably do. An investigation of this size is worthy of a fund-site, sufficient manning and standing up of office space in the Federal Police to find out the exact health of our Defence security vetting process.
Besides losing a war it doesn’t get much bigger than this. Matter of fact it is something as serious as this that COULD make us lose a war, suffer a domestic terrorist incident (on any scale), leak large amounts of secret information, or see equipment pilfered on a large scale for lack of a crim-check.
Without proper security vetting of Defence personnel and contractors, we have no credible national defence.
Just trying to shine some light on to the clueless at the submarine conference.
||1,450 tonnes surfaced
1,830 tonnes submerged
||56 m (183.7 ft)
57.2 m (187.66 ft) (2nd batch)
||7 m (22.96 ft)
||6 m (19.68 ft)
||1 MTU 16V 396 diesel-engine
9 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells, 30-40 kW each (U31)
2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells each with 120 kW (U32, U33, U34)
1 Siemens Permasyn electric motor 1700 kW, driving a single seven-bladed skewback propeller
||20 knots (37 km/h) submerged, 12 knots surfaced
||8,000 nm (14,800 km, or 9,196 miles) at 8 knots (15 km/h) surfaced
3 weeks without snorkeling, 12 weeks overall
||over 700 m (2,296 ft)
||5 officers, 22 men
||6 x 533 mm torpedo tubes (in 2 forward pointing groups of 3) with 12 DM2A4, A184 Mod.3, BlackShark torpedoes, IDAS missiles and 24 external naval mines (optional)
The spin-masters are at it again with the claims that Australia needs to sink billions into a large (read largess) home-grown submarine design.
There are strategic as well as practical problems with this. And until we solve the problem of faulty thinking on this topic, the taxpayer is in for a bumpy ride worse than the Collins class submarine debacle.
The cheerleaders for the sub boondoggle are rent-seeking for home industry. This takes importance over practical defence needs. With that, there are ways to keep home industry involved with alternative methods for getting Australia a new sub fleet.
The strategic claims that Australia needs to roam the greater Pacific Rim with big cruise missile capable subs has a few glaring problems.
The first is that is that we won’t have many subs. The subs that we will have need to patrol home waters. When you go out to buy 12 subs, that is about all you can do with them and even then 12 may not be enough.
What is the best way to deliver cruise missiles to enemy targets? It isn’t a sub. It is an aircraft. It will deliver the weapon faster and come back in a short time to reload and go again. The idea of a small handful of cruise missile capable subs (each carrying a small number of cruise missiles) qualifying as a deterrent or useful strike power needs to be re-examined.
If Australia was serious about taking cruise missiles a very long way, they would not be getting rid of the F-111.
Off the shelf subs will be more than good-enough to defend home waters. Out of the box they will be killers. Small ones like the German 212 also require a lot less crew. Unless someone has been sleeping; quantity of ready sub crew is another sore spot with our dysfunctional sub fleet.
Finally, if one wants to be taken seriously; stop quoting the latest joke of a defence white paper. It doesn’t help your case.
It seems the Australian Collins class sub just can’t get a break. The following statement from Defence.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Navy submarine undergoing repairs after tug boat incident
The Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Dechaineux will undergo repairs after an incident involving a civilian tug boat while departing its berth at Fleet Base West in HMAS Stirling.
The submarine was carrying out a routine manoeuvre with the tug when the tug crossed over Dechaineux’s stern.
No one was injured but a subsequent inspection has confirmed repairs are needed.
HMAS Dechaineux will undergo repairs over the coming weeks.
As a result, HMAS Dechaineux will withdraw from training exercises off the WA coast.
HMAS Dechaineux was scheduled to participate in Navy’s annual anti-submarine warfare exercise off the Western Australia coast. She will be replaced by HMAS Collins which is currently at sea.
Stating the obvious; that in order to execute the huge arms purchases that are predicted, the government needs to spend money. With many quoting a Defence White Paper that is uninspired garbage, don’t expect this situation to improve.