Author Topic: 'The System'  (Read 5200 times)

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
'The System'
« on: January 30, 2015, 04:54:43 PM »
G’day Gents
A couple of weeks ago, I ran into an old mate. We were old school mates and together we had an obsession with everything military as kids. When we were about 13-years of age we decided we would sit down and create what we termed ‘The System.’
‘The System’ was our take on how we (with all our wealth of knowledge and experience at 13-years of age) would create the Australian Defence Force (ADF) the way we think it should be, and equipped it with weapons/weapons systems we thought they should have had. It took us close to a year to do (days before everyone had a PC!). It was great and we really felt like we had achieved something. Ironically some of ‘The System’ that we created, actually played out!
Well that was a few good decades+ ago. Well we caught up at a reunion a couple of weeks ago and got talking …..”Remember ‘The System? … We should do it again, what with all we know now and what we have experienced!” (both of us joined and served in the army together)
So it came to pass that I agreed, what with computers and emails …..why not.
One of the things that I’ve gained with age is reality. It seemingly easy as a kid to pick and choose a weapon/weapons system from a book, using specifications and technical data, along with the hindsight of a given reputation it had gained over time, so as to compare and chose.
But now older and supposedly wiser, we have both come to appreciate that when doing ‘The System’ Mk II, we wouldn’t have that hindsight (unless selecting an upgraded model/variant of a given weapon/weapon system, which had a good sound reputation, hence the wiliness of upgrading – eg. The West German Leopard 1 MBT – purchasing the later and improved Leopard 1A3 or A4 model seem both practical and wise!).                                                                                                          Another example was in our original system in 1937’s round of the RAAF ‘acquisition cycle’, we had selected the Hawker Hurricane as its principle fighter interceptor. Of course this was made so much the easer with hindsight of the Hurricane’s reputation. But now older and more realistic, I have to question myself regarding this decision. First and foremost, what came to mind recently is this….the original Hurricane was fabric covered! So realistically how would a fabric covered Hurricane cope, survive in the tropics of Northern Queensland, or the wet season of the Northern Territory, to say nothing of PNG (Papua New Guinea, then being under Australian administration). So perhaps the Hurricane, in its earliest form/variant may not have been the best choice? So what other fighter designs are suitable.
I mentioned to him the graphic skills of this forum, and suggested that we might even be able to get the selected weapons/weapons systems/platforms profiles done in Australian Army, RAN and RAAF colours and markings! ;)           

What I am requesting from my forum colleagues is your assistance, guidance and your wealth of knowledge in helping my mate and I select the weapons/weapons systems/platforms for our ‘System’ please?

Awaiting the measure of your enthusiasm

Regards
M.A.D
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 04:56:56 PM by M.A.D »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2015, 04:06:19 AM »
You might need to put some more specific boundaries otherwise this is simply too open-ended.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2015, 09:11:44 AM »
Don't forget, mate, most of our aircraft prior to 1937 were fabric covered &, yes, they were subject to more rapid deterioration due to our weather conditions but fabric is easily patched & easily replaced while metal corrosion can be harder to detect & more difficult to rectify.

Hurricane is & was a good option at the time.

Regarding "The System Mk.2":

Are you going for the typical school-boy unlimited budget or are you being adults & trying to make affordable choices? (I prefer the school boy attitude in this type of game.)

Are you selecting weapons according to unverified reputation, actual results and/or expected performance? Or are you putting yourself in the shoes of those who would make the decisions, trying to only use the knowledge they had?
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2015, 10:13:42 PM »
Would love to have seen a RAAF pre-war Hurricane order, along with Henleys and following Fury's, Demons and Harts.

Keep up the good work, I am following with interest as I  have worked on similar "systems" myself over the years and still do. 

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2015, 03:38:53 AM »
Here you go, the one (and only) real world RAAF Hawker Hurricane:




And schemes:



You can get a set of decals too... ;)



They come in 1/144, 1/72, 1/48 and 1/32
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2015, 09:47:32 PM »
It's a nice easy wiff, instead of just one Hurricane there could be hundreds all using the same A number.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2015, 06:19:25 PM »
Sorry to take so long in replying gents

Thanks very much for your productive feedback, it is both warranted and appreciated.
As a means to clarify ‘The System’, I thought I’d have a crack at explaining the functionality of it (although this in itself might become bigger than what I might have intended! I don’t want to lose forum members interest, before it startes ;)

In response to Old Wombat’s valid question
Quote
“Are you going for the typical school-boy unlimited budget or are you being adults & trying to make affordable choices? (I prefer the school boy attitude in this type of game.)”
I’m also leaning towards a weapons/equipment/platform procurement process based on what Old Wombat denotes as –
Quote
“Selecting weapons according to unverified reputation, actual results and/or expected performance.”

I’m sorry mate, but I’m going to have to also be boring and say I’m focusing on an adult perspective! I understand that the ADF’s Budget is finite, so I’ll be striving for affordable choices!

So here we go….   
Ok the basic Order of Battle of the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) in ‘The System’ is a follows:
-Army
- Navy
- Air Force
(Note: each of these ‘Branches’ have a ‘Reserve’ component of their respective Branches – i.e Army Reserve. Navy Reserve and Air Force Reserve! These Reserve components will be more active than the traditional ‘real-world’ Reserve/Militia organisations, with ‘Reserves’ gaining and maintaining their skills and proficiencies through a rotational process with their ‘Regular’ sister Corps. For example ‘The System’ will be built around a system of rotational process, where by in this example an Infantry Bn would –
1/ train,
2/ active (aka deploy operationally)
3/ re-fit and rest
It is during this ‘re-fit and rest’ period, that the ‘Reserve’ sister unit would itself become active, step up and deploy in its place, affording the ‘Reserve’ units operational experience, and retaining its competency and effectiveness as a real fighting component of the ADF.)

(Note 2: As a side note, I originally considered a fourth Branch of the ADF, which we termed ‘The Services.’ Whereas the Army, Navy and Air Force are obviously self-explanatory, the ‘The Services’ was meant to be the logistic/administration arm of each ADF ‘Branch’ (Army, Navy, Air Force).

‘National Service’ is the nucleus of the ADF. (I don’t particularly want to get into politics, morals and ethics shit-fight about the ‘fore’s and against’ National Service / Conscription. My mate and I have our reasons and practical experiences that denotes this decision. Let me just say that the draining longevity of Vietnam War, along with 12-years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq exemplify our thoughts and reasons for this philosophy…but I digress…) Because then, as now, my mate and I saw/see National Service is something that every fit and able Australian citizen should be part of, and participate (whether in uni or not – going to university is not an escape !!), we have also realised that because of ‘Military Fitness Standard, many an Australian citizen is excluded/exempted from military service! When my mate and I joined the army, we did it as a group. Ironically some of this group were rejected by the army on the grounds of Asthma, eye sight and flat feet! The army never took into consideration that not were these mates of mine, keen as mustard, intelligent, highly motivated, were born with natural intuitive, super fit and probably most likely to make a career out of the army; the army rejected them. My mate and I also fully appreciate that this enthusiasm, intellect, self-motivation also applies to many citizen’s that have disabilities. So it come to pass that my mate and I said that not all men and woman are born to stick a bayonet into someone’s stomach, or carry 40-50kg of weapons and gear over a 20km march. But many of these citizens, with physical attributes not of their own making or choice are still more than capable and willing to apply their ability and skills into the defence of the nation. Remember the saying - “the pen is mightier than the sword” 
The other side and reason for the ‘Service’, is somewhat substantiated by the fact that the ADF as a whole has become so much of a profitable business/industry; that so many areas and positions of the ADF have become conveniently outsourced, that in reality it has had somewhat of a nightmare effect to the actual functionality of the ADF. (I apologise to any forum members who are contractors to the ADF, as it’s as much to do with politics and money-driven lobbyists as anything else!). Like it or loth it, contracting is a very expensive and limited process when it comes to defence and warfighting!
So it was in ‘The Service’ that the likes of cooks, mechanics, doctors, nurses, butchers and candle stick makers, whether they were flatfooted, didn’t have 20/20 vision, suffered from Asthma or were paraplegic, they could still serve an important part in their country’s defence, as well as receiving exceptional first class training, which would potentially put you in good stead in your civilian career, etc……

‘The System’ also envisages a ‘Coast Guard’ organisation, whose primary role will be that of … I hate this term…’Board Control’ and SAR. This will immediately free up the ADF from the likes of these taskes, allowing its principle role being that of warfighting, Peacekeeping and Aid to the Civil Power in times of crisis (this analogy is supported by 'real-world' ADF, who’s been bleed in its use by our politician's for 'boarder control', for its not just bleed the Navy budget, worn-out many of our patrol boats, frigates and RAAF P-3 Orion's. This political ideological driven process has had a damaging effect on ADF personal moral, retention and recruiting!).

So let’s get into the nuts and guts of ‘The System’

The following are the given years allocated to the ADF for weapons/equipment/platform Procurement Cycles’
A Branch Procurement Cycle occurs every 5-years!
Each Branch of the ADF is allocated a given year in which it is afforded Defence Budget funds to purchase ‘big-ticket’ items – be it MBT, Frigates or Strike-Fighters, for example!

Here are the five year ‘Branch Procurement Cycles’:
1901 Navy
1902 Army
1903 Air Force
1904 Army Reserve
1905 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1906 Navy
1907 Army
1908 Air Force
1909 Army Reserve
1910 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1911 Navy
1912 Army
1913 Air Force
1914 Army Reserve
1915 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1916 Navy
1917 Army
1918 Air Force
1919 Army Reserve
1920 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1921 Navy
1922 Army
1923 Air Force
1924 Army Reserve
1925 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1926 Navy
1927 Army
1928 Air Force
1929 Army Reserve
1930 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1931 Navy
1932 Army
1933 Air Force
1934 Army Reserve
1935 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1936 Navy
1937 Army
1938 Air Force
1939 Army Reserve
1940 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1941 Navy
1942 Army
1943 Air Force
1944 Army Reserve
1945 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1946 Navy
1947 Army
1948 Air Force
1949 Army Reserve
1950 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1951 Navy
1952 Army
1953 Air Force
1954 Army Reserve
1955 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1956 Navy
1957 Army
1958 Air Force
1959 Army Reserve
1960 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1961 Navy
1962 Army
1963 Air Force
1964 Army Reserve
1965 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1966 Navy
1967 Army
1968 Air Force
1969 Army Reserve
1970 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1971 Navy
1972 Army
1973 Air Force
1974 Army Reserve
1975 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1976 Navy
1977 Army
1978 Air Force
1979 Army Reserve
1980 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1981 Navy
1982 Army
1983 Air Force
1984 Army Reserve
1985 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1986 Navy
1987 Army
1988 Air Force
1989 Army Reserve
1990 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1991 Navy
1992 Army
1993 Air Force
1994 Army Reserve
1995 Navy/Air Force Reserve
1996 Navy
1997 Army
1998 Air Force
1999 Army Reserve
2000 Navy/Air Force Reserve
2001 Navy
2002 Army
2003 Air Force
2004 Army Reserve
2005 Navy/Air Force Reserve
2006 Navy
2007 Army
2008 Air Force
2009 Army Reserve
2010 Navy/Air Force Reserve
2011 Navy
2012 Army
2013 Air Force
2014 Army Reserve
2015 Navy/Air Force Reserve
2016 Navy

As I alluded to, the Defence Budget is finite. These Branch Procurement Cycle’s doesn’t mean that every five years the Army, Navy and Air Force is not going to be able to buy a new MBT, Destroyer or Strike Fighter, each time it’s their turn at the bite of the apple.
Each ‘major’ weapons/equipment/platform procurement will be expected to have an operational effective life of at least 15 years! I think this is a fair guide, which isn’t very different to ‘real world standards and expectations’!
The exception to this of course is that the Australian Government makes a declaration of war – i.e. WWI & WWII, by which the nation’s economy is geared to ‘Total War.’ The second exception would naturally be a large jump in potential adversary’s technological / capability, which could render a given ‘major’ weapons/equipment/platform in ADF service ‘block obsolescence’ – i.e Brewster Buffalo fighter, not just a pathetic purchase in the first place, as a cheaper alternative to a real fighter by the Australian Government of the day. It was completely and utterly out matched by the Japanese Zero  fighter.
On the other hand, I’m also pushing for ‘realist’ perspective of weapons/equipment/platform procurement! Defence is probably the worst of the lot, next to politicians, to be trusting with a fist full of cash. The ADF in my opinion/experience is addicted to ‘bling’ items of weapons/equipment/platforms – “Looking at that!....... It’s great!..... they have them, so should we!”
But in so so many of these ADF wet-dreams, not is the weapon/equipment/platform so expensive in procurement costs, it’s capability usually excessively exceeds the capability needed or true wants of the ADF. It's more times than not too expensive to maintain and train effectively on/with, it more often than not negates its purchase and fielding - a perfect example of this was the Australian Army’s wet-dream over the potential purchasing of the West German Pz2000 155mm SPH. Yes by all intent and purposes a great piece of kit. But the fact that not many bridges in Australia would support its weight, let alone the RAN’s ability to deploy it; not to mention its capability far exceeded that what was needed by the Australian Army three-fold.
Then there’s the issue of the ADF as a whole history of purchasing weapons/equipment, which haven't even left the drawing board; and yet we commit copious amounts of precious Defence funds to its procurement, that we again and again end up with an operational shortfall, which either has to be compensated for at an added cost – General Dynamics F-111C / McDonnell Douglas F-4E, 'Project Waler', Lockheed Martin F-35 / Boeing F/A-18E/F/G, Boeing E-7 Wedgetail AEW, Eurocopter Tiger, Eurocopter MRH-90 etc…………
Then there’s the inherent ADF/Australian Government indecisiveness on joint/indigenous weapons/equipment/platform acquisition…great for Australian industry, technology, engineering and most important in my view, specific to our ADF needs, wants and environment - Sentinel Cruiser tank, Hawker P.1081 fighter, Heavy Landing Ship LSM 11, DDL, Leader Dynamics Series T2 MK5 5.56mm assault rifle, CAC CA-31, Avon powered Mirage III………sadly all equated to nothing in the end.
 
So it is with this in mind, that I would like the forum to focus on realistic capabilities to match realistic operational scenarios, for the selected weapon/equipment/platform to be able to remain in operational service for a perceived 15 years. Oh and another thing, so as to avoid ridiculous corporate spin, long and drawn out lead time (ie. F-111, Collins Class Subs, F-35 JSF, Tiger attack helicopter etc…… the  ‘Branch Procurement Cycle’ has only one year either side of it for the weapon/equipment/platform's to be eligible for procurement – i.e if the given Branch Procurement Cycle is say 1976, then the Navy can only procure a destroyer that has physically been built and test at least one year before (1975) or one year past (1977). This will ensure that a procurement – technically due to its operational need is not delivered 10 years later – e.g F-111, Collins Class Sub’s and F-35 JSF!!
Oh and finally at this point and time, we are of the expectation that at least a minimum of 50% of these weapons/equipment/platforms are either built or license-built in Australia. This stipulation, along with the '5 year Procurement Cycles' will afford a flourishing and productive heavy technological industry of world class standards!

Sorry gents more to follow……..

M.A.D 
« Last Edit: February 02, 2015, 08:21:31 PM by M.A.D »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2015, 10:44:09 AM »
Interesting but I think you under estimate the capability and transformational nature of some of the projects you have used as examples of poor procurements.  The Collins class for instance have only recently, almost 20 years after first entering service, been matched to any real degree by other designs.  During their service they have been the largest, longest ranged, most capable conventional submarines in the world, as well as amongst the quietest and fitted with the most advanced combat system and weapons.  They also have had the highest availability rate of any class of submarine in the world, bar the Vanguard class SSBNs.  The issues with the project are purely and simply, six boats have been trying to do a job that has always required a minimum of eight, insufficient money has been spent on scheduled and preventative maintenance, as well as needed upgrades that would improve reliability and reduce costs and finally it has always been a political football where the facts are ignored in the name of a good story.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2015, 02:38:48 PM »
Thank's Volkodav, your point about the Collins class SSK's is both interesting and valid!
But as you specifically alluded to correctly, this capability has only been almost 20 years after first entering service. Sorry but this just substantiates the issue I'm trying to emphasis! The RAN, the defence of Australian was not effectively adhered too during this time. Recruitment and retention of submariner's has been devastating. Once again the RAN went for 'bling' factor in selecting the Collins class design. It was undoubtedly enthralled and mesmerise by the factor of it being "the largest, longest ranged, most capable conventional submarines in the world", but once again it was based on a 'paper project', a proposed enlargement of an already existing 'coastal SSK design.'

Sorry once again, I'm on duty and must dash

Thanks again mate!!

P.S. Thanks for the Hurricane pics and info GTX!!

M.A.D     

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2015, 09:00:04 PM »
You seem to have misunderstood my statement, after almost twenty years in service other designs are only just, now, starting to catch up to the capabilities possessed by Collins class throughout their service lives.  There were teething problems but no worse than (and better than most) other submarine designs.  The single biggest issue was the combat system but by the time the second submarine was commissioned an interim fix had been developed, and demonstrated with the sinking of former HMAS Torrens that delivered an equivalent capability to the preceding Oberon class which at that point was one of the most capable combat systems available.  The Rockwell / Boeing system never lived up to expectations but was made to work and has now been replaced with the same system employed on the Virginia class SSNs with the first upgraded boat returning to service with this, and the new Mk 48 mod 7 CBASS torpedoes,  in 2007, lifting the capability of the combat system from better than most conventional submarines to better than most submarines conventional and nuclear. 

When they entered in service they (in particular the second three that were completed to an improved baseline) were the most advanced and capable conventional submarines in the world, now, twenty years after the first boat was completed new generation submarines are only just starting to match their capabilities in some areas.  Had Australia elected to conduct a continuous build as Japan has and continued to commission new boats at an eighteen to twenty four month interval for a much larger fleet the evolutionary boats being delivered today would still be the worlds best.  Many or the design solutions developed that could not be used on the existing hulls, could very easily be incorporated in new build boats.     

Sorry to hijack the thread but the Collins class project is one of the most miss understood and inaccurately reported on projects in Australian history.  The project, seen by the layman as a failure, was actually a success and far from being prohibitively expensive actually had a positive impact on the Australian economy that delivered far more than it cost.           

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2015, 10:52:54 PM »
Despite a certain Member of Parliament railing on in an attempt to get the ASC to under-quote for future jobs & remove "unforeseen circumstances" clauses from its contracts, as they did with a certain company providing maintenance on certain small vessels & which is now costing said company $20M/yr because of a design fault in said small vessels.

That may seem to be a political statement but it is, unfortunately, an economic one twisted by politics.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2015, 08:27:38 AM »
Thank's Volkodav, I appriciate your comments and pasion on the subject.
Believe it or not, I've spent the past 20 years defending the Collins class as a good design in principle, until the RAN got hold of it!
I've also keenly read the Coles Review, and I support the notion -
Quote
Defence paid for too little attention to sustainment planning  during the Collins project, and that our current problems stem from that lack of attention.
Its because of such reviews that I seriously think that such review's is what is needed before any large scale procurement programs!!

But I'm happy to continue this conversation my friend via PM  ;)

P.S. you might find this insight interesting! I did!!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=reflections+of+a+Collins+submarine+captain&hl=en-AU&gbv=2&nfpr=&spell=1&oq=&gs_l=

Old Wombat, also not wanting to get political, all I'll say is Australia is begining to embrace the 'Military Industrial Complex' mentality in terms of Defence, Business and Government!

But we degress.....

More to follow....

M.A.D



« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 03:22:45 PM by M.A.D »

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2015, 08:08:08 PM »
G’day once again gents

Now I’m hoping I’m not making this seem overly complicated. But I’m just trying to put the thought process of ‘The System’ out there, so you understand the dynamics of it and what my mate and I are trying to achieve……

Ok so to ascertain the size of the military in ‘The System’ we’ve based the ratio of military service personal on that of the Australian population at that given year. For every each million in population, the military is allocated roughly 5,000 personnel, which is divided into 2 levels – Regular and Reserve
For each 5,000 military personnel, this number is distributed in the following:
 
Regulars
Navy 25% = 1,250
Army 45% = 2,250
Air Force 30% = 1,500

Reserve
Navy 10% = 500
Army 80% = 4,000
Air Force 10% = 500

Navy
60% Ashore
25% Combat Afloat
15% Support Afloat

Army
60% Support
40% Combat (Infantry/Armour/Artillery/Army Aviation)

Air Force
1 Aircraft per 100 personnel.

So working on this principle/measure of military forces ratio to 1 million population, starting from 1901 (Australian Federation) We’ve come up with the following: 
(Note: Regulars before the back slash, Reserves after backslash)


1901 3 million
Navy 2,500/1000 = 2,500
Army 4,500/8,000 = 12,500
Air Force 3,000/1,000 = 4,000 (40 Aircraft)

1904 4 million
Navy 3,750/1,500 = 5,250
Army 6,750/12,000 = 18,750
Air Force 3,000/1,500 = 4,500 (45 Aircraft)

1918 5 million
Navy 3,750/1,500 = 5,250
Army 6,750/12,000 = 18,750
Air Force 4,500/1,500 = 6,000 (60 Aircraft)

1925 6 million
Navy 5,000/2,000 = 7,000
Army 9000/16,000 = 25,000
Air Force 6,000/2,000 = 8,000 (80 Aircraft)

1939 7 million
Navy 6,250/2,500 = 8,750
Army 11,250/20,000 = 31,250
Air Force 7,500/2,500 = 10,000 (100 Aircraft)

1949 8 million
Navy 7,500/3,000 = 10,500
Army 13,500/24,000 = 37,500
Air Force 9,000/3,000 = 12,000 (120 Aircraft)

1954 9 million
Navy 7,500/3,000 = 10,500
Army 13,500/24,000 = 37,500
Air Force 9,000/3,000 = 12,000 (120 Aircraft)

1959 10 million
Navy 8,750/3,500 = 12,250
Army 15,750/28,000 = 43,750
Air Force 10,500/3,500 = 14,000 (140 Aircraft)

1963 11 million
Navy 10,000/4,000 = 14,000
Army 18,000/32,000 = 50,000
Air Force 12,000/4,000 = 16,000 (160 Aircraft)

1968 12 million
Navy 11,250/4,500 = 15,750
Army 20,250/36,000 = 56,250
Air Force 13,500/4,500 = 18,000 (180 Aircraft)

1971 13 million
Navy 11,250/4,500 = 15,750
Army 20,250/36,000 = 56,250
Air Force 13,500/4,500 = 18,000 (180 Aircraft)

1976 14 million
Navy 12,500/5,000 = 17,500
Army 22,500/40,000 = 62,500
Air Force 15,000/5,000 = 20,000 (200 Aircraft)


1981 15 million
Navy 13,750/5,500 = 19,250
Army 24,750/44,000 = 68,750
Air Force 16,500/5,500 = 22,000 (220 Aircraft)

1986 16 million
Navy 15,000/6,000 = 21,000
Army 27,000/48,000 = 75,000
Air Force 18,000/6,000 = 24,000 (240 Aircraft)

1990 17 million
Navy 15,000/6,000 = 21,000
Army 27,000/48,000 = 75,000
Air Force 18,000/6,000 = 24,000 (240 Aircraft)

1995 18 million
Navy 16,250/6,500 = 22,750
Army 29,250/52,000 = 81,250
Air Force 19,500/6,500 = 26,000 (260 Aircraft)

2000 19 million
Navy 17,500/7,000 = 24,500
Army 31,500/56,000 = 87,500
Air Force 21,000/7,000 = 28,000 (280 Aircraft)

2004 20 million
Navy 18,750/7,500 = 26,250
Army 33,750/60,000 = 93,750
Air Force 22,500/7,500 = 30,000 (300 Aircraft)

2007 21 million
Navy 18,750/7,500 = 26,250
Army 33,750/60,000 = 93,750
Air Force 22,500/7,500 = 30,000 (300 Aircraft)

2010 22 million
Navy 20,000/8,000 = 28,000
Army 36,000/64,000 = 100,000
Air Force 24,000/8,000 = 32,000 (320 Aircraft)

2012 23 million
Navy 21,250/8,500 = 29,750
Army 38,250/68,000 = 106,250
Air Force 25,500/8,500 = 34,000 (340 Aircraft)


More to follow………


Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2015, 11:41:18 PM »
Despite a certain Member of Parliament railing on in an attempt to get the ASC to under-quote for future jobs & remove "unforeseen circumstances" clauses from its contracts, as they did with a certain company providing maintenance on certain small vessels & which is now costing said company $20M/yr because of a design fault in said small vessels.

That may seem to be a political statement but it is, unfortunately, an economic one twisted by politics.

I am so glad I no longer work for said small company on said small vessels any more, it was doing my head in.  I also used to work for a certain government owned shipbuilder whose CEO was sacked for refusing to bend to pressure to increase scope of a fixed price contract without appropriate contract amendments and cost adjustments.

  One of my hats for a while was engineering change management and you would not believe the number of approved changes relating to improved performance, reliability and cost reduction that were waiting funding to install them on certain big black floaty sinky things.  Typical short sighted bean counters on the government side of things only ever cared about the upfront costs of doing something, rarely if ever did they worry about the consequences of not doing it.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2015, 10:27:36 AM »
Off topic (Sorry, M.A.D.) but I shall no longer be employed by said company in its immigration services guise as of 23:59 hrs, Friday 13th Feb.

On Valentines day I shall commence my journey home by winging my way to a short overnight stay in Perth before carrying on to Adelaide on Sunday.

Have a new job lined up & will commence that some time after 23rd Feb.

:D
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2015, 03:12:19 PM »
Well best of luck Old Wombat! Happy to hear that you step from one job straight into another!

M.A.D

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2015, 09:08:27 PM »
Off topic (Sorry, M.A.D.) but I shall no longer be employed by said company in its immigration services guise as of 23:59 hrs, Friday 13th Feb.

On Valentines day I shall commence my journey home by winging my way to a short overnight stay in Perth before carrying on to Adelaide on Sunday.

Have a new job lined up & will commence that some time after 23rd Feb.

:D

Outstanding, you escaped too.  the new job closer to home?

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2015, 05:57:20 PM »
Yep! Adelaide-based, with some overnight travel but nothing longer than 3 or 4 nights away from home at a time, from what I understand.

Work involves checking up on criminals under home detention orders across SA & ensuring their compliance.

Should be an interesting challenge.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2015, 03:39:09 AM »
Yep! Adelaide-based, with some overnight travel but nothing longer than 3 or 4 nights away from home at a time, from what I understand.


Cool!  I am down in Adelaide every few months - maybe we should catch up some time? (same goes for any of you other Adelaide based modellers!)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2015, 01:19:20 PM »
Yes, I was thinking the same.  We are setting our daughter and her other half up in our old house in Adelaide and plan to visit at least once a year (annual property inspection for the lease).  Probably heading down in March for my brothers 40th, although he may come up here, but will drop you a line next time I'm heading home.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: 'The System'
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2015, 06:02:38 PM »
Yep! Adelaide-based, with some overnight travel but nothing longer than 3 or 4 nights away from home at a time, from what I understand.


Cool!  I am down in Adelaide every few months - maybe we should catch up some time? (same goes for any of you other Adelaide based modellers!)

Yes, I was thinking the same.  We are setting our daughter and her other half up in our old house in Adelaide and plan to visit at least once a year (annual property inspection for the lease).  Probably heading down in March for my brothers 40th, although he may come up here, but will drop you a line next time I'm heading home.

This would be good! :)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."