You are currently browsing the daily archive for 5 May 2009.

I see with a certain wry humour that the authors of WP2009 have found it necessary to devote an entire section to justifying geography as the fundamental shaper of WP2009’s strategy and force structure.  

Wind back to the Defence Update 2007:

Australia’s national interests are not spread uniformly across the globe, but nor do they decline in proportion to the distance from our shoreline. For the foreseeable future, we can expect there will need to be a Defence focus on security in both the Asia–Pacific and the Middle East for the reasons outlined earlier: the Asia–Pacific is our neighbourhood, while our strategic interests are vitally engaged in the Middle East. (Defence 2007, p28)

This statement was a direct counter to the DoA doctrine, which saw geography dictating how Australia would structure and deploy its forces—and by extension, exert its power and influence in the world. 

That’s not to deny geography is a factor, even a significant factor, in shaping Australia’s strategic posture, reach and capability.  To argue otherwise would be foolish: we are constrained by a physical world. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Based on its analysis of US military space programs, the GAO offers some insights into the drivers of costs and delays: 

  • the US DoD starts more weapons programs than it can afford, generating a competitive dynamic whereby advocates and industry drive down cost estimates to unreasonable levels and DoD is forced to constantly shift costs around and between programs, resulting in further overheads and uncertainty;
  • because DoD tends to start its programs too early, technology invention extends into acquisition, resulting in ongoing technical fixes that push out deadlines, and making cost estimates even more uncertain;
  • the tendency of programs to try to satisfy all requirements at once, regardless of circumstances, stretching technological capabilities; and
  • the character of and changes in government oversight–and GAO flags the erosion of capability, in particular cost estimation and engineering capability, within government.

(One dynamic the GAO doesn’t mention is that identified by Luttwak: the increasing complexity of such systems.)  Such organisational and political behavioural dynamics are hardly restricted to the US space industry, of course–they’re evident in Australia as well.  As behavioural dynamics, they cannot be solved simply through restructures or efficiency drives.  Indeed, such ‘solutions’ are likely to exacerbate, not improve, problems.  

Read the rest of this entry »

May 2009
    Jun »