There are many serious and urgent issues to be solved in Oz defense.

Spending limited resources to probe  HMS Sydney iso solving the more pressing problems , is against principal of management.

Probing HMS Sydney is important but not urgent!

Defending Oz ,being  important and  Very Urgent , is the no.1 priority!

Oz has miles of files on the sinking.This is the time to draw conclusion,but

not engage high paid QC lawyer to start the case from ground zero.

above added 5 april 2008

One of the management priority is to set the priority right!

From personnel to country,with limited resources but unlimited goals,

one has to prioritze his targets.

Oz defense,currently are struck with  lot of issues to be settled.

However,ample resources will be spent to probe the sinking of  

HMAS Sydney by German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran,

in 1941 in WW 2!!

Questions

1 How Will the findings relevant to contemporary naval warfare?

2.Will the expenses justify the effects?How much lessons can be learn from the findings,if any?

3.Are there more urgent and important tasks can be achieved with the allocated resources?The bad news is the expenses will be a dark hole.Why?

''There are documents that travel across 23km of shelf space.''and the lead man is an QC!!

4.Why more resources to rectify the system failures in ADF,and the chain in procurement,from contract negotiations /enforcement,manufacturing,after sale services etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_between_HMAS_Sydney_and_HSK_Kormoran

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23464064-31477,00.html

QC for Sydney probe

<!-- START Dummy ad code - real code to be inserted instead. -->

<!-- AdSpace --> <!-- /AdSpace -->

<!-- END Dummy ad code - real code to be inserted instead. -->

<!-- // .ad -->

<!-- // #section-header-ads -->

<!-- END Story Header Block --> <!-- START primary content/left column --> <!-- Story Toolbar--> <!-- // .article-tools --> <!-- End Story Toolbar-->

Mark Dodd and Elizabeth Gosch | April 01, 2008

<!-- // .module-subheader -->

THE man who presided over the inquiry into AWB kickbacks to Saddam Hussein has been asked to examine the sinking of HMAS Sydney 67 years ago.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Terrence Cole QC would oversee what she warned would be a lengthy and complex investigation into the navy's worst maritime disaster.

Mr Cole was appointed to lead the commission of inquiry because of his extensive knowledge of maritime law and experience as deputy judge advocate-general of the Australian Defence Force, Ms Gillard said.

Current pressing Issues

5.  http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/309931

Oz axe Vietnam-era airframe orphan platform Seasprite

Australia, Kaman reach financial deal on Super Seasprite cancellation
The Australian government has reached agreement with Kaman Aerospace International Corporation on financial terms following the government's cancellation of the Super Seasprite helicopter programme. The AUD1 billion (USD920 million) project was cancelled on 5 March following software integration and airworthiness problems that had put it nearly seven years behind schedule

[first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 20 March 2008]

6.  http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/239903

 

 

7.http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/235530

Aussie Patrol fleet docked over fuel defect,again

8   http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/245201

 

 

9  http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/301226

''The Spanish made landing helicopter dock.''

Eh, sailors went down with the ship.

Answering that question will be able to give the families of those sailors some peace.  They can also build a memorial for them after.  Besides, it's part of History and people will remember the sacrifices of Australian soldiers for ww2.

Is this not a moral thing to do?

As to the rest of your post,

... ...

Originally posted by CM06:

Eh, sailors went down with the ship.

Answering that question will be able to give the families of those sailors some peace.  They can also build a memorial for them after.  Besides, it's part of History and people will remember the sacrifices of Australian soldiers for ww2.

Is this not a moral thing to do?

As to the rest of your post,

... ...

basic question:priority.

Looks like ST was right - Noisy Pussy runs away from yet another fight (probably wearing inline skates and carrying a toy SAR21 by its handle ) and pops up somewhere else to stir more shit.

While we wouldn't notice, much less mourn, Noisy Pussy being flushed down a garbage disposal unit, CM06 is right.  It's history and its basic decency, concepts which Noisy Pussy couldn't possible conceive.

Well.......SG spent close to a million dollars to invite a French consultant to name marina bay as "marina bay".

 

So who's more foolish?

And by claiming that this proj is a waste of money and is irrelevant, you are insulting those who study arts and especially history. In SG, they are the very ppls that ensure that your future generations won't think that SG history is just abt LKY and Raffles

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

basic question:priority.

Indeed, priority.  The government refuses to treat its men as cannon fodder.  Just because your life isn't worth shit doesn't mean others' aren't, dickhead.

Originally posted by fornax84:

Well.......SG spent close to a million dollars to invite a French consultant to name marina bay as "marina bay".

 

So who's more foolish?

And by claiming that this proj is a waste of money and is irrelevant, you are insulting those who study arts and especially history. In SG, they are the very ppls that ensure that your future generations won't think that SG history is just abt LKY and Raffles

More importantly, if a government were to treat it as a waste of money, it sends out a message to people that they're not worth a damn to the country.  Especially in a conscript-staffed military like Singapore's can you imagine what the NS men's attitude would be if war came?  "They don't give a fuck about us, we don't give a fuck about them - I'm outta here".

Seriously, this is one dangerous post that lionnoisy has made.

 

Blardy hell - show some respect to all those men who died fighting the Axis, can? They died so that you can have the freedom to spout your nonsense!

 

If your ancestor had been a crewman aboard the HMS Sydney, are you gonna scold the Australian government for 'wasting money' on this endeavour?

The topic may be wrong.

I think ''Oz shall prioritise her defense resouce'' is better.

2.If u were Oz lead,would u fix the few pages long current, serious ,system failures,

and no platforms to defend Oz rpoblems OR to probe the WW 2 sinking?

Which one,tell me here?

This is the job of a leader---make a tough decision,NOW!

3.Tell me what naval platforms and how many units can Oz deploy

if there is a serious military threat to Oz next month,not to mention next week?

I understand from Oz media--

only half Sub can go to sea

Frigates cannot go to sea

etc....

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

The topic may be wrong.

Of course the topic is wrong - you do NOTHING right.

Originally posted by fudgester:

Blardy hell - show some respect to all those men who died fighting the Axis, can?

Respect?  Fudge, this fumduck wants soldiers to run away from fights carrying their weapons by the handles and wearing inline skates, for fuck's sake - still he's got the thick skin to talk about "priorities" like some twenty-star armchair general.  Do you honestly think he has the capacitry to understand respect?

Whoever let this idiot out of the basement deserves a good tight slap.

would the resources  be used in other more pressing uses?Like,

read my two quotes below .i alreday told u there is system failures in Oz defense,

STUPID!!

1.review how the ACP  M 113 took more than 10years to upgrade and still works in progress.

2.  $1 billion fleet of Seasprite parts for sale for $40m

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23414475-2,00.html?from=public_rss

3.Enough lah.u will fall asleep if i continue.

4.I think the fallen hands of HMS Sydney

would forgive me my suggestion to divert the resources to probe the sinking

of HMS Sydney to probe current and more pressing problems of

Oz defense instead.

My suggestion can save more lives.

5.How can the findings,if any,improve the current naval warfare in 21 st century?

6.Defence lacks solutions

Allan Behm | March 11, 2008

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23352078-7583,00.html?from=public_rss

It is not just the upgrade of the army's armoured vehicles, the modernisation of the navy's frigates or the delivery of the air force's airborne early warning aircraft that face cost overruns and delay: dozens of projects are in arrears.

 

The problem is not the staff that make up the project teams, though staff turnover and a lack of experience and expertise impose serious constraints on performance. It is a much more systemic problem that goes right to the heart of the capability selection, development and decision-making processes within the department. Failures in these areas are costing billions in waste and delay.

With the benefit of hindsight, the 1997 decision to abolish the force development and analysis division was a critical mistake. Although the defence efficiency review streamlined the department organisationally by removing duplication, it failed to maintain a capacity for disciplined analysis. FDA ran the heavy rollers of its considerable analytical capability over all substantial acquisition proposals and, in consequence, was loathed by the military. With no friends in high places, FDA morphed into a new capability systems division that brought together the various ADF groups against which FDA had battled. It was placed under a two-star officer, then quarantined. The highly qualified and experienced analysts - many of them with defence science and advanced policy development backgrounds - dispersed within weeks. They have never returned.

The analysis black hole is compounded by two other deficiencies. First, there are fundamental weaknesses in the Defence Department's decision-making systems. While decision support systems are normal in high-performing corporations and businesses, the department has yet to acquire one. Consequently, there is no capacity for decision audits, rendering it impossible to establish who made what decision and when.

Moreover, project implementation against predetermined performance yardsticks cannot be monitored accurately. Generally, decisions are made in committee, with key players - often the service chiefs - exercising a right of veto as they modify capability specifications or just stall projects by calling for reviews, studies and other nugatory work with which they can bamboozle a minister.

Second, the department has almost no capacity for risk modelling, evaluation and mitigation.

In Australia, there is no other organisation that deals with the complexity of technological, systems and human interfaces such as those that distinguish the Defence Department's key acquisitions.

 

7.without bias,read and think why so many defense laughing stocks happen?

 would the new Super Hornets become another

Seasprite?

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/opinion/messy-politicised-public-service-needs-total-shakeupjohn-howard-abused-the-instruments-of-state/1208280.html

What was done or not done that led to the outcome on Seasprite? What processes led to the ordering of the Super Hornet? On what strategic basis was the Abrams tank purchased? And what has been the rationale for purchasing the F-35 off the plan with all the delays and cost blowouts that can be expected? Wasn't the experience of the F-111 enough? And what is the thinking behind the construction of the airwarfare destroyers and where are they likely to be effectively deployed? Why are submarines unmanned?

Why is Australia purchasing such expensive military hardware? Putting aside the political need to rush to the side of the US in its military adventures as the apparent cost of our insurance, where are we planning to use this hardware and for what purpose?

What about inline skates?  Would the money be better spent on inline skates?  Well, would it?

Yes I agree with noisy pussy, at last

This is inline (pardon the pun) with Singapore government's policy of demolishing her historical buildings and erasing the history of our pioneers from social studies books and replace with stories of what happened after 1959 aka showing off PAP's victories

Well done

*clap clap*

 

actually, i liked the DKM Kormoran vs HMAS Sydney case alot.... read alot abt it.... well, its something about national identity right?  you also want to lay the ghosts of the past to rest also.

There are only two surface combtants in Oz.

Both of them get serious problems!!

http://au.search.yahoo.com/search?p=Australia+Frigates+upgrade&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

1. 5 Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigate (FFG)

http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/gm_frigate.html

<!-- END Story Header Block --><!-- START primary content/left column --> <!-- Story Toolbar-->

<!-- // .article-tools --> <!-- End Story Toolbar-->

 

 

2. 8 ANZAC Class Frigates (FFH)

http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/anzac_frigate.html

Seasprite helicopters cant protect this frigates anymore.

 

3. read more lah

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fadt_ctte/shipping/report/c04.htm

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurement_programme_of_the_Royal_Australian_Navy

They'll work better than your featherbrained idea of launching Superbugs off ski ramps.

Actually, pussy, you're the grand pubar of wasting money, aren't you?  Wanna trade a Fantail for an MG?  Or maybe chucking M1s off C-130s to see if they'll break?

Fucking hypocrite.

i think we should loose the f words here...

send the f-words? ala send the gunboats....or send a carrier....

 

srrie, just had to say that.... lols.

well, personally, i feel that well, finding more about the history of your dick, and trying to recover your lost feelings for it, is a seperate issue from trying to make your dick digitalised and longer rite?

 

well, again, srrie , cos i had to say tt :D

Originally posted by tankfanatic:

i think we should loose the f words here...

Why?  It's not as if we're dealing with a human being here, much less a decent one.

it doesnt matter..if we start ..okaying ..the F word..some dickhead..will take it as precedence and start swearing as if there is no tomorrow...

 

im ok if we call him monkey, ducky or dufest...but the F word should stay out of this discussion.

I think the Austrailan military are at the very least a lot smarter then some of our local military planners, here's why:

1) they do not intend to crash UAVs into things

2) they do not train their troops to fight urban warfare in inline skates and carry their rifles uselessly in battle by the scope handle to "run/skate for their lives"

3) they do not use 250 ton rated UAFs for 30 Megaton blast applications

and of course:

4) they do not try to launch non-STOVL aircraft from LHDs

 

Seriously, if these are the kind of ideas our local military "innovator" like lionnoisy is churning out, there's really no need to even consider the rest of his threads... I seriously doubt they make any sense.

In his kind of world, even if there is a single bolt or nut lose in a tank or ship, a military is totally incapable of fighting... but I suspect the only lose nuts and bolts are in his head.

Originally Posted by noisylion:

 

There are two navies  in SG: RSN and Police coast guard.

Both of them get serious problems!!

1. RSS COURAGEOUS ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT CREW

Judge lashes RSS Courageous officer

<!-- START Dummy ad code - real code to be inserted instead. -->

<!-- AdSpace --> <!-- /AdSpace -->

<!-- END Dummy ad code - real code to be inserted instead. -->

<!-- // .ad -->

<!-- // #section-header-ads -->

<!-- END Story Header Block --><!-- START primary content/left column --> <!-- Story Toolbar-->

<!-- // .article-tools --> <!-- End Story Toolbar-->

The "RSS Courageous"
NG Keng Yong v Public Prosecutor
Singapore High Court: Yong Pung How CJ: 13 August 2004
Hamidul Haq and Hui for the prosecution
Rajah & Tann for the accused, officers of "RSS Courageous"
COLLISION BETWEEN NAVY SHIP AND MERCHANT SHIP: CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENT ACT UNDER SECTION 304A SINGAPORE PENAL CODE: VESSELS ON RECIPROCAL COURES: WHETHER INVOLVED RISK OF COLLISION: BREACH OF RULE 14(a) COLLISION REGULATIONS: STANDARD OF CARE EXPECTED OF TRAINEE OFFICER: WHETHER CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF MERCHANT SHIP BROKE CHAIN OF CAUSATION
Summary
This was an appeal from the district judge’s decision convicting the Officer-of-the-Watch ("OOW") and the trainee OOW of the offence of causing death by a negligent act when their navy ship "RSS Courageous" collided with a merchant ship "ANL Indonesia" off the Horsburgh Lighthouse at Pedra Branca, resulting in the death of four crew members of the "RSS Courageous". The appellate judge at the High Court upheld the conviction, holding that (1) the vessels were approaching each other so as to involve a risk of collision under Rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations; (2) "RSS Courageous" made a series of alterations to port in breach of the Collision Regulations; (3) the ANL Indonesia’s reaction, although negligent, did not break the chain of causation and (4) the trainee OOW had to be held to the same standard as a reasonably competent and qualified OOW. 

 

 At about 12.25 pm on 3 January 2003, the anti-submarine patrol boat "Courageous", which had previously been travelling with the general traffic flow in the eastbound lane of the Traffic Separation Scheme ("TSS") just off the Horsburgh Lighthouse at Pedra Branca, executed a "U-turn". This brought her against the flow of traffic, including the "ANL Indonesia", which was coming in the opposite direction. The Closest Point of Approach ("CPA") alarm on the radar was activated, indicating that the closest distance at which the "Courageous" would pass the "ANL Indonesia" was approximately three cables (0.3 nautical miles). Upon being informed, erroneously, by the bridge team that the "ANL Indonesia" was on the starboard side of "Courageous", the trainee OOW - who had control of the steering - ordered a series of alterations to port. The "ANL Indonesia" was in fact on the port side of the "Courageous" and the alterations brought the two vessels even closer together. The "ANL Indonesia" made two alterations to starboard by autopilot  in reaction. Rule 14(a) of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations ("the Collision Regulations") provides that:-

"When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal course so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other."

The combination of the two vessels’ movements resulted in a collision and the death of four crew members on board the "Courageous". The district judge convicted the OOW and the trainee OOW under section 304A, for causing death by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The two lieutenants were jointly responsible for negligently navigating the "Courageous" in an unsafe manner across the path of the "ANL Indonesia". The district judge’s findings included the following:

1. The "Courageous" had technically contravened rule 10(b)(i) of the Collision Regulations requiring a vessel in a traffic separation scheme to proceed in the general direction of traffic flow. As this manoeuvre was safe and operationally necessary, the accused were not negligent in doing so, but the onus was on them to take extra precautions to avoid a close-quarters situation with other vessels proceeding in the right direction. Given that this was a head-on situation at night with a large vessel, the CPA of three cables was unsafe as the "Courageous" should have kept a greater buffer to take contingencies into account.
2. Although the accused had perceived the "ANL Indonesia" to be on their starboard side, they were nonetheless obliged to alter to starboard (following the recommendations of Healy and Sweeney, The Law of Marine Collision (1998), at p. 184). By altering to port, they had negligently breached rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations.
3. Instead of making a bold alteration by manual steering, the "ANL Indonesia" made two small alterations by autopilot, which were not large enough to be readily apparent, as required under rule 8(b) of the Collision Regulations. However, the actions of the "ANL Indonesia" were not so unreasonable as to eclipse the accuseds’ initial negligence, which was causative of the collision and the resulting deaths.

 

2. Siggie Police Coast Guard Trained in Wrong and Dangerous Manoeuvre by non-qualified person , 3 killed as result

Sea collision kills 3 in Singapore

       

 

Two Singapore Police Coast Guard officers and one illegal immigrant have died when their boats collided off Tuas, southwestern part of Singapore.

According to Channel NewsAsia reports on Saturday, the accident occurred at around 9:30 pm local time on Friday when two Police Coast Guard boats began to chase a speed boat carrying six illegal immigrants. Two officers were missing and two others slightly injured after their boat hit the vessel and both capsized.

The police conducted an intensive search and found the two officers' bodies early Saturday morning.

Siggie coast guard cant protect this coastline safely anymore.

Oh GOSH! They learn risky move from a non-qualified person!

 

3. read more lah

Other Siggie security flaw and accidents:

Mas Selamat

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/331868/1/.html

Still cannot catch

 

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

but I suspect the only lose nuts and bolts are in his head.

ST, there's loose, and then there's entirely missing.