DSTO, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, is the home of Defence brainiacs who evaluate and develop a wide variety of classified and unclassified kit that is used by today’s Australian Defence Force. The staff is made up of 2,300 scientists, some engineers, IT specialists and some very capable technicians.
This 2006-2007 Annual Review shows the critical impact DSTO has in making sure the troops get gear that is effective. DSTO roots are part of a long history of Australia using the difficult scientific research disciplines to support the defence of the nation.
It was announced last Friday that an “independent DSTO advisory board” will be created which has the goal of supporting “the Chief Defence Scientist on strategic issues relating to the effective development and application of science and technology to Defence”. One would hope that all kinds of defence technology experts would be selected for this very important task. However, when you take a look at the appointees to this board, their qualifications and experience raise more questions than they answer.
|
Table of competencies of appointees to DSTO Advisory Board |
|||
|
Appointee |
Defence science and technology qualifications and experience |
Defence industry qualifications and experience |
Defence experience |
|
PhD in non defence discipline |
Nil |
Secretary of Defence when: Group Think institutionalised in Defence Formation of DMO under Mick Roche led to largest ever loss of military expertise & and independent thinkers. Super Sea Sprite Project locked in losing $1 billion JSF fighter jet selection recommended to Govt, over $1 billion, seven years of effort and many opportunities wasted Wrong electronic warfare system for Hornet fighter jet, over $400 million lost Wedgetail Project went off the rails Collins Subs took another nose dive from which they are yet to surface |
|
|
PhD in non-defence theoretical physics |
Nil |
Nil |
|
|
PhD in non-defence chemical engineering |
Nil |
Nil |
|
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
|
Nil |
Nil |
Chief of Capability Development when: Defence Capability Development Manual dumbed down Project Management Model based on chaos theory introduced Hard project milestones turned mushy and meaningless Form over substance became the norm Opportunities to fix what is broken ignored and lost May 2007, Minister told that “affordable” JSF fighter jet is $135 million each Decision to retire F-111 fighter jet based on a fib that it was at structural risk past 2010 Super, Slow Hornet Fighter jet locked in for purchase |
|
|
Nil |
Nil |
Career Defence bureaucrat Best known for arguing in a parliamentary committee hearing that the regional arms race is not important. Defence positions included being the head of Defence propaganda (public affairs) |
|
Defence Scientist Professor Robert Clark will be the ex-officio member of the Board. We should all wish him a lot of luck. He will need it.
The critical plans Defence Minister Mr. Fitzgibbon has for cleaning up his portfolio and the critical plans Mr. Rudd has for a strong foreign policy could be seriously harmed if this DSTO advisory board helps Australia’s defence science down the wrong path. Defence has enough on its back to fix already.
Defence does not need a group of people with little experience or, worse, who have demonstrated that they don’t know what they don’t know, to have influence on things that matter but they don’t understand.
This advisory board has all the makings of further dumbing down the DSTO. Self-promoting Defence bureaucrats and their nepotism are not serving their ministers well.
Eric, are you one of Dr Kopp’s acolytes? Your links would suggest so along with your description of the F111 as a “fighter jet” and the Super Hornet as “super slow”. Give us a break please, the Pig is close on 40 years old (and itself had a much troubled gestation) and air superiority doesn’t only depend on having the highest attainable mach number.