This is a theme consistent across most - if not all - navies. Relentless demand for operations impacts a vessels sustained material readiness. Operators and engineers have always had a love/hate relationship; frequently the operator wins and a ship sails as ordered. Material risks will have been mitigated to As Low As Reasonably Practicable with required maintenance commuted to the next maintenance availability. Something will inevitably give. All too often its not the operational requirement. It may be government-directed operations or a need to provide a ship for ceremonial backdropping. Rarely - if ever - do sustainment activities get priority. Voices warning from the deck-plates are infrequently heeded. Dare we suggest because of political expediency? The phrases but youre just a [insert rank here], what would you know? and Im not going to say no because thats what the [insert rank here] wants erodes and kills capability. Recent experience demonstrates capability will fail or become unavailable at the most inopportune time, to the embarrassment of all. The courage to manage the business of defence based on data and fact is often wanting. Process gets in the way of efficient functioning. Attitudes such as (i)t is inevitable that there may be some temporary gaps across the fleet but we continually monitor the situation to ensure there is no operational impact.” is telling. In other words, so long as the music keeps playing and nobody needs to find a chair when it stops, everything will be just fine. The price-free policy environment no longer exists. Attitudes like these need to stop.
Posted on: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:42:22 +0000