Sustainment, along with infrastructure and ICT, are the trio of Fundamental Inputs to Capability (FICs) that are the unsexy side of Defence.
Katherine Ziesing | Canberra
Defence has defined the FICs as personnel, organisation, collective training, major system, supplies, facilities and training areas, support, and command and management. To Defence’s credit, each FIC element is well defined and thought out. Without them, an overall capability ceases to be a capability. And you only hear about them when they go wrong.
Infrastructure in particular has some impressive numbers behind it. The Defence Support and Reform Group (DSRG) has a budget in excess of $3 billion, with an asset base with a gross replacement value in excess of $62 billion and around 2,100 civilian and 550 military staff. DSRG also maintains environmental stewardship over 3 million hectares of land with more than 300 managed properties, and maintains and operates more than 25,000 buildings.
The Public Works Committee (PWC) estimates that between 60-70 per cent of their work is Defence-related. I also understand that other government departments are asked to look to how Defence prepares its PWC cases as a good example of how to do business.
As ADM has pointed out before, when funding cuts are on the table the first cuts are often to infrastructure, then ICT and then sustainment. After all, these are costs that can be pushed out in many cases. Legacy equipment can do the job for a little longer, or so the reasoning goes.
There are many parts of the Defence estate that have been pushed out for far too long. They can no longer be put off. They are not fit for purpose. They do not meet the need they were originally designed for. The lack of performance is leading directly to capability shortfalls.
ADM’s annual Defence Estate and Base Support Services Summit is always an interesting event for me. There is a different crowd of people in the room for a start. This is not your usual Defence industry room, as more infrastructure and construction people attend to get the lie of the land when it comes to Defence. The view has not been great for some time. DSRG does what it can with the funds that it has. These funds change constantly, meaning that long term planning is difficult at the best of times. Yes, there are budgets in place but, in many cases, they are band-aid solutions for ongoing issues. In sustainment terms, many assets are headed up the wrong side of the bathtub curve with no replacement in sight.
"When funding cuts are on the table the first cuts are often to infrastructure, then ICT and then sustainment."
I understand that this has become an issue for the highest levels of Defence management after an NSC meeting asked why it took eight years between first and second pass for one infrastructure program. The answer was simply funding delays.
Priorities are changing with infrastructure, ICT and sustainment to play a greater role in future planning, both in terms of capability development and an integrated funding model based on FICs as a coherent whole. The acknowledgment that a capability is not just a sexy looking platform, but the sum of all the supporting parts, is very welcome. However, this change of perspective needs to be followed up with a change in spending habits as well.
For those who have been living under the proverbial rock for the past few weeks, the news that the government intends to operate a continuous shipbuilding plan (see the first page of the News section) is also very welcome. The upcoming White Paper and panoply of supporting documents will no doubt provide greater details on this.
The certainty for all involved parties is a great step forward for the Australian shipbuilding community at all levels. ADM has been speaking for years about the prodigious shipbuilding program on the horizon for the RAN and leadership from government on this front is good to see. ADM’s Pacific edition next month will examine these programs and how the RAN is positioning itself into the future.
The same leadership has yet to be shown for the Future Submarine program with the government still undertaking much needed research into options. The danger that long-term capability will be traded for short-term political gains is very real. Navy and the submarine community need to provide thought leadership on this front to make sure that the next generation of submariners – who aren’t even born yet – are well served into the future by whichever boat is chosen by government.