Australian Naval commander embarrassed by wikipedia

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... 7239418825

Why don’t our top defence officials understand what submarines are on offer?
3 HOURS AGO FEBRUARY 26, 2015 10:11AM

AUSTRALIA’S top Navy brass in charge of spending billions on the nation’s next fleet of submarines has been embarrassed by a Senator armed with little more than Wikipedia.
During Senate Estimates in Canberra yesterday, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon questioned a Navy report that details what submarines from where are being considered for Australia’s future fleet.
Senator Xenophon’s question — given with advance notice — seemed simple.
Are the Japanese, French and German submarine designs being assessed for their suitability as Australia’s next submarine fleet capable of operating US weapons?

It’s an important capability as it allows the torpedoes and missiles already carried by our existing submarines to continue to be used, as well support the ongoing “interoperability” with US forces so central to our future defence force structure.
The implications have multi-billion-dollar consequences: Submarines that are incompatibile will automatically be rejected.
The written answer to Senator Xenophon’s question: “Defence is not aware of any German design submarines that carry US weapons”.
But something didn’t sound right. Especially as there is considerable controversy over suggestions that the Japanese submarine has already quietly been chosen and a formal tender process bypassed in order to “fast track” the process.
“There’s a thing called Wikipedia,” Senator Xenaphon said, “I looked at it … The German type(s) have US weapon systems.”
So he delved deeper into official US Department of Defence reports. Not the Australian ones.

When Senator Xenophon asked Navy Chief Vice Admiral Tim Barrett if his report was accurate, the Vice Admiral was unable to answer.
That’s odd considering Australia’s forces exercised alongside these vessels during recent international war games. Not knowing what they were up against could have been embarrassing.
German submarines are being widely purchased throughout South East Asia as part of a massive rearmament race as tensions in the region continue to rise.
“I’m just trying to understand that answer on such a critical issue managed to find its way — as a formal answer — given the significance …” Senator Xenaphon stated.
“I can’t answer you Senator, I don’t know …” the Chief of Navy replied.
The Director of the Defence Materiel Organisation — the body responsible for big-ticket Defence force purchases — also expressed a lack of understanding about the range of options he was choosing from.
“I’m concerned that such a fundamental error … could influence the choice of submarine,” Senator Xenaphon put to him.
“We need to confirm the accuracy of the statements … I don’t have an answer,” was his reply.

Now one has to be careful with wiki, however you can backtrack their information to the original sources. This seems to be what Xenophon did since he started looking into US reports.

I will say this. With wiki there simply isn't any excuse for such a large amount of ignorance on issues where you or your researchers are supposed to look into. I expect researchers to know at least as much as wiki. It simply amazes me some people are too lazy/ incompetent to even have a quick glance at wiki before talking about subjects. This mainly applies to our politicians. Good to see a politician who at least does some homework.

[ray245]

Wikipeida could be really helpful to politicians in terms of finding an generally reliable, easily accessible articles on whatever subject matters beyond their own area of expertise. It certainly helps to bring layperson in charge of making decisions to get up to speed quickly.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In most instances, Wikipedia articles at their worst are only really guilty of presenting things in overly simplistic or obviously biased ways as opposed to being outright fabrications. Although that happens sometimes, more often than not if you are simply fact-checking Wikipedia is a perfectly fine resource.

[Thanas]

Except when it comes to politicians, for Wikipedia is outrageous on that.

[Irbis]

I will say this. With wiki there simply isn't any excuse for such a large amount of ignorance on issues where you or your researchers are supposed to look into. I expect researchers to know at least as much as wiki. It simply amazes me some people are too lazy/ incompetent to even have a quick glance at wiki before talking about subjects. This mainly applies to our politicians. Good to see a politician who at least does some homework.

Oh? Intelligent politician? Can you maybe clone a few copies and send them here? We could use a few

That being said, you're talking about English wiki. I stopped using any of the smaller EU language wikis because they are far too easy for fringe group to capture - just look at whitewashing of fringe far right, neonazi, and pseudo-scientific ideas going on on some of these. English one is thankfully big enough and used by so many people any sort of capture is far harder to execute.

On topic of the article - what? I didn't seen such big example of US boot-licking in a year or two. Rejecting whole submarine because it can't use American weapons? This is absurd for three reasons - one, although interoperability is all well and good, submarine is one of weapons system where it's nearly useless, due to submarines not expending their whole payload unless in case of total war, plus being impossible to rearm outside of friendly port where you should have it stockpiled anyway.

Two - because all NATO submarines already are interoperable, due to standardised 533 mm torpedo launchers that will readily accept any torpedo, even Russian models (Poland tried with Kilo/Kobben, and it worked, both ways) with few if any modifications. Most NATO countries use torpedoes from at least 2-3 if not 4-5 countries, without problems.

Three - if these idiots didn't check, even Cold War era NATO didn't bother to make torpedoes common weapon system despite forcing it on everything possible. Royal Navy uses Spearfish, Germany and Spain DM2A4, France F21, Italy and Portugal have Black Shark, Japan has Type 89. None of submarine builders mentioned in OP use US torpedoes, so if one is excluded, all should be.

Virtually the only navy outside of Americas that cares to be "interoperable" is the Aussie one, like good loyal vassal. The only way identical weapons would make sense is in case Australia planned to turn its navy into US Navy annex capable of being fielded instantly wherever USA wants it to on moments notice...

[tim31]

Xenophon's a rare bird. He alone is how we can forgive SA for Pyne and Bernardi.

About a year ago the Unenvironment Minister got castigated by the press after he used Wikipedia to try and support the party line(climate change is bullshit and we don't want to hear another word about it)

[Patroklos]

I will say this. With wiki there simply isn't any excuse for such a large amount of ignorance on issues where you or your researchers are supposed to look into. I expect researchers to know at least as much as wiki. It simply amazes me some people are too lazy/ incompetent to even have a quick glance at wiki before talking about subjects. This mainly applies to our politicians. Good to see a politician who at least does some homework.

Oh? Intelligent politician? Can you maybe clone a few copies and send them here? We could use a few

That being said, you're talking about English wiki. I stopped using any of the smaller EU language wikis because they are far too easy for fringe group to capture - just look at whitewashing of fringe far right, neonazi, and pseudo-scientific ideas going on on some of these. English one is thankfully big enough and used by so many people any sort of capture is far harder to execute.

On topic of the article - what? I didn't seen such big example of US boot-licking in a year or two. Rejecting whole submarine because it can't use American weapons? This is absurd for three reasons - one, although interoperability is all well and good, submarine is one of weapons system where it's nearly useless, due to submarines not expending their whole payload unless in case of total war, plus being impossible to rearm outside of friendly port where you should have it stockpiled anyway.

Two - because all NATO submarines already are interoperable, due to standardised 533 mm torpedo launchers that will readily accept any torpedo, even Russian models (Poland tried with Kilo/Kobben, and it worked, both ways) with few if any modifications. Most NATO countries use torpedoes from at least 2-3 if not 4-5 countries, without problems.

Three - if these idiots didn't check, even Cold War era NATO didn't bother to make torpedoes common weapon system despite forcing it on everything possible. Royal Navy uses Spearfish, Germany and Spain DM2A4, France F21, Italy and Portugal have Black Shark, Japan has Type 89. None of submarine builders mentioned in OP use US torpedoes, so if one is excluded, all should be.

Virtually the only navy outside of Americas that cares to be "interoperable" is the Aussie one, like good loyal vassal. The only way identical weapons would make sense is in case Australia planned to turn its navy into US Navy annex capable of being fielded instantly wherever USA wants it to on moments notice...

The Aussies use the Mk48 torpedo (which they just jointly upgraded with the USN, for both to use in the future) and the sub surface launched version of the Harpoon. Unless you want them to tack on the cost of dumping their current weapons stockpiles and acquiring another stockpile to the new submarine classes development costs for reasons you have not articulated it makes sense to make sure your current weapons will work on this new class.

Which is not to say they wouldn't, but there is nothing wrong with ensuring interoperability with US weapons when those are in fact the weapons you use.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh? Intelligent politician? Can you maybe clone a few copies and send them here? We could use a few
.

Unfortunately we aren't that great. Can the EU take Tony Abbott and Clive Palmer off our hands? Actually take Pauline Hanson while you're at it.